The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Backup 03/18/2010 Rccpc REGULAR MEETING BACKUP DOCUMENTS MARCH 18, 2010 Court Reporter Minutes & Records Dept. AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES S. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —February 16, 2010 (IAMP) & February 18, 2010 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS —March 9, 2010 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD- PL2009 -918, Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc., represented by David Turley, requests a Boat Dock Extension that includes expansion of the northern most dock by constructing two new finger piers with three new slips and constructing a new dock with eight finger piers, with 13 new slips and the retention of the two existing docks, totaling 40 slips. Subject property is located at 226 Third Street, part of Lot 6, of Block D, Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ashley Caserta] B. Petition: VA- PL2009 -1220, Leo F. Lasher, is requesting one after - the -fact variance for an existing shed that is an accessory structure to a single family dwelling. The request is for a variance of 9.4 feet from the required rear yard setback of 75 feet as required by Collier County Land Development Code Subsection 4.02.01 Table 2.1. to allow the existing accessory structure to remain at 65.6 feet from the rear property line. The subject 2.5f acre property is located at 265 21" Street SW, in Plat Book 4, Page 97 and 98 of the Public Records of Collier County, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS — PRESENTATION BY THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 3/5/10 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp CE F CE PUBLI C NOTICE PLTBh,IC NOTICE Wo B Y � a TWO M0 hold �. y� 3 � � � ;� o„ > . at bk . at in the Board` of Ina Board; of County Commissioners Meeting Boom, 3rd Floor, Ad- Floor, A- ministration Building, Collier Government Center, 3301 Is rarHt✓yri Building, � Government Center, 3301 East Tamiamt Trail; Naples Florida, to consider: T�iiarrii Trail, Nepl� Ffarlct, �b "s:trr�ider• Petition: yA-- EL2009 -1220. Lr10 F Lasher, is request - f1$- Hickory r moo- 'U ing after - the -fact variance for an exw,st ft shed �` ., represented by David Tur- tloN, ;ogre that is an accessory stnaktura to a singt�#arrtily'dwelI- ley, requeetaa Bost Dock Extension that fnoludes ex- tng. The requestAs fora variance of 9.4 feet Imm the . pension of the northern most dock by corrstnactinatwo required rear yard setback. of 75. feet as required by new finger piers with three new slips and constructing Collier County Land Day' lopmerrt, Core Subsection a new dock with eight finger piers, with 13 new slips 4.02.01 to allow the existing. accessory and the,retention of the two existing docks, totaling 40 stn9cture to remain at 65.6 feet from the rear property slips. Subject property is located at 226 Third Street, line. The subject 2 5t acre property is .located at 265 part of Lot 6, of Block DJ Little Hickory Shores Unit 21st Street SW, in Plat Book 4, Page 97 and 98-of the 2, in Section 5, Township, 48 South, Range 25 fast, Public Records of Collier County, In Section 7, Town - Collier County, Florida. ship 49 South, Range 27 Fast, Collier County, Florida. All interested parties are invited to appear and be All interested parties are invited to appear and' be heard. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes ham. Individual speekers-will tieiimited to'5 minutes on any item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to 10 on any item.. Expert witnesses shall be limited 010 . minutes ,. i'er"68 r,tro.hWebeen aiuthMa to minutes each. Persons who have-been authorized to riepresant a gror�p or orgoization should [imit'thalrpre- represent a group car organization should Iirrritfheir pre- "mown tq ten �, Paw* �,t4 hwa writ- ten ono clad itrths agenckr sentation to ten ninui es. 'PereDns vvisft to hgve writ- ts� "� mat a ritihrtirirr of 10 tenor graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 d �'�' jar �, �: w it n1uBk 139 with the `: 1tW#' - �f` #ar'tc�ent 18, `z010,;:1n � ing, atlr9 Lar�i ` ,. - � �C%1�,► 'fi�� °order tb be cohsid�reri at the publlo heaYing. All materials used In presentation bsfbne the CCPC , gym. in order to be CthB f C Ali n b�fciwra �s will a pem1artent part of the reCrorti.and, wI� -; , wrfll a t,of this►i t+riN be for prerrtation to the 8oard`of Cou app, to - t�f tai - LEE �COVNi 1 PROJECT LOCATION .°2,*.� MY a ow�x ar..u. " craw aab mat+ �n�r wmw w wus AL to wlw eiie wirr BorisyM 1�hkr luirtlp: ArrY person who "q W- ti decision of ,the. rt P 1 oP the CCPC will need a revorrt of th��'proceedings pertain- ( y � -need a nst;1l." ertain p Ing thereto, and therefo illy need to ens ire that'a � � r>wBeci that e veri�atim record of. the proceedings is made, which recorc! of `tFaeaicle, wttlah IncWdes all testimony and evidence upon which the includes all teetin" and evktence. rayon v�hiolr flue appeal, is to be based. appeal is to be based. ,Co� County Planning Commission Collier County Planitirlg Commission , ty, Fbrida Mark K$train, Chairman Wawa" Collier County, Florida Mark P. Strain, "Chairman ` V30 AGENDA ITEM 9 -A Co *Cr County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: MARCH 18, 2010 SUBJECT: BD- PL2009 -918, HICKORY HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Hickory Harbour Condominium Association 226 Third Street Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Agent: David Turley PO Box 111385 Naples, Florida 34108 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting a 147 -foot and 131 -foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 167 feet and 151 feet into a waterway that is 1110 feet wide. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at 226 Third Street, Bonita Springs, further described as part of Lot 6 of Block D, Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, as described in Plat Book 3, page 79, of the public records of Collier County, Florida (part of the Hickory Harbour Condominium), Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) BD- PL2009 -918 - 1 — Revision: 2/17/10 LEE COUNTY SF- D/ ROAD (C.A. BBB) 14 uTnE 72 11 70 9 " *.OMTA B 5 LELYBARETDOT 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 7 14 22 7 FIRST STREET 22 V 24 BEACH 17 12 15 16 17 18 19 O 24 25 14 13 69 3D SECOND V IE5 12 77 10 9 8 7 6 5 a 3 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 O6 20 21 22 19 16 THIRD STREET 13 12 AUaIBON y CDUNIRY ARBp1R LAIR BAr cL s SIOEP�UN auB IwEa1LRRA B N ST P SD iN q� 10 1YA1EROLADEs RETREAT PLAZA !' CIEN oMtl CN 'E BAY YEAEMM BRDOK ARBOR TMCE VElA4E RACE E ,,m TIME AY __________ CoCOHA1tlIEE TARPON BAY WVE _ ------ _ VETFRANB MBAO lAW1E11U PLAZA _ I _____________ WAR. MPERIAL LAKES ClV]YRLIA 16 YS- 41ARGgNS C.R BBB PASS ROAD 14 17 'y , 15 CASTLEMODD LAKE NE AT IYPEMAL D WDCRLB RIPOBAt ES � CoCWAT BAY ADAEYURT}W�py'�pp VE PAtluIY NFST r CoCON $ TAYIAM RSADN AI _ sT RIVER 1RIIST CENTER � y 1 p 20 VAWERBLT 21 ) V41A5 NAPLES 23 CoLIRR 1 1RACT 21 22 LRDICAI PLA 21 CIX11ER TRACT 22 F SR (DR6 EAL' oEAELOPYENT IPLES.MAOItALEPAMC RDAD(C.R.B461 PVE —NlS CoMMDIR: k Nom_ CoVEN1RY f.1tA1U CREEI(SIDE TjBEw SWAK St.. —N 5 CDYYERCE PARKS LITER RACE 29 VLLAS 111E LVANDB6i CARRIC CHURCH NERS P AMS CdP/ALLSCBIi 11r(E DMY K TER YEDK:AL (5) A VANDERml 28 3 27 26 BEACH MATES xPiALES i PARK $,oRF8Rp0E g j PELICAN rr(ARVI � p( PAW W op MRAMA LAKE PAVNNNI YERCAM ? PELICAN 32 ANOERBLLT BEACH ROAD 34 YARSN () 35 V 33 MARKER LANE RAIGPFWS V As VENERAN Puu vEUCAN vRN: BAY (DIB) pNN E IEYMA 5 4 IEIVEM.Y 3 MoN1EREY j.=A- LOCATION MA P 1.21 1.1 12 1 2.2 25 PUD LITTLE HICKORY BAY I 24 /, 22,21 23 FIRST STREET O 5 1 6 1 7 SECOND STREET 12 1 13 SF- 75 14 73 72 11 70 9 B 7 B 5 5 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 7 14 22 7 FIRST STREET 22 V 24 14 13 12 11 70 9 8 7 6 5 4 17 12 15 16 17 18 19 O 24 25 14 13 20 21 22 23 3D SECOND V STREET 12 77 10 9 8 7 6 5 a 3 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 O6 20 21 22 19 16 THIRD STREET 13 12 15 14 13 12 it 109 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CU � lu T1 ¢ - 1 1161 I l IT �y -- O 1313 a 74 3 n BD SIXTH STREET 16 SIXTH STREET WEST P 15 BID BD BD BD O BD BD V' 8 7 6 5 1 4 3 2 1 1a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 9 10 11 17 13 14 15 2 13 rI3D B 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 BD BD BD BD BD BD — 7 2a CU PHIN COVE COURT 5 a 3 2 2 10 23 PUD 6 7 18 9 22 3 4 AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB t1 6 20 21 5 ZONING MAP PETITION # BD -PL- 2009 -918 SF- 8 7 6 5 4 3 SITE 19 7 27 22 23 24 LOCATION 20 15 14 13 12 it 109 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CU � lu T1 ¢ - 1 1161 I l IT �y -- O 1313 a 74 3 n BD SIXTH STREET 16 SIXTH STREET WEST P 15 BID BD BD BD O BD BD V' 8 7 6 5 1 4 3 2 1 1a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 9 10 11 17 13 14 15 2 13 rI3D B 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 BD BD BD BD BD BD — 7 2a CU PHIN COVE COURT 5 a 3 2 2 10 23 PUD 6 7 18 9 22 3 4 AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB t1 6 20 21 5 ZONING MAP PETITION # BD -PL- 2009 -918 PURPOSE /DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject site currently has two existing boat dock facilities. The two existing dock facilities both currently protrude 124.5 feet into the waterway consisting of 12 slips each, for a total of 24 slips. The purpose of the project is to expand the northern most dock by 42.5 feet by constructing two new finger piers with three new slips and a total protrusion of 167 feet, and constructing a new 151 -foot dock to the south of the existing docks with eight finger piers, consisting of 13 new slips, totaling 40 slips. The two existing docks will remain. The two proposed facilities will protrude a total of 151 feet and 167 feet into a waterway 1110 feet wide. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: The site is currently developed, zoned RMF -12 SURROUNDING: North: Third Street right -of -way and single- family homes, zoned RSF -4 East: West Avenue right -of -way and single - family homes, zoned RSF -4 South: Waterway and Fifth Street West right -of -way and single - family homes, zoned RSF -4 West: waterway, zoned RSF -4 Photo taken from Collier County Zoning Map BD- PL2009 -918 -3— Revision: 2/17/10 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E) (11) (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi -slip docking facilities with ten (10) or more slips. The proposed facility consists of 40 boat slips and is therefore subject to the provisions of this section. The proposed facility has been found consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Consistency Determination dated September 5, 2008, attached to the application submitted by the petitioner. STAFF COMMENTS: The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met. (The previous LDC addressed this situation in Section 2.6.21.3. That section was inadvertently omitted from the current LDC. It will be incorporated into the LDC in an upcoming amendment in Section 5.03.06). Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following: Primary Criteria Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi - family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed facility consists of 40 slips, which is appropriate in relation to the 569 -foot waterfront length of the property and the multi - family development consisting of 51 units. The subject property is zoned RMF -12, and there are currently 24 slips supporting the existing multi- family development. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) Criterion not met. According to the survey submitted by the petitioner, the water depth at the site is appropriate for the proposed facility. BD- PL2009 -918 -4— Revision: 2/17/10 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) Criterion met. According to the drawing submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not have any impact on any marked, navigable channel. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met. According to the information provided by the petitioner, the waterway is 1110 feet wide at the site as measured by aerial photograph The proposed facility will occupy about 15.9 percent and 13.6 percent of the waterway width, and about 84.1 percent and 86.4 percent of the width will be maintained for navigability, as described in the petitioner's application. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. The northern most proposed dock will be 274 feet from the nearest neighboring dock, and the southern most proposed dock will be 195 feet from the nearest neighboring dock. Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Criterion met. According to the application, the proposed docks have been designed to limit impact on navigation, allow for safe access to the existing docks and minimize mangrove growth impacts. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) BD- PL2009 -918 -5— Revision: 2/17/10 Criterion met. As shown on the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the deck area is not excessive. 3. For single - family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Not applicable to this multi - family development. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. The addition of the proposed dock facility and the extension of the existing facility would not dramatically change the view of the neighboring property owners. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. A site inspection by an environmental specialist has determined that no seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E) (11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E) (11) must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. According to Sections 3.2.3.4 and 4.6.3. of the Manatee Protection Plan, the proposed dock facility will be for the mooring of 40 vessels at a multi- family residence and therefore is subject to the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan Guidelines. The application indicates that the facility will be constructed per the manatee construction standards. Staff analysis indicates that the request meets four of the five primary criteria and all of the six (applicable) secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator within 30 days of the action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he /she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30 -day period. BD- PL2009 -918 -6— Revision: 2/17/10 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for BD- P12009 -918 revised on 2/17/10. -JBW RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD- PL2009 -918 subject to the following stipulations: 1. A Site Improvement Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The existing 119 -foot dock shall be allowed to remain and will be included on the Site Improvement Plan. Attachments: A. Photographs from site visit B. Resolution C. Application BD- PL2009 -918 -7— Revision: 2/17/10 PREPARED BY: ASHLEY ASERTA, SENIOR PLANNER DATE ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1 wo RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES DEPARTMENT vw� 0;� 01- ZZ- 10 LLIAM D. REN JR., P.E., DIRECTOR DATE ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: NICK CASALANGUIDA, INTEVANfADMINISTRATOR DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Petition Number: BD- PL2009 -918 Staff report for the March 18, 2010 Collier County Planning Commission Meeting BD- PL2009 -918 -8— Revision: 2/17/10 Standing on existing dock looking south at neighboring property across waterway. Standing on existing dock looking west across waterway. BD- PL2009 -918 Standing on existing dock looking north west across waterway. Standing on existing northern most dock looking south. Dock shown in center /left side of the picture is the dock to be expanded. Proposed dock will be located beyond. 2 BD- PL2009 -918 } CCPC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD- PL2009- 918 FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING BOAT DOCK TO INCLUDE TWO NEW FINGER PIERS WITH THREE NEW SLIPS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED BOAT DOCK WITH EIGHT FINGER PIERS TO INCLUDE THIRTEEN NEW SLIPS, BOTH OVER THE MAXIMUM TWENTY FEET LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06E.1 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 147 -foot and 131 - foot extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.1 to allow for a 167 -foot boat dock facility and a 151 -foot boat dock facility, respectively, in a Residential Multifamily (RMF -12) zoning district for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, approval of the extensions will result in an additional fourteen slips for a combined total of forty slips; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by I.,DC Section 5.03.06; and Hickory Harbour Condo Dock /BD- PL2009 -918 REV 2122110 I of 3 WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number BD- PL2009 -918, filed on behalf of Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. by David Turley, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Part of Lot 6 of Block D, Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 79, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida (part of the Hickory Harbour Condominium) be and the same is hereby approved for a 147 -foot and 131 -foot extension over the maximum 20- foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.1 to allow for a 167 -foot boat dock facility and a 151 - foot boat dock facility, respectively, in a Residential Multifamily (RMF -12) zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. A Site Improvement Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit- 2. The existing 119 -foot dock shall be allowed to remain and will be included on the Site Improvement Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of 12010. ATTEST. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Nick Casalanguida Community Development and Environmental Mark P. Strain, Chairman Services Administrator Hickory Harbour Condo Dock/ BD- PL2009 -918 REV 2122110 2 of Approved for form And legal sufficiency: Jennifer B. White Assistant County Attorney 09 -CPS- 00990/15 Hickory Harbour Condo Dock / BD- PL2009 -918 REV. 2122110 2 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 9 -13 Co*e.r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES HEARING DATE: MARCH 18, 2010 SUBJECT: VA- PL2009 -1220, 265 21St STREET S.W. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Owner /Applicant: Leo Lasher 265 21St Street S.W. Naples, FL 34117 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for an after - the -fact variance of 9.4 feet from the required rear yard setback of 75 feet as required by Collier County Land Development Code Subsection 4.02.01 Table 2.1. to allow an existing metal shed to remain at 65.6 feet from the rear property line. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 2.5± acre property is located at 265 21s' Street S.W., in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the location map on the following page.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: On May 6, 2009, the applicant applied for Building Permit number 2009050340 to erect a 2,100 square -foot steel building. Included in the building permit file was a boundary survey dated May 4, 2009, initialed by Staff which depicts the correct rear setback of 75 feet. (See attached Exhibit A.) The building permit was issued on May 26, 2009. On June 16, 2009 the boundary survey (aka "spot survey ") reviewed by Staff was denied because it showed a rear yard setback of 65.6 feet instead of the required 75 feet. (See attached Exhibit B.) VA- PL2009 -1220, 265 21$f STREET S.W. 2 -24 -10 Page 1 of 8 LOCATION MAP GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 25 b ]9 26 2> x 56 ]3 5] ]2 MO. ZONING MAP PETITION # VA -PL- 2009 -1220 g S gOAD (C.R -Gfi) L TUSCANY 28 27 29 CAT➢ 26 30 Ut6T�20fiTAlEfi CRYSTAL LANE FH-TA WARM MIT. 9UTTCNWPRESER vAN COUNGOLDEN 33 34 32 GATE ESTAR3 35 31 UMT 19 0%WO00 .UCKS RUN MISSION CHURCH 2 6 4 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES G GATE ESTATES GIXDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 3 UNIT 6 UNIT T UMT 10 UNIT 11 U M SON GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT BL1O. CFNIER LOCATION __ 910WY EGRET Puu 12 7 GO— CATS ESTATES GOLDEN CATS ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATE. B UNIT A UNIT 5 UNIT B GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 9 10 UMT 9 GOLDEN GALE ESTATES UNIT 12 WHITE BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 21 14 13 60L0EN GATE ESTATES 18 17 UNIT 15 GOLDEN GATE ESTAIEfi CCIDEN GATE E9TATEfi 16 15 UNIT 19{ UNIT 193 WARREN BRC1NEHI 23 24 9 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 20 UNIT 195 21 22 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES uNIT 26 26 25 30 29 ze z] LOCATION MAP GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 25 b ]9 26 2> x 56 ]3 5] ]2 MO. ZONING MAP PETITION # VA -PL- 2009 -1220 g Lm - PROPERTY COP.N"R FALLS IN TRASH PILE OR / 93,6' ------- _____.� ' P O ry O �S 165' OF TRACT 44 - - - - --- -97.2•- - - - --- - -- - i tio — - INGLE STORY RESIDENCE m ' 0 0 t _ 265 21ST STREET SW vi �R � U Q LE! ________55.6________ `u.9 CONCRE CONCRETE W W W o Lu ]_' _1_DE Dwx ' � __ _ WALL ---------- 75.S-- ___________________52.0' - � w______________ ___ 0 � 0 '— _ _______ _________________ ________________- —p N O 07 . OO - ____ _______ ______________________ 304.7 mill 4 X E' S 89'40'38" E 629.96'(M) MAIN - - LDCETEWATER S 89'40'50" E 660.00'(P) FENCE E EQUIPMENT PAD UNDER ROOF o TRACT 43 i� L RINGS ARE BASED ON THE '/L OF 21ST STREET S.W. LEGAL DESCRIPTION �. THE SOUTH 165 FEET OF TRACT 44, GOLDEN AS BEING N 00.19' 10' E AS SHOWN. 2. ELEVATIONS ARE BAS w.V.D UML TED. "'Ik GATE ESTATES, UNIT 8, ACCORDING TO THE MRCP REMAINDER OF R OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOO, TRACT 4, PAGE 97 AND 98. OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS GRAPHIC SCALE OF COLLIER. COUNTY, FLORIDA. S 89'40'50" El. 660.00'(P) DOD = DAS /S OF DEARING OR / 93,6' ------- _____.� ' P O ry O �S 165' OF TRACT 44 - - - - --- -97.2•- - - - --- - -- - i tio — - INGLE STORY RESIDENCE m ' 0 0 t _ 265 21ST STREET SW vi �R � U Q LE! ________55.6________ `u.9 CONCRE CONCRETE W W W o Lu ]_' _1_DE Dwx ' � __ _ WALL ---------- 75.S-- ___________________52.0' - � w______________ ___ 0 � 0 '— _ _______ _________________ ________________- —p N O 07 . OO - ____ _______ ______________________ 304.7 mill 4 X E' S 89'40'38" E 629.96'(M) MAIN - - LDCETEWATER S 89'40'50" E 660.00'(P) FENCE E EQUIPMENT PAD UNDER ROOF o TRACT 43 i� L RINGS ARE BASED ON THE '/L OF 21ST STREET S.W. LIE = UTILITY EASEMENT UELPE = UTILITY EASEMENT AND PEDESTRIAN EASE14EHT �. R140DES a RHODES N 610 173-74- i JUNE' li SURVEYING: INC B .7 22 ISCQl2' AS BEING N 00.19' 10' E AS SHOWN. 2. ELEVATIONS ARE BAS w.V.D UML TED. "'Ik gaT,ar TLrv+c JJJaaa """NNN - __ ?n t0 120 3. FIELD NCASUPCNIENTS RE SU£STANTIA_ AGREEMENT WITH PLAT GRAPHIC SCALE �G'�N+NS`E !{� 6' &9^� IF AND /Ok DEED CALLS UNLESS NOTED. DOD = DAS /S OF DEARING PCP = PERMANENT CONTROL POINT -IZ .0090 #1 09- 4. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD. C/L CENTERLINE = Pi: NAIL R 5. ABSTRACT NOT REVIEWED. CO = SANITARY CLEAN OUT C = CABLE TV P.O.C. = POINT OF COMHENCEMEMT P.O.H. POINT OF BEGINNING 28100 BONITA GRANDE DiCIVL SUITE 107 6. SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION DOES NOT APPLY TO MATTERS OF TITLE, EDP = EDGE OF PAVEMENT PRM ,_RMAMENT REFERENCE I L ZONING, OR FREEDOM OF ENCUMBRANCES, AND IS NOT VALID WITHOUT ELEC. B.= ELECTRIC BON MONUMENT LE❑ THE SIGNATURE AND ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICCMSED SU. °,VEYOP. AND MAPPER. FCN = FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT FIR = FOUND 5/9' IRON ROD PSM PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER 7. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, FOUNDATIONS OR OTHER, UNDERGROUND `P. WISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FN fDE _ . UBL *C UTILITY AND INSTALLATIONS WERE LOCATED UNLESS SHOWN. - FOUND NAIL FND = FOUND NAIL AND ➢RIGHT O EASEMENT Y LINE = RIGHT OF WAY LINE 9. NO OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES, OTHER THAN SHOWN, FPL = FLORIDA POWE. °. AND LIGHT AND SIR SIP, = SET 5/8 IRON ROD MAY RELY THIS SURVEY. 9, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF, = MEASURED H HE =MAINTENANCE EASEMENT CAP LB 6997 TELEPHONE TEL = TELEPHONE HOX 306 ROAD EASEMENT FIR k CAI ILLEGIBLE N 00'19'10" E 330.00'((P K N 0079'31" E 329.99'(M) PGM N 00'32'55" E 1980.00'(P)_�- N 00'33'41" E 1981.14'(M) `N( 00'1970" E 330.00'(1) 329.94'(M) FOUND P11 MNL ELoo ZONE, PANEL ME., MAP REVISIOIJ BATE 120210 0425 0 NOVEMBER 17, 2005 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. kGVD =NATIONAL GEODETIC 10. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FURNISHED BY CLIENT. VERTICAL DATUM 11. PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD OBTAIN WRITTEN FLOOD 'ONE DETERMINATION 0HV = OVERHEAD WIPES LIE = UTILITY EASEMENT UELPE = UTILITY EASEMENT AND PEDESTRIAN EASE14EHT I LAND R140DES a RHODES N 610 173-74- i JUNE' li SURVEYING: INC B .7 22 ISCQl2' FROM OUR LOCAL PERMITTING, PLANNING, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR P = PLAT VMS WATER METER. BOX WPP = WOOD POWER POLE r _ + TO ANY CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION (0) = OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINE �G'�N+NS`E !{� 6' &9^� IF .0090 #1 09- CERTIFICATIONI 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDAP,DS FORTH f �: xa-� /f•n �Y' "_'' 28100 BONITA GRANDE DiCIVL SUITE 107 SET BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 611117 -6, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PUP.SUPNT A^ + ✓� F BONiTA SPRINGS, FL 34135 CHAPTER 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. _ JU HIV SCOTT rtriIJDE.i r,�l. i.1i,�. � (.259) 40.'7-8.60 (23v) 495- 6Iii.'i rAX As previously stated, the request is for an after - the -fact variance of 9.4 feet from the required rear yard setback of 75 feet as required by Collier County Land Development Code Subsection 4.02.01 Table 2.1. The requested action would allow the existing metal shed to remain at 65.6 feet from the rear property line. The site plan entitled "Boundary Survey" dated June 12, 2009, and prepared by Rhodes & Rhodes Land Surveying, Inc. illustrates the location of the metal building along with the existing 65.6 foot setback. (See the Site Plan on the previous page.) There have been no other variances granted within the neighborhood. This metal shed encroachment has been in existence since June of 2009. It should be noted that the aerial photo below was taken prior to the construction of the subject structure. To date, no known complaints have been received from any neighboring properties. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: developed with a single family residence on an Estates zoning designation. East: developed with a single family residence on an Estates zoning designation. South: developed with a single family residence on an Estates zoning designation. West: developed with a single family residence on an Estates zoning designation. VA- PL2009 -1220, 265 215' STREET S.W. 2 -24 -10 AERIAL Page 4 of 8 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Estates designated area as identified in the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Element of the GMP. This land use category is designed to accommodate residential uses including single family. As previously noted, the subject petition seeks a variance for an accessory use to a single family home which is an authorized use in this land use designation, therefore, the single family home use is consistent with the FLUM. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address individual variance requests; the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: Section 9.04.01 of the Land Development Code gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 9.04.03 A. through H. (in bold font below), as general guidelines to assist in making their recommendation of approval or denial. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? No. However, the applicant alleges that the surveying stakes for the metal shed either fell or were washed away in a rain storm, and were re- staked in the wrong location, resulting in the location of the metal shed building within the required setback area. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre- existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? No. There are no special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre- existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of this Variance request. C. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. It is possible that the existing metal shed would have to be removed if a literal interpretation of the zoning code were applied. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? No. The Variance requested would not be the minimum Variance to allow reasonable use of the existing metal shed. Conversely, the metal shed has existed on the site for nearly a VA- PL2009 -1220, 265 21�' STREET S.W. 2 -24 -10 Page 5 of 8 year without complaint or issue. Furthermore, approval of this Variance would not have a negative impact on standards of health, safety and welfare. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. By definition, a Variance bestows some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site. However, LDC Section 9.04.02 provides relief through the Variance process for any dimensional development standard, such as the requested reduced rear yard setback. As such, other properties facing a similar hardship would be entitled to make a similar request and would be conferred equal consideration on a case by case basis. E Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the metal shed that has been on the site without complaint for nearly a year. Furthermore, the reduced rear setback yard would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the public's welfare due to the fact that the site itself is large and the surrounding properties are heavily wooded. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The existing metal shed is surrounded by vegetation that provides buffering for the adjacent neighbors and mitigates for the encroachment. To the north, there is approximately 30 feet of vegetation, to the south there is approximately 50 feet of vegetation. The neighbor to the west cannot see the existing metal shed as it is separated by approximately 300 feet of dense vegetation. Therefore, the visual aspect of the metal shed is screened by vegetation and its' negligible impact well mitigated. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance petition would not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. As previously noted, the proposed use is permitted within the land use designation of the GMP in which it is located. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC does not normally hear Variance petitions. Since the subject variance doesn't impact any preserve area, the EAC did not hear this petition. VA- PL2009 -1220, 265 21$' STREET S.W. 2 -24 -10 Page 6 of 8 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report VA- PL2009 -1220, 265 21St STREET S.W., revised February 25, 2010. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition VA- PL2009 -1220, 265 20 STREET S.W. to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval. VA- PL2009 -1220, 265 215' STREET S.W. 2 -24 -10 Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: VWAIIA 6kW'�ULk NANCY G L C , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENGINEE , E IRONMENTAL, COMPREH SIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES REVIEWED BY: /-Z� �c RAYM D V. BELL WS, ZONING MANA ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES LIAM D. L NZ, Jr., P.E., DIRECTOR ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES APPROVED BY: NICK jeASA LANGUIDA, ISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ' 0 Z.z5•10 DATE 0 X -7-.5 Zolb DATE 3--2 -2010 DATE Attachments: A. Boundary Survey dated May 4, 2010 B. Boundary Survey (aka "spot survey ") dated June 16, 2010 DATE Tentatively scheduled for the May 11, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting VA- PL2009 -1220, 265 215' STREET S.W. 2 -24 -10 Page 8 of 8 REMAINDER Qk MADT 44 S Y 2.4 0D '(R ,CT 4 4 4 SINCLE aTOR- RESIDDICE mss- Zc ..TRE5T SA 101, j2V S 8@ "4!336` E m Ir w3m, TRACT 4.3 Xg 'ur ama -I- cr 2ig? C I iv. AS Ww. a 12.29' IV t A; s;&sL Ei.LVAIMUS Mt SAW1 W m lj qyc., In? hLasl HMO. t. ;Ic I, R0191.11EW01 Mr. 134 slixglAurrA., himErnmt 'A7111 P.6 1412'sR flrto CALLS LMW wrim M3 3ASIS OF SVWLIIu RrEmo. CE::.'V0L91r ;ML 9. AWRACT W-1 ALVIL1411 SwUrAw 1LINI !?.,T il IfAysics., mrc mar Ort v m H477I:fI.uw "IV TV ccs sr VA "AI rtii 2&147".y tt rL-Lwy -.T clu"294= Alm M !01; MU3 W-11ru C-KC, �.- %WRr- MIX ;W1,14TWE �A- QRIOAL P.AdSED SC& 13F A FUROA 4=.. -.-CWV1 ZOICREIC lo*�TYM 480 I6W0t FIR . OSLO Sig, irhm Wall FIR =W. - fOrKI) FLO" t% IN W in ILrFXr, "OLNIMICUS M WFM LWRLgWW" �,V" F11 F "N - 'Wmg mit rom . MM 'OIL 011a We W C—W Rf:V3W Ir, OlTrIms, awa imm sHm.. F91 900APPMER -W my 41121! K&v _tl-? 03 MIL MIN" n 5. ALL ANEINMIS AMC gi teCl Q0 =41AL4 NUM M. PC 9NNYDIJUCI iAr-W;AJi IYei.LSS migmsi. vq&. MVP lqAIXXAL CUIIEJI�7 'ur I.. zc=wim v WIn of 1�1.jcfjr. 'IrIlIrAt. 24TUW ;L *rVW-NI'Y NNU DUMP UWAN WRIIM rL;M-T UK UJR L&.%L XE"WIA, K610US6. NO SULWr, DPAPIR047 4;:J'JS3RWTI0It SIAMINO PloVII ft-NST1IJCrWI I C-:Ptrf IIIAT "RIC ILAWY --JA9 WAF4 LNTTR W.' UIREVRI Al W7 37 Nfill; Iiii'MR41MUK 'CUMUPP, jZTAWAKIIS 347 rUP,14 3r 'W bNRII OF NWESSICUPt y L."A $QRvEynts Im LRAPTrIt .10;-6, FORIJA AmmismAnwr mr, Maw THE SOWN 160. 9'EET OF TRACI 44, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 8. ACCOWN13 TO THE MAP OR PLAT 'TWERZOF AS PLOWDED IN PI.AT U00K 4. FAr3r 97 Aj4D 98. for THE PUSUC RE4�L)RrfS -IF COLLIER COIATY, FLORIDA. WAD :ASE lm,r g In 14 GI zz n 001w1w E Nu MOWN "Wo yFi CMAPHIC CAL E ZONE 0 JEL2jc 0485 r, ADVOISER E7e -„rqs ir EmminviNv B 0 u ND A R IV 15 u R VE Y wa rczy mrEw—.U,. 54 "0. f-57.19 T Exhibit A clu te. PJIODBS L. RHODES 10173.74 UNJI) SURVEYING, me 71 sco. I I LICENSE #LR 9897 c- 1 ago 291fl0 BoNITA GRANDE DRIVE SVJTP HUNITA SPRINGS, 11L 34135 f209) 405•6186 (".30 405-0163 F 'lie 1,11 2009-3k I UGAL-.-PlT_,_L�'KJML L! THE SOLITH itb I LET I.* TRA(,l i,,, 6OLDE111 GATE ESTATES, L)Nll 8, ACCOROING To THE ',iArl OR PLAT 711"PEOF i.'S RECOPVEL' 11" PL.PT K101, 4, PAGE /-ND 96, Ul: 1HL PUBLIC; REC"JEDS QF CCILLIER rLQF!![-A.. PENCE ON LINE 629.96'(M) �NH I INK E 0 00140,60" c: c1c0.00'(p) E MUIPMENT P;% UNDER ROOF TRACT 43 k!S' no IN" - =LwMFmTpm- wrim I. DEARINGS ARE DASED ON TIME C/L OF 21.' ST AS BEING N 00.19' IV E AS SHOWN. rill 120 r. EFV4TTnNS APF Rx,.:rji ON ill.G.VJI., 1 tINLF.!,S PiEl D 4EAQUREMFHTS APF TH SURPTANTIAl jkrRFrMFMT ZRTT, PCP PCRM-WENT COUTROLL POR' GRAPHIC SCALE DEECALL- U114 DECD - -=-S IJOTED. mr D S S OF IlEpp.114r. Fr. �4' i,MIL S. SUBJECT TO lE)l.SrI4EMTS OF RECORD. LIL C.WTErlLJHL CO SAWTARY CLIAN LIT F-DC, - POINT OF COR.iENCEME1,11 t& ABSTRACT NOT REVIEWED. CTV CABLE W PA31D. POINT Or BEGINNING EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT PRN PERMANENT REFrW.NCE 'GN S. SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION DOES MOT APPLY TO MATTERS OF T a T ZONING, OR FREEDOM OF ENICUrlDRANCES, AND IS ROT VALID W" 0' ELEC. D, ELECT= COX I: LEO = FGUIQ LUNCRZYE i&Z�Ul��N*-' -�X AL THE SIGNATURE At,") ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED ek P;la7c " 4:1.1r. SU Up FIR V--FGUHD 5/8' iRONI ROD AND M PPE AND MAPPER. , F!I!! r FL E'-E%PTKw' PIINOr P4) -L URVEYOP V - jr. 'jT!LTTY �Kli 7, NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, FOUNDATIONS OR OTHER UNDERGROUND FN FOUND 4WZL� PJW DRZ11tZE EASEMENT , = p INSTALLATIONS WERE LOCATED UNLESS SHOVIL FND FOUND MAIL AND DISC RIGHT OF WAY LINE S. No OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES, EITHER THAN SHOWN, F PL p FLO IDA POWER AND LIGHT SIR - SET 5/8 IRON ROD MAY RELY ON THIS SURVEY. M MEASURED AND CAP LB 6897 N E N 0019*31' E N 00*32'55. E I91- '4 00,33,41" E 1961. j! ED i'jh a. —0 li w L'i Lj W -c- .___.__..__I r, w If) 00 -------- io 1 z zz xi se Em•wan ILIEOIOLE i' \'-N(00 910* E 330.00�P 329.94 FLcjI7DL.ZnL4.E! PANEL NO., NAP REVISION DATE ZONE El i-nRic NOVEHBEF P, 2D05 0 lu I, 9. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF, 14E . MAINTEMANCE EASEMENT TEL TELEPHONE BOX ��3 J�, PLOT UT L TY EASEK7I,Y X4D �el E isca U, N NGVD UTILITY EASEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE, NOTED. KTIOMAL GEODETIC k&PE PEDESTRIAN I STR[AM EASEH 14T rojec 0 OMW VERTICAL DATUM $ I 1, PROPERTY UVNEI SHOULD OBTAIN WRITTEN FLOOD ZONE DETERMINATION WATER METER BOX I — —32 FURNISHED BY CLIENT OVERHEAD WIRES WRD j��D SWV� 'ING AIC L 10. LEGAL DESCRIPTION! FROM OUR LOCAL PERMITTING, PLANNING, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR P PLAT WPP WOOD POWER POLE 'OL. '�q' 2009 TO ANY CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION (o) OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINE --'Jlcogc) 05 -32 is ee CERTIFICATION G—tUNDE DPIVE S3 'E iol; I CEPTIFY THAT T T UNDER MY DIRVCTID14 AND THAT IT MEETS pp S Re #1 SET F,- BY: S2. 2009— U p jY IRTH �Y THE BOARD ❑OF OrE SIQHAL CHAPTER 6"CO-6, FLORIDA A0,041STRATIvE uOPE, PURSUANT N -�CDTT 7, 1 D D 5—E066 R x72.0231 FLORWA SIP IVIES. Milt Exhibit B- 0 PEMAINDEP OF TPA(�T .;,I TASH TILE FA 1.5 IN 1RABH P11% -PL S39'40'50° E? 660 U1,41, Lar pima. U'U; U01 ----- - - - - -- 80.2'--- - - - - -- -- cmimw. in ----------- 1 A/C S 165' OF TRACT 44 . PAD� ....._.....9T, 'INGLE :TORY RE-IDEOCE 'TRE 6 Kmzm 265 21ST S SW ---------- wff:ffx CXA40RE r�NCRETE - -------------- GnAVEL UGAL-.-PlT_,_L�'KJML L! THE SOLITH itb I LET I.* TRA(,l i,,, 6OLDE111 GATE ESTATES, L)Nll 8, ACCOROING To THE ',iArl OR PLAT 711"PEOF i.'S RECOPVEL' 11" PL.PT K101, 4, PAGE /-ND 96, Ul: 1HL PUBLIC; REC"JEDS QF CCILLIER rLQF!![-A.. PENCE ON LINE 629.96'(M) �NH I INK E 0 00140,60" c: c1c0.00'(p) E MUIPMENT P;% UNDER ROOF TRACT 43 k!S' no IN" - =LwMFmTpm- wrim I. DEARINGS ARE DASED ON TIME C/L OF 21.' ST AS BEING N 00.19' IV E AS SHOWN. rill 120 r. EFV4TTnNS APF Rx,.:rji ON ill.G.VJI., 1 tINLF.!,S PiEl D 4EAQUREMFHTS APF TH SURPTANTIAl jkrRFrMFMT ZRTT, PCP PCRM-WENT COUTROLL POR' GRAPHIC SCALE DEECALL- U114 DECD - -=-S IJOTED. mr D S S OF IlEpp.114r. Fr. �4' i,MIL S. SUBJECT TO lE)l.SrI4EMTS OF RECORD. LIL C.WTErlLJHL CO SAWTARY CLIAN LIT F-DC, - POINT OF COR.iENCEME1,11 t& ABSTRACT NOT REVIEWED. CTV CABLE W PA31D. POINT Or BEGINNING EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT PRN PERMANENT REFrW.NCE 'GN S. SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION DOES MOT APPLY TO MATTERS OF T a T ZONING, OR FREEDOM OF ENICUrlDRANCES, AND IS ROT VALID W" 0' ELEC. D, ELECT= COX I: LEO = FGUIQ LUNCRZYE i&Z�Ul��N*-' -�X AL THE SIGNATURE At,") ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED ek P;la7c " 4:1.1r. SU Up FIR V--FGUHD 5/8' iRONI ROD AND M PPE AND MAPPER. , F!I!! r FL E'-E%PTKw' PIINOr P4) -L URVEYOP V - jr. 'jT!LTTY �Kli 7, NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, FOUNDATIONS OR OTHER UNDERGROUND FN FOUND 4WZL� PJW DRZ11tZE EASEMENT , = p INSTALLATIONS WERE LOCATED UNLESS SHOVIL FND FOUND MAIL AND DISC RIGHT OF WAY LINE S. No OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES, EITHER THAN SHOWN, F PL p FLO IDA POWER AND LIGHT SIR - SET 5/8 IRON ROD MAY RELY ON THIS SURVEY. M MEASURED AND CAP LB 6897 N E N 0019*31' E N 00*32'55. E I91- '4 00,33,41" E 1961. j! ED i'jh a. —0 li w L'i Lj W -c- .___.__..__I r, w If) 00 -------- io 1 z zz xi se Em•wan ILIEOIOLE i' \'-N(00 910* E 330.00�P 329.94 FLcjI7DL.ZnL4.E! PANEL NO., NAP REVISION DATE ZONE El i-nRic NOVEHBEF P, 2D05 0 lu I, 9. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF, 14E . MAINTEMANCE EASEMENT TEL TELEPHONE BOX ��3 J�, PLOT UT L TY EASEK7I,Y X4D �el E isca U, N NGVD UTILITY EASEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE, NOTED. KTIOMAL GEODETIC k&PE PEDESTRIAN I STR[AM EASEH 14T rojec 0 OMW VERTICAL DATUM $ I 1, PROPERTY UVNEI SHOULD OBTAIN WRITTEN FLOOD ZONE DETERMINATION WATER METER BOX I — —32 FURNISHED BY CLIENT OVERHEAD WIRES WRD j��D SWV� 'ING AIC L 10. LEGAL DESCRIPTION! FROM OUR LOCAL PERMITTING, PLANNING, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR P PLAT WPP WOOD POWER POLE 'OL. '�q' 2009 TO ANY CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION (o) OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINE --'Jlcogc) 05 -32 is ee CERTIFICATION G—tUNDE DPIVE S3 'E iol; I CEPTIFY THAT T T UNDER MY DIRVCTID14 AND THAT IT MEETS pp S Re #1 SET F,- BY: S2. 2009— U p jY IRTH �Y THE BOARD ❑OF OrE SIQHAL CHAPTER 6"CO-6, FLORIDA A0,041STRATIvE uOPE, PURSUANT N -�CDTT 7, 1 D D 5—E066 R x72.0231 FLORWA SIP IVIES. Milt Exhibit B- 0 RESOLUTION 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA- PL2009 -1220, FOR A VARIANCE OF 9.4 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 75 FEET TO ALLOW THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN AT 65.6 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 21 IT STREET SOUTHWEST HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a variance of 9.4 feet from the required rear yard setback of 75 feet to allow the existing accessory structure to remain at 65.6 feet from the rear property line, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ", in the Estates (E) Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: VA- PL2009 -1220 Rev. 12/4/09 1 of 2 Petition Number VA- PL2009 -1220 filed by Leo F. Lasher with respect to the property hereinafter described as: The South 165 feet of Tract 44, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 8, according to the plat thereof in Plat Book 4, Pages 97 and 98 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida be and the same hereby is approved for a variance of 9.4 feet from the required rear yard setback of 75 feet to allow the existing accessory structure to remain at 65.6 feet from the rear property line, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ", in the zoning district wherein said property is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of 92010. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0-In , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: D OR AFT Heidi Ashton -Cicko Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation 09 -CPS- 00997 /4 HFAC 12/4/09 VA- PL2009 -1220 Rev. 12/4/09 2of2 LIM , Chairman EXHIBIT A P F M A 1N D E R d S 89*40'50" E9 660. FENCE CN.N UNK ;VICE I 630. U ----------- ao ------ ----- I - ------------- 93,S I -------------- A IF ------------ S 165' OF TRACT 44 --------------- 57OPY -RESIDENCE I U11 b-ZIST SIREEI SW 265 iNDER ROOF < Lj --------- MS._ J5.9 - CNCRV'V CO.METE CONCRETE - ---------- 73.5� --------- - - ----------- 4 i ------- -------------- ' CON E. 0 - ---------- ---------- ----------- CWCRETE Z E _,E 1, DRIVEWAY D, PAI) _E A_ nFSCRIPTCN THE SOUTH 165 FEET OV TRACT 44, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNiT 8, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED !N O" _AT BOO,< PAGE 97 AND 09E. �, c' J. - T HE PU3L!C �ECCRCS \fT Lexa, S 89'40'38" E 629.96' m) �CRETE ftYER S 89*40'50" C. E 660.0o'(p) 04wax FENM LIN EWNENT PAD CE UNDER RW TRACT 43 NOTES 1. BEARINGS ARE iA37b ON, 7mE C1.1- OF 21ST STREET S- A AT 2 Z Zyall NEA:URCM-N , AP_ ACREEW:N7 V!Tl� D,ap CCU _-,5 NOTED G D= Ds!. cr DrAp:w - -cp P GRAPQC SCALE 3. ABSTRACT NOT REVIEWED. C CD SANITARY CLE— OUT P P n.-. P PD!NT OF COK4E-�_EHENT 6. SURVEYORS CERTIFiCA71GH DOES NOT APPLY 70 MATTERS O -:TV CABLE TV D D.B. - -QI OF BEGINNING FL OF TITLE. E E EDGE OF T -PH I PERMANENT REFERENCE L Lim, ENSED r BOX P 's. F 'UMLIMENT P P-0 F SURVEYOR AND M.P-ER. R R F IRON ROD A AND 14AP-R 7. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. FOUNDATIONS DR OTHER UNDERGROUND P _ - Ni-HER FLOOR ELE . .,2t: :NSTAL: ATION3 'WERE LOCATED UNLESS SHCVSL . OUND NAIL l R/I P OF WAY LINE XA f RE._" ON Tx;s S�;;Vzv. H FLORIDA POWER AND '_!CYT $ $:R SET 111 1. 1 19 VA-PL2009-1220 REV:1 265 21" STREET SW DATE: 11/20/09 DUE: 12/8/09 0 .1 j! I—D Ivj Lo Lj LLJ --------------------_- ------- OF) 01 00 -____________ ___________________ -- 10 C) 0 i z Z Z 30.0* ROAD EASEMEN N 00*19*10' E 330.00:(p)_---. N 00'19'31" N 00*32'55" E 1980. N 00-33'41- E 1981. _N 00119)10" E 330.00,(P) 329.94'(M) FOUND K MML F1aQD_ZJ)NE- PANEL 1111. Z-01'.1E D. 202!c C0125 n NOVEMBER !7. 2005 T T T R11 7 Z� -11, LD U UN -DA r, I LEGAL DESCRIPTION FURNISHED BY CLIENT. 5E. ., UjJ)LITY EASEMENT AND FROM OWNER Sh-_JLD OBTAIN WRITTEN 11-01-D ZONE DETE VERTICAL i�Tod P E E APe RHODES �jm!�!AY!om CXV CVERKAD WIRE_ .�, STRIAN CA3ENERT RHODES ROM OUR LOCAL PERMITTING, PL T I 'TO ANY CONSTRUCTION PLANNING INING. AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR P PLAT WMD ER m- ER xx �!D SURVEYING, INC 'CTION (0 OUTSIDE PROPERTY UNE WPP VOOD POWER POLE LICENSE i UR NO AND/DR CONSTRL t OLB 6897 -CRjIF! THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE 'JUDER m- :NRECTI-IN AND THAT IT —En E_ 4. :.p Diy: AN�_1R-_S :E7 ;:IP--' - T E 3 31 PRCFE,'S!3.., A' 2" A 4 'j, "/..l ' =*VEY,RS SIG17-S. '-:!R!:)A A2N!4!STRAT!%1E CODE. -uRTU,.-1 _;,APTEA 47,2027. STATUTES. date: 610 :7374 AIUNE 12 2009] 6'�> 7 60' cogo 09-32 ,E_==� 28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE SUITE IV 330MITA SPRUNGS, FTL 34135 (239j 405-6i66 1235) 4,N.-01033 I-AX rDesign: I rawn: 9W1_ nca-z - 2QQ9-Y!_, view: 2009-32 7h -e—e 7 -.2 N 00*19*10' E 330.00:(p)_---. N 00'19'31" N 00*32'55" E 1980. N 00-33'41- E 1981. _N 00119)10" E 330.00,(P) 329.94'(M) FOUND K MML F1aQD_ZJ)NE- PANEL 1111. Z-01'.1E D. 202!c C0125 n NOVEMBER !7. 2005 T T T R11 7 Z� -11, LD U UN -DA r, I LEGAL DESCRIPTION FURNISHED BY CLIENT. 5E. ., UjJ)LITY EASEMENT AND FROM OWNER Sh-_JLD OBTAIN WRITTEN 11-01-D ZONE DETE VERTICAL i�Tod P E E APe RHODES �jm!�!AY!om CXV CVERKAD WIRE_ .�, STRIAN CA3ENERT RHODES ROM OUR LOCAL PERMITTING, PL T I 'TO ANY CONSTRUCTION PLANNING INING. AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR P PLAT WMD ER m- ER xx �!D SURVEYING, INC 'CTION (0 OUTSIDE PROPERTY UNE WPP VOOD POWER POLE LICENSE i UR NO AND/DR CONSTRL t OLB 6897 -CRjIF! THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE 'JUDER m- :NRECTI-IN AND THAT IT —En E_ 4. :.p Diy: AN�_1R-_S :E7 ;:IP--' - T E 3 31 PRCFE,'S!3.., A' 2" A 4 'j, "/..l ' =*VEY,RS SIG17-S. '-:!R!:)A A2N!4!STRAT!%1E CODE. -uRTU,.-1 _;,APTEA 47,2027. STATUTES. date: 610 :7374 AIUNE 12 2009] 6'�> 7 60' cogo 09-32 ,E_==� 28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE SUITE IV 330MITA SPRUNGS, FTL 34135 (239j 405-6i66 1235) 4,N.-01033 I-AX rDesign: I rawn: 9W1_ nca-z - 2QQ9-Y!_, view: 2009-32 7h -e—e 7 -.2 28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE SUITE IV 330MITA SPRUNGS, FTL 34135 (239j 405-6i66 1235) 4,N.-01033 I-AX rDesign: I rawn: 9W1_ nca-z - 2QQ9-Y!_, view: 2009-32 7h -e—e 7 -.2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF may, HEALT Stacy Revay Health Educator Consultant www. healthycollier. org Collier County Health Department Collier County Health Department Bus: (239) 252 -2594 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Bldg. H Cell: (239) 272 -0576 Mail: P.O. Box 429 Fax: (239) 774 -5653 Naples, FL 34106 -0429 E -Mail: Stacy_Revay @doh.state.fl.us REPORT BRIEF • SEPTEMBER 2009 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTIONS TO PREVENT CHILDHOOD OBESITY =OMNMENT ACnoNS In the United States, 16.3 percent of children and adolescents between the ages of two and 19 are obese. This epidemic has exploded over just three decades. Among chil- dren two to five years old, obesity prevalence increased from 5 percent to 12.4 percent; among children six to 11, it increased from 6.5 percent to 17 percent; and among ado- lescents 12 to 19 years old, it increased from 5 percent to 17.6 percent (see Figure 1). The prevalence of obesity is so high that it may reduce the life expectancy of today's generation of children and diminish the overall quality of their lives. Obese children and adolescents are more likely than their lower - weight counterparts to develop hy- pertension, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes when they are young, and they are more likely to be obese as adults. In 2008, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Childhood Obesity Pre- vention Actions for Local Governments was convened to identify promising ways to address this problem on what may well be the epidemic's frontlines. The good news is that there are numerous actions that show potential for use by local governments. , , , local govern - Of course, parents and other adult caregivers play a fundamental role in teaching chil- ments are dren about healthy behaviors, in modeling those behaviors, and in making decisions ideally positioned for children when needed. But those positive efforts can be undermined by local en- to promote vironments that are poorly suited to supporting healthy behaviors —and may even behaviors that will promote unhealthy behaviors. For example, many communities lack ready sources of healthy food choices, such as supermarkets and grocery stores. Or they may not help children and provide safe places for children to walk or play. In such communities, even the most adolescents reach motivated child or adolescent may find it difficult to act in healthy ways. and maintain healthy weights. FIGURE 1: PREVALENCE OF OBESITY AMONG CHILDREN, 1971 -2006 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1971 -1974 1976 -1980 1988 -1994 2003 -2006 Ages 2 -5 * Ages 6 -11 ❑ Ages 12 -19 SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES For more information visit www.iom.edu /0besitylocalgov. Advising the Nation. Improving Health. ACTING LOCALLY Local governments are experienced in promoting children's health, as they historically have imple- mented policies intended to ensure, among other things, that children are immunized or they wear helmets when riding a bike. In the same way, local governments —with jurisdiction over many aspects of land use, food marketing, community planning, transportation, health and nutrition programs, and other commu- nity issues —are ideally positioned to promote behaviors that will help children and adolescents reach and maintain healthy weights. Promoting children's healthy eating and activity will require the involvement of an array of government officials, including mayors and commissioners or other leaders of counties, cities, or townships. Many departments, including those responsible for public health, public works, transporta- tion, parks and recreation, public safety, planning, economic development, and housing will also need to be involved. In addition, community involvement and evaluation are vital to childhood obesity prevention efforts. It is critical for local government officials and staff to involve constituents in determining local needs and identifying top priorities. Engaging community members in the process will help identify local assets, focus resources, and improve implementation plans. And, as obesity prevention actions are implemented, they need to be evaluated in order to provide important information on what does and does not work. CREATING EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR HEALTHY WEIGHT In adopting policies and practices tailored to raising healthy children, local communities have an added opportunity to achieve health equity—put simply, the fair distribution of health resources among all popu- lation groups, regardless of their social standing. Poverty, poor housing, racial segregation, lack of access to quality education, and limited access to health care contribute to the uneven well-being of some groups of people, especially those living in historically disadvantaged communities. If local officials observe, for example, that many children in certain neighborhoods do not engage in sufficient physical activity or con- sume too few fruits and vegetables, they should examine the equity of access to recreation opportunities and grocery stores in those areas. These officials may then find themselves uniquely positioned to catalyze, support, or lead collaborations in the community and engage diverse constituent groups in efforts to im- prove the places where children live and play. RECOMMENDING PROMISING ACTIONS Evidence on the best childhood obesity prevention practices is still accumulating and is limited in many important topic areas. However, local government officials want to act now on the best available information. The IOM committee reviewed published literature, examined reports from organizations that work with local governments, heard presentations from experts on the role of local government in obesity prevention, and explored a variety of tool kits that have been developed for communities and their lead- ers. In arriving at its recommendations, the committee looked for actions that are within the jurisdiction of local governments; likely to directly affect children; based on the experience of local governments or sources that work with local governments; take place outside of the school day; and have the potential to promote healthy eating and adequate physical activity. Healthy eating is characterized as consuming the types and amounts of foods, nutrients, and calories recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Ameri- cans, and adequate physical activity for children constitutes a total of 60 minutes per day. The committee recommends nine healthy eating strategies and six physical activity strategies for local government officials to consider in planning, implementing, and refining childhood obesity prevention ef- forts. The committee also recommends a number of specific action steps for each strategy and highlights 12 steps overall judged to have the most promise. ACTIONS FOR HEALTHY EATING GOAL 1: IMPROVE ACCESS TO AND CONSUMPTION OF HEALTHY, SAFE, AND AFFORDABLE FOODS Strategy 1: Retail Outlets Increase community access to healthy foods through supermarkets, grocery stores, and con- venience /corner stores. Action Steps • Create incentive programs to attract supermarkets and grocery stores to underserved neighbor- hoods (e.g., tax credits, grant and loan programs, small business /economic development programs, and other economic incentives). • Realign bus routes or provide other transportation, such as mobile community vans or shuttles to ensure that residents can access supermarkets or grocery stores easily and affordably through public transportation. • Create incentive programs to enable current small food store owners in underserved areas to carry healthier, affordable food items (e.g., grants or loans to purchase refrigeration equipment to store fruits, vegetables, and fat - free /low -fat dairy; free publicity; a city awards program; or linkages to wholesale distributors). • Use zoning regulations to enable healthy food providers to locate in underserved neighborhoods (e.g., "as of right" and "conditional use permits "). • Enhance accessibility to grocery stores through public safety efforts, such as better outdoor lighting and police patrolling. Strategy 2: Restaurants Improve the availability and identification of healthful foods in restaurants. Action Steps • Require menu labeling in chain restaurants to provide consumers with calorie information on in- store menus and menu boards. • Encourage non -chain restaurants to provide consumers with calorie information on in -store menus and menu boards. • Offer incentives (e.g., recognition or endorsement) for restaurants that promote healthier options (for example, by increasing the offerings of healthier foods, serving age- appropriate portion sizes, or making the default standard options healthy — i.e., apples or carrots instead of French fries, and non -fat milk instead of soda in "kids' meals "). Strategy 3: Community Food Access Promote efforts to provide fruits and vegetables in a variety of settings, such as farmers' markets, farm stands, mobile markets, community gardens, and youth- focused gardens. Action Steps • Encourage farmers markets to accept Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) food package vouchers and WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program coupons; and encourage and make it possible for farmers markets to accept Supplemental Nutrition Assis- tance Program (or SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) and WIC Program Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards by allocating funding for equipment that uses electronic methods of payment. • Improve funding for outreach, education, and transportation to encourage use of farmers markets and farm stands by residents of lower- income neighborhoods, and by WIC and SNAP recipients. = Most Promising Steps Introduce or modify land use policies /zoning regulations to promote, expand, and protect potential sites for community gardens and farmers' markets, such as vacant city -owned land or unused park- ing lots. Develop community -based group activities (e.g., community kitchens) that link procurement of af- fordable, healthy food with improving skills in purchasing and preparing food. Strategy 4: Public Programs and Worksites Ensure that publicly -run entities such as after - school programs, child -care facilities, rec- reation centers, and local government worksites implement policies and practices to promote healthy foods and beverages and reduce or eliminate the availability of calorie- dense, nutrient - poor foods. Action Steps Mandate and implement strong nutrition standards for foods and beverages available in govern- ment -run or regulated after- school programs, recreation centers, parks, and child care facilities (which includes limiting access to calorie - dense, nutrient -poor foods). Ensure that local government agencies that operate cafeterias and vending options have strong nutrition standards in place wherever foods and beverages are sold or available. Provide incentives or subsidies to government run or regulated programs and localities that provide healthy foods at competitive prices and limit calorie- dense, nutrient poor foods (e.g., after - school programs that provide fruits or vegetables every day, and eliminate calorie- dense, nutrient poor foods in vending machines or as part of the program). Strategy 5: Government Nutrition Programs Increase participation in federal, state, and local government nutrition assistance pro- grams (e.g., WIC, school breakfast and lunch, the Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP], the Afterschool Snacks Program, the Summer Food Service Program, SNAP). Action Steps Put policies in place that require government -run and - regulated agencies responsible for admin- istering nutrition assistance programs to collaborate across agencies and programs to increase en- rollment and participation in these programs (i.e., WIC agencies should ensure that those who are eligible are also participating in SNAP, etc.) Ensure that child care and after - school program licensing agencies encourage utilization of the nu- trition assistance programs and increase nutrition program enrollment (CACFP, Afterschool Snack Program, and the Summer Food Service Program). Strategy 6: Breastfeeding Encourage breastfeeding and promote breastfeeding - friendly communities. Action Steps • Adopt practices in city and county hospitals that are consistent with the Baby - Friendly Hospital Initiative USA (United Nations Children's Fund /World Health Organization). This initiative pro- motes, protects, and supports breastfeeding through ten steps to successful breastfeeding for hospi- tals. • Permit breastfeeding in public places and rescind any laws or regulations that discourage or do not allow breastfeeding in public places and encourage the creation of lactation rooms in public places. • Develop incentive programs to encourage government agencies to ensure breastfeeding- friendly worksites, including providing lactation rooms. • Allocate funding to WIC clinics to acquire breast pumps to loan to participants. Strategy 7: Drinking Water Access Increase access to free, safe drinking water in public places to encourage water consump- tion instead of sugar- sweetened beverages. Action Steps • Require that plain water be available in local government- operated and administered outdoor areas and other public places and facilities. • Adopt building codes to require access to and maintenance of fresh drinking water fountains (e.g., public restroom codes). GOAL 2: REDUCE ACCESS TO AND CONSUMPTION OF CALORIE - DENSE, NUTRIENT-POOR FOODS Strategy 8: Policies and Ordinances Implement fiscal policies and local ordinances to discourage the consumption of calorie - dense, nutrient -poor foods and beverages (e.g., taxes, incentives, land use and zoning regula- tions). Action Steps • Implement a tax strategy to discourage consumption of foods and beverages that have minimal nu- tritional value, such as sugar- sweetened beverages. • Adopt land use and zoning policies that restrict fast food establishments near school grounds and public playgrounds. • Implement local ordinances to restrict mobile vending of calorie - dense, nutrient -poor foods near schools and public playgrounds. • Implement zoning designed to limit the density of fast food establishments in residential communi- ties. • Eliminate advertising and marketing of calorie- dense, nutrient -poor foods and beverages near school grounds and public places frequently visited by youths. • Create incentive and recognition programs to encourage grocery stores and convenience stores to re- duce point -of -sale marketing of calorie - dense, nutrient -poor foods (i.e., promote "candy- free" check out aisles and spaces). GOAL 3: RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HEALTHY EATING TO PREVENT CHILDHOOD OBESITY Strategy 9: Media and Social Marketing Promote media and social marketing campaigns on healthy eating and childhood obesity prevention. Action Steps Develop media campaigns, utilizing multiple channels (print, radio, internet, television, social net- working, and other promotional materials) to promote healthy eating (and active living) using con- sistent messages. Design a media campaign that establishes community access to healthy foods as a health equity is- sue and reframes obesity as a consequence of environmental inequities and not just the result of poor personal choices. Develop counter - advertising media approaches against unhealthy products to reach youth as has been used in the tobacco and alcohol prevention fields. ACTIONS FOR INCREASING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY GOAL 1: ENCOURAGE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Strategy 1: Built Environment Encourage walking and bicycling for transportation and recreation through improve- ments in the built environment. Action Steps • Adopt a pedestrian and bicycle master plan to develop a long -term vision for walking and bicy- cling in the community and guide implementation. • Plan, build, and maintain a network of sidewalks and street crossings that creates a safe and com- fortable walking environment and that connects to schools, parks, and other destinations. • Plan, build, and retrofit streets so as to reduce vehicle speeds, accommodate bicyclists, and improve the walking environment. • Plan, build, and maintain a well - connected network of off - street trails and paths for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Increase destinations within walking and bicycling distance. • Collaborate with school districts and developers to build new schools in locations central to resi- dential areas and away from heavily trafficked roads. Strategy 2: Programs for Walking and Biking Promote programs that support walking and bicycling for transportation and recreation. Action Steps • Adopt community policing strategies that improve safety and security of streets, especially in high- er crime neighborhoods. * • Collaborate with schools to develop and implement a Safe Routes to School program to increase the number of children safely walking and bicycling to schools. • Improve access to bicycles, helmets, and related equipment for lower - income families, for example, through subsidies or repair programs. • Promote increased transit use through reduced fares for children, families, and students, and im- proved service to schools, parks, recreation centers, and other family destinations. • Implement a traffic enforcement program to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Strategy 3: Recreational Physical Activity Promote other forms of recreational physical activity. Action Steps • Build and maintain parks and playgrounds that are safe and attractive for playing and in close proximity to residential areas. • Adopt community policing strategies that improve safety and security for park use, especially in higher crime neighborhoods.* • Improve access to public and private recreational facilities in communities with limited recreational options through reduced costs, increased operating hours, and development of culturally appropri- ate activities. * These two action steps on community policing were combined for the most promising 12 action steps list. • Create after - school activity programs, e.g., dance classes, city- sponsored sports, supervised play, and other publicly or privately supported active recreation. • Collaborate with school districts and other organizations to establish joint use of facilities agree- ments allowing playing fields, playgrounds, and recreation centers to be used by community resi- dents when schools are closed; if necessary, adopt regulatory and legislative policies to address li- ability issues that might block implementation. • Create and promote youth athletic leagues and increase access to fields, with special emphasis on income and gender equity. • Build and provide incentives to build recreation centers in neighborhoods. Strategy 4: Routine Physical Activity Promote policies that build physical activity into daily routines. Action Steps • Institute regulatory policies mandating minimum play space, physical equipment, and duration of play in preschool, after - school, and child -care programs. • Develop worksite policies and practices that build physical activity into routines (for example, exer- cise breaks at a certain time of day and in meetings, or walking meetings). Target worksites with high percentages of youth employees and government -run and - regulated worksites. • Create incentives for remote parking and drop -off zones and /or disincentives for nearby parking and drop -off zones at schools, public facilities, shopping malls, and other destinations. • Improve stairway access and appeal, especially in places frequented by children. GOAL 2: DECREASE SEDENTARY BEHAVIOR Strategy 5: Screen Time Promote policies that reduce sedentary screen time. Action Steps • Adopt regulatory policies limiting screen time in preschool and after - school programs. GOAL 3: RAISE AWARENESS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF INCREASING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Strategy 6: Media and Social Marketing Develop a social marketing program that emphasizes the multiple benefits for children and families of sustained physical activity. Action Steps Develop media campaigns, utilizing multiple channels (print, radio, internet, television, other pro- motional materials) to promote physical activity using consistent messages. Design a media campaign that establishes physical activity as a health equity issue and reframes obe- sity as a consequence of environmental inequities and not just the result of poor personal choices. Develop counter - advertising media approaches against sedentary activity to reach youth as has been done in the tobacco and alcohol prevention fields. FOR MORE INFORMATION ... Copies of Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity are available from the National Acad- emies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624 -6242 or (202) 334 -3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, www.nap.edu. The full text of this report is available at www.nap.edu. This study was supported by funds from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project. The Institute of Medicine serves as adviser to the nation to improve health. Established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine provides independent, objective, evidence -based advice to policymakers, health professionals, the private sector, and the public. For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM web site at www.iom.edu. Permission is granted to reproduce this document in its entirety, with no additions or alterations. Copy- right © 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COMMITTEE ON CHILDHOOD OBESITY PREVENTION ACTIONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS EDUARDO J. SANCHEZ (Chair), Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Richardson, TX; PEGGY BELTRONE, Commissioner, Cascade County Commission, Great Falls, MT; LAURA K. BRENNAN, President and CEO, Transtria, LLC, St. Louis, MO; JOSEPH A. CURTATONE, Mayor, City of Somerville, Somerville, MA; ERIC FINKELSTEIN, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC; TRACY FOX, President, Food, Nutrition, and Policy Consultants, Washington, D.C.; SUSAN L. HANDY, Professor, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA; JAMES KRIEGER, Chief, Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention Section, Public Health - Se- attle and King County, Seattle, WA; DONALD DIEGO ROSE, Associate Professor, Community Health Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA; MARY T. STORY, Professor, Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN; ADEWALE TROUTMAN, Director, Louisville Metro Department of Public Health and Wellness, Louisville, KY; ANTRONETTE K. (TONI) YANCEY, Professor of Health Ser- vices, UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA; PAUL ZYKOFSKY, Director, Land Use /Transpor- tation Programs, Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA STUDY STAFF LYNN PARKER, Study Director; ANNINA CATHERINE BURNS, Program Officer; CATHARYN T. LIVERMAN, Scholar; NICOLE FERRING, Research Associate; MATTHEW B. SPEAR, Senior Program Assistant; ANTON L. BANDY, Financial Associate; GERALDINE KENNEDO, Administrative Assistant; LINDA D. MEYERS, Director, Food and Nutrition Board; ROSEMARY CHALK, Director, Board on Chil- dren, Youth, and Families; NANCY HUMPHREY, Senior Program Officer, Transportation Research Board; ROSE MARIE MARTINEZ, Director, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice t 0 transportation prescription 1 77 11 11TRI Ot • P-010 'TQ ♦+•� �•♦ •�i him o• O0�� Ad 0MA1, 00 tie •�i T • W6 ITO Urn BOLD NEW IDEAS FOR HEALTHY, EQUITABLE TRANSPORTATION REFORM IN AMERICA Lifting Up What Works Preventio +n+ t��lil� PolicyLink I P.tfi"g e e,ro Institute CONVERGENCE at the center of community well -being PARTNERSHIP Healthy People. Healthy Places PolicyLink PolicyLink is a national research and action institute advancing economic and social equity by Lifting Up What Works.° Prevention Institute Putting prevention and equitable health outcomes at the center of community well- being. This report was commissioned by the Convergence Partnership which includes the following institutions: The California Endowment Kaiser Permanente The Kresge Foundation Nemours Robert Wood Johnson Foundation W.K. Kellogg Foundation Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as technical advisers Design by Chen Design Associates Leslie Yang for PolicyLink 0 4WI., .., - the transportati,on tion prescnp BOLD NEW IDEAS FOR HEALTHY, EQUITABLE TRANSPORTATION REFORM IN AMERICA BY Judith Bell President PolicyLink Larry Cohen Founder and Executive Director Prevention Institute EDITED BY Shireen Malekafzali Senior Associate PolicyLink Lifting Up What Works- Prevention PolicyLink I Putting prevention institute CONVERGENCE of the center of community well -being PARTNERSHIP A NOTE ABOUT THIS REPORT The Transportation Prescription: Bold New Ideas for Healthy, Equitable Transportation Reform in America builds on the research and analysis of a number of experts who are working at the intersection of transportation, equity, and public health. The ideas that collectively form the heart of this paper are explored in depth in the book, Healthy, Equitable Transportation Policy: Recommendations and Research. Chapters are written or co- written by the authors listed below. Each chapter and the entire book can be found online at www. convergencepartnership .org /HealthyEquitableTransport. Larry Cohen, co- author, "Traffic Injury Prevention: A 2151- Century Approach," founder and executive director, Prevention Institute, Oakland Susan Handy, "Walking, Bicycling, and Health," professor of Environmental Science and Policy and director of the Sustainable Transportation Center, University of California, Davis Todd Litman, "Public Transportation and Health," founder and executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, British Columbia Leslie Mikkelsen, co- author, "Traffic Injury Prevention: A 21St- Century Approach," managing director, Prevention Institute, Oakland Kami Pothukuchi, co- author, "Sustainable Food Systems: Perspectives on Transportation Policy," associate professor of Urban Planning, Wayne State University, Detroit Catherine L. Ross, "Roadways and Health: Making the Case for Collaboration," director, Georgia Tech Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development and the Harry West Chair for Quality Growth and Regional Development, Atlanta Janani Srikantharajah, co- author, "Traffic Injury Prevention: A 215i- Century Approach," program coordinator, Prevention Institute, Oakland Todd Swanstrom, "Breaking Down Silos: Transportation, Economic Development, and Health," E. Desmond Lee Professor of Community Collaboration and Public Policy Administration at the University of Missouri, St. Louis Richard Wallace, co- author, "Sustainable Food Systems: Perspectives on Transportation Policy," senior project manager, Center for Automotive Research, Ann Arbor We owe a sincere debt of gratitude to these progressive individuals who recognize the value of working across fields to identify effective and long -term solutions to multiple problems. Contents 5 Foreword Congressman James Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 6 Preface Angela Glover Blackwell, Founder and CEO, PolicyLink 9 Introduction 10 Transportation in America: A New Vision 13 How Transportation Policies and Plans Influence Health 13 Direct Health Effects Pollution Climate Change Physical Activity Mental Health Safety 16 Indirect Health Effects Transportation, Income, and Health Older Adults and People with Disabilities 18 What Does Healthy, Equitable Transportation Policy Look Like? 21 The Federal Transportation Legacy and Challenges Ahead 23 A Foundation for 21St- Century Transportation Policy 24 Policy and Program Priorities to Improve Health and Equity 26 Conclusion 27 Author Biographies 28 Acknowledgments 29 Notes N C m c 0 U 0 a O a CL N C R L d a �o Cr W T M d Foreword Congressman James Oberstar Discussions of public health and wellness often are limited to the health and medical fields. It is my hope that soon, the transportation sector will be part of the discussion and play a role in providing solutions to improving the nation's overall health, well- being, and quality of life. One of my goals as Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is to create a new model for surface transportation, one that invests in alternative modes and promotes active, healthy lifestyles. Public health and transportation policy choices are inextricably linked. The transportation sector is responsible for one -third of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Our infrastructure and land use choices often dictate our daily travel, and whether or not we have access to clean, healthy transportation options. And in any given year, approximately 40,000 Americans are killed on our roadways. The policy decisions we make regarding transportation have repercussions on public health throughout our society. For too long now, our transportation decision - making has failed to address the impacts that our infrastructure network has on public health and equity. The asphalt poured and lane miles constructed enhanced our mobility and strengthened our economic growth; but too often, this auto - centric mindset took hold and crowded out opportunities to invest in a truly sustainable intermodal transportation system, in particular a system that meets the needs of underserved communities. The failure to link transportation and land use decision making, and to consider the public health effects of these choices, has led to a tilted playing field that has made driving the easiest —and often the only— option available in many parts of the country. Our transportation policies and investments must do more to provide access for all through various modes. Transit, walking, and bicycling all have a significant role to play in lowering our dependence on foreign oil, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, and helping Americans incorporate exercise and fresh air into their daily travel routines. We must also continue our pursuit to reduce the number —and rate —of traffic fatalities and injuries that occur each year. Our most recent surface transportation legislation, enacted in 2005, took important steps toward building a healthier infrastructure by investing billions of dollars in safety, public transit, walking, and bicycling. This legislation is helping to construct safer infrastructure, enable workforce development, build new transit lines, repair existing systems, and establish non - motorized transportation networks. We also enacted the Safe Routes to School program, which allows states to invest in safety improvements and education campaigns LO get kids walking and biking to school again. This program has shown great early success and has the ability to change the habits of an entire generation. Environmental sustainability, access, and our collective well -being must combine with mobility and safety as the cornerstones of our transportation investments. The following report represents an important contribution to our emerging understanding of the connections between transportation and public health and is an invaluable resource for policymakers and all those interested in building healthy communities. With a greater recognition of the strong linkage between public health and transportation, I believe we can build a network that supports our mobility and creates access and economic strength while promoting equity, sustaining our good health and quality of life. 9�;� S_Z_e�� Congressman James Oberstar Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 0 3 m 0 LL d a Preface Angela Glover Blackwell Transportation policy has enormous potential to catalyze the development of healthy communities of opportunity. The upcoming authorization of the federal surface transportation bill represents the single biggest federal opportunity to influence how our communities, cities, and regions are shaped. Transportation impacts health directly: it affects air quality, injury risk, physical activity levels, and access to necessities such as grocery stores. Transportation is also one of the largest drivers of land use patterns; it thus determines whether communities have sidewalks and areas to play and be physically active as well as whether communities are connected to or isolated from economic and social opportunities. Research shows that low- income communities and communities of color often do not have access to the benefits our transportation system can provide, yet they bear the burdens of that system. For example, many low- income neighborhoods have little or no efficient, reliable public transportation to get them to jobs and essential goods and services. But these communities are often situated near bus depots, highways, and truck routes, where pollution levels are high —and not coincidentally, asthma rates are high as well. In addition, many of these same communities live without safe, complete sidewalks or bike paths, making walking and biking difficult and often dangerous. As a result, these neighborhoods have low levels of physical activity and high rates of chronic diseases. Creating a more equitable transportation system must lie at the core of any analysis of transportation or health, and it must guide all reform. The Convergence Partnership, the collaborative of funders that commissioned this project, embraces the imperative that health and equity be central to transportation policy debates. Further, the Convergence Partnership recognizes how transportation policy is connected to the Partnership's broader efforts to support environmental and policy changes that will create healthy people and healthy places. The Partnership's steering committee includes: The California Endowment, Kaiser Permanente, the Kresge Foundation, Nemours, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention serves as technical advisor. In this project, leading academic researchers and advocates working at the intersection of transportation policy, equity, and public health identify opportunities for creating transportation systems that promote health and equity. This report synthesizes their insights and offers concrete recommendations for change. Reform is long overdue. Climate change, shameful health disparities, growing rates of chronic diseases — transportation policy has contributed to these problems, and now it must address them. Increasing rates of poverty and a severe economic downturn add to the urgency for reform. This report intentionally uses the term authorization and not the more common word, reauthorization, in reference to the surface transportation bill. We want to make clear that new thinking and innovative approaches are necessary to meet the needs of a changing and diverse America. Many advocates are already working hard to push for fundamental reform. This report was written for community leaders, policymakers, funders, practitioners, and advocates interested in an overarching strategy to promote active living and to build healthy communities of opportunity. PolicyLink, Prevention Institute, and the Convergence Partnership believe that building healthy communities requires a collaboration of stakeholders from diverse fields and sectors. Together, we can identify and support shared solutions. The project recognizes that effective strategies to improve health, particularly in vulnerable communities, often fall outside the conventional domain of health policy, yet deserve equal attention. Federal transportation policy is a critical opportunity at our fingertips. Leveraging the strength of collaboration and networking can yield powerful results. Let's seize the moment. (�2agella Glover Blackwell Founder and CEO PolicyLink d a Introduction In St. Louis, MO, major cuts in bus service this spring left workers, students, people with disabilities, and older residents stranded and feeling bereft. Stuart and Dianne Falk, who are both in wheelchairs, told CNN they no longer would be able to get to the gym or the downtown theater company where they volunteer. "To be saddled, to be imprisoned, that is what it is going to feeling like," Stuart Falk said? In West Oakland, CA, families have no escape from the diesel exhaust belching from trucks at the nearby port: The air inside some homes is five times more toxic than in other parts of the city. "I'm constantly doing this dance about cleaning diesel soot from my blinds and window sills," 57- year -old Margaret Gordon told the San Francisco Chronicle.' In Seattle, WA, Maggieh Rathbun, a 55- year -old diabetic who has no car, takes an hour -long bus ride to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. She cannot haul more than a few small bags at a time so she shops frequently —if she feels well enough. "It depends on what kind of day I'm having with my diabetes to decide whether I'm going to make do with a bowl of cereal or try to go get something better," she told the Seattle Post- intelligencer.3 Our transportation system has an enormous impact on our way of life, on the air we breathe, and on the vitality of our communities. Transportation choices influence personal decisions about where to live, shop, attend school, work, and enjoy leisure. They affect stress levels, family budgets, and the time we spend with our children. Although most people don't think of it as a determinant of health, our transportation system has far - reaching implications for our risk of disease and injury. Transportation policies and accompanying land use patterns contribute to the glaring health disparities between the affluent and the poor and between white people and people of color. This report demonstrates that transportation policy is, in effect, health policy —and environmental policy, food policy, employment policy, and metropolitan development policy, each of which bears on health independently and in concert with the others. Longstanding transportation and land use policies are at odds with serious health, environmental, and economic needs of the country, and they have harmed low- income communities and communities of color especially. Forward - thinking transportation policies must promote healthy, green, safe, accessible, and affordable ways of getting where we need to go. They also must go hand in hand with equitable, sustainable land use planning and community economic development. Streets and roads are the largest chunks of property owned by most cities and states. We have choices to make about how to use, and share, that real estate. Who decides? Who benefits? Who pays? Transportation policy at all levels of government can be a vehicle to promote public health, sustainability, equitable opportunity, and the economic strength of neighborhoods, cities, and regions. But that will happen only if advocates, experts, and organizers steeped in all these issues bring their knowledge and passion to critical transportation decisions. The upcoming authorization of the most important transportation legislation in the United States, the federal surface transportation bill, makes this a pivotal moment to bring a broad vision for health and equity to transportation policy. 0 U 7 0 Transportation in America: A New Vision Underlying this report is a vision of transportation as more than a means to move people and goods, but also as a way to build healthy, opportunity -rich communities. Health is often viewed from an individual perspective. Yet, each resident in a region is both an individual and part of a larger community. Therefore, our vision for healthy, equitable communities is one that extends beyond individual outcomes and creates conditions that allow all to reach their full potential. It does not force us to balance one individual against another. It provides the opportunity for everyone to participate in their community, be healthy, and prosper. Transportation systems are essential to the competitiveness of the nation and the viability of regions. Building America's Future, a bipartisan coalition of elected officials, views increased transportation investment as a key to the economic growth and job creation needed to strengthen cities and rural communities .4 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in early 2009, emphasizes transportation investments to revive the ailing economy and rebuild regions.' The act galvanized advocates to push government agencies to spend the money in ways that promote health, protect the environment, and benefit everyone. Now momentum is building to bring a focus on health and equity to the next version of the federal surface transportation bill .6 Over the past half- century, federal transportation policy has changed the American landscape, physically, socially, and culturally. Beginning with the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1956 authorizing the Interstate Highway System, the leading transportation priority by far has been what planners call mobility and which became synonymous with the movement of more and more cars and goods farther and faster. Mobility advanced the nation's growth and prosperity, and it formed our sense of identity as well as our image abroad. The car was more than a machine to get us around; it stood as a symbol of American freedom, ingenuity, and manufacturing prowess. While some have few or no transportation choices due to limited transportation infrastructure and resources in their communities, many Americans do have the opportunity to make choices about how to travel and where to go. For these people, the car provided the means to flee the city, buy a quarter -acre patch of suburbia, and drive to their hearts' content without giving much thought to the disinvested neighborhoods left behind, or the farmland lost to development, or the fossil fuels and other natural resources their lifestyles consumed. Community environments, however, affect the choices individuals make, and public policy molds those environments. As the nation confronts severe economic, environmental, and health challenges as well as the widening gulf between rich and poor, it is becoming clear that we must make different choices as individuals and as a society. A new framework for transportation policy and planning is emerging. Rather than focus almost exclusively on mobility (and its corollaries, speed and distance), this framework also emphasizes transportation accessibility. In other words, instead of designing transportation systems primarily to move cars and goods, the new approach calls for systems designed to serve people —all people — efficiently, affordably, and safely. This approach prioritizes investments in: (1) public transportation, walking, and bicycling— transportation modes that can promote health, opportunity, environmental quality, and indeed mobility for people who do not have access to cars; and (2) communities with the greatest need for affordable, safe, reliable transportation linkages to jobs, and essential goods and services — chiefly, low - income communities and communities of color. The goal is to improve transportation for everyone while delivering other important payoffs, including better respiratory and cardiovascular health; improved physical fitness; less emotional stress; cleaner air; quieter streets; fewer traffic injuries and deaths; and greater access to jobs, nutritious foods, pharmacies, clinics, and other essentials for healthy, productive living. This new vision is at the core of a burgeoning movement to shape transportation policy to support work in a number of critical areas, such as climate change, sustainable agriculture, the prevention of chronic diseases, workforce development, and neighborhood revitalization. Advocates and experts in public health, environmental justice, labor, community economic development, food policy, and other fields and disciplines have important roles to play in transportation debates. A broad range of interests, working in partnership, can craft innovative, environmentally sound solutions that benefit everyone, rather than plans that reflect the motor vehicle orientation of road engineers and builders. Government transportation agencies and developers —the architects of our transportation systems for decades —must be held accountable for how their investments affect the economic prospects of regions, the health of communities, and the well -being of residents. This shift in thinking about what transportation policy must achieve and who should drive it stems from a long list of factors. Among them: near - crippling congestion in many metropolitan areas; renewed interest in city living and a hunger for shorter commutes; demographic changes (including the increasing number of people over 65 and immigrants, two groups less likely to drive or own cars); the rise in obesity; the enduring poverty in inner -city and rural communities; the growing understanding of the connections among health, the built environment, and transportation plans; and the increasing frustration among residents and advocates about the limited accountability and inequitable transportation decision - making processes at the state and regional levels which over represent suburban and white male interests. But the push to reform transportation (along with its cousin, land use planning) has gained urgency in the face of three massive challenges that are upending the status quo of every field and that go to the heart of our love affair with the car: (1) climate change, with its threat of global ecological upheaval; (2) U.S. dependence on foreign oil, which carries grave risks for our economy and security; (3) a healthcare system crumbling under the demands of skyrocketing rates of diabetes and other chronic diseases associated with sedentary lifestyles, and astronomical costs. Transporting goods, services, and people accounts for about one -third of greenhouse gas emissions and two - thirds of petroleum consumption in the United States .7 As the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission noted in its landmark report, Transportation for Tomorrow, the environmental gains we achieve through incremental fixes such as higher fuel- efficiency standards, though important, will be trumped by increases in driving and traffic if we continue on our current policy course. The good news is that change can happen, and inspiring examples abound. In the rural San Joaquin Valley in California, where public transportation has been virtually nonexistent, a new system of publicly managed vanpools is connecting farm worker families to jobs, schools, and medical services.$ In Chicago's West Garfield Park, an alliance of residents, activists, and faith -based organizations not only successfully fought the closure of the rail line that linked the neighborhood to downtown; they also transformed a transit stop into an anchor development of shops, community services, and moderately priced housing.9 In port cities around the country, many groups are working to reduce pollution from ships, locomotives, and trucks, some of the worst emitters of soot and greenhouse gases. In the Los Angeles region —one of a number of regions where the movement of goods represents a significant part of transportation investment and economic activity, and where ports and freeways abut low- income neighborhoods —the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports has formed an effective alliance of residents, truck drivers, public health experts, environmentalists, environmental justice activists, unions, immigrant groups, and public officials to push for clean air solutions.10 The authorization of the next federal surface transportation bill presents an immense opportunity to broaden such engagement and to forge an equitable policy response to the unprecedented challenges facing the country. The bill authorizes federal funding for highways, highway safety, public transportation, and bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure for approximately six years.11 It transfers hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal government to states and localities. It also triggers hundreds of billions more in matching state and local spending. The bill marks the largest transportation expenditure in the United States. But the legislation does more than provide money. It also communicates national policy priorities. Will we build roads on the farthest edges of regions or fix aging roads and bridges in cities and inner -ring suburbs? Will we invest in healthy, green transportation — bicycle lanes, safe sidewalks for walking, clean buses, ridesharing, light rails? Will we ensure that all voices are equitably represented in transportation decision - making processes? And will we include incentives and requirements for affordable housing near public transportation to ensure broad access to the job opportunities and services that transit oriented development stimulates? Or will we spend most of the money as we have for decades: on new and bigger highways with little public accountability? The bill establishes funding categories and requirements and in some cases gives communities and metropolitan regions flexibility to shape strategies to local needs. The new law is a chance to design communities for health, sustainability, and opportunity —and to give all Americans physically active, clean, affordable, convenient, reliable, and safe options to get where they need to go. How Transportation Policies and Plans Influence Health Our current transportation system has many direct health consequences: Pollution - related asthma, steep declines in physical activity, and the associated rise in obesity and chronic illnesses are just a few examples. Transportation affects health indirectly by connecting people — or by failing to provide connections —to jobs, medical care, healthy food outlets, and other necessities. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission — created by Congress in 2005 to examine the condition and future needs of our network of highways, ports, freight and passenger railroads, and public transportation systems— reached a sobering conclusion: "The nation's surface transportation network regrettably exacts a terrible toll in lost lives and damaged health .1112 Nowhere is the toll higher than among low - income people and people of color. There is a deep and evolving knowledge base about the links between transportation and health. Research shows that when properly designed, transportation systems can provide exercise opportunities, improve safety, lower emotional stress, link poor people to opportunity, connect isolated older adults and people with disabilities to crucial services and social supports, and stimulate economic development. Conventional mobility - focused planning by local, regional, and state transportation agencies generally overlooks or undervalues the impacts of transportation investments on health and equity. Direct Health Effects Pollution Pollutants from cars, buses, and trucks are associated with impaired lung development and function in infants73 and children '14 and with lung cancer,15 heart disease, respiratory illness,16 and premature death.17 Long -term exposure to pollution from traffic may be as significant a threat for premature death as traffic crashes and obesity.18 In California alone, pollution is a factor in an estimated 8,800 premature deaths a year.19 The main culprits are fine particulate matter, including: diesel exhaust particles, ground -level ozone, a toxic component of smog formed when tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks react with sunlight and oxygen, and nitrogen oxide (NOx), which contributes to the formation of ozone and smog. The health risks are exacerbated by transportation patterns that often embed heavy traffic and diesel- spewing facilities in poor and predominantly minority neighborhoods. The American Lung Association has found that 61.3 percent of African American children, 67.7 percent of Asian American children, and 69.2 percent of Latino children live in areas that exceed air quality standards for ozone, compared with 50.8 percent of white children .20 Ground -level ozone, a gas, can chemically burn the lining of the respiratory tract. Air pollution is also "one of the most underappreciated" triggers of asthma attacks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).21 More than 20 million Americans — roughly seven percent of adults and nearly nine percent of all children —have asthma. In poor and minority communities, the rates are considerably higher. For example, in Harlem and Washington Heights in northern Manhattan, home to mostly low- income African American and Latino residents, one in four children suffers from the disease.22 Research shows that air pollution can trigger the wheezing, coughing, and gasping for breath that signal an attack in people with asthma. But a study in 10 Southern California cities raises the troubling possibility that pollution can also lead to the onset of the disease. The study found that the closer children live to a freeway, the more likely they are to develop asthma." Environmental justice activists have called attention for years to the connections among pollution, illness, and transportation policy — and the burden on communities of color. For instance, in the mid- 1990s, West Harlem Environmental Action (WE ACT) used mapping, air monitoring, and resident surveys to show that the neighborhood's asthma rates were linked to its dubious status as the diesel capital of New York City. When WE ACT began work on the issue, Harlem housed six of the city's eight bus depots and 650 Port Authority buses. The group played an important role in getting the city to convert buses to clean fuel .14 Pollution from freight transport is another big concern around the country. To meet America's insatiable demand for goods, ports and highways are continually expanding to accommodate more ships, locomotives, and trucks. Ports frequently border low- income and minority neighborhoods, and highways often run through them. The upshot: Some of the worst emitters of fine particles, soot, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) are a growing presence in already vulnerable communities. Climate Change GHGs are not pollutants in the classical sense. They cause the atmospheric changes and resulting climate disruptions that are projected to alter the natural and built environments on which society relies .21 The health risks come largely from those environmental alterations. In a major shift in federal policy, the Environmental Protection Agency in April 2009 adopted the position that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health and welfare. A few weeks later, the Climate Change and Health Protection and Promotion Act, H.R. 2323, was introduced in the House of Representatives .26 The bill would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a national strategic action plan to prepare for and respond to the health effects of climate change. Researchers are just beginning to assess the specific health dangers in the United States; to date, most of the published data come from abroad. So far, however, there are more questions than answers. How will less rainfall affect the potential for waterborne diseases? Food supplies? Food prices? How will extreme weather conditions such as heat waves or hurricanes affect mental health? Physical activity? Population displacement? Scientists believe that climate change could exacerbate a number of current health problems, including heat - related deaths, diarrheal diseases, allergies, and asthma .28 Those already at highest risk —the poor, minorities, children, and older adults —will be even more vulnerable. Policy neglect would compound the problems. Hurricane Katrina revealed, to a horrified public, the disastrous results that can occur when nature (the sort of extreme storm that experts expect to occur more frequently as the earth's temperature changes) combines with government disregard (in this case, the poorly maintained levees that failed to protect New Orleans from catastrophic flooding) as well as resource inequities (the lack of transportation, which made evacuation impossible for thousands of people). The urgent need to reduce GHGs has catapulted transportation policy into the limelight. The United States has only about five percent of the world's population but contributes nearly 25 percent of GHGs, mainly because of fossil fuel consumption, motor vehicle emissions, and industrial agricultural practices (which themselves are promoted by our transportation system). Improving vehicle technology, while important, is not enough. Americans need to drive less. That will happen only if walking, bicycling, and public transportation become feasible, efficient alternatives to driving in many more communities, and if land use patterns are changed so people no longer have to jump in the car for every trip. Physical Activity Sixty percent of adults in the United States do not meet recommended levels of physical activity, and 25 percent are completely sedentary.29 African Americans and Latinos are less likely than whites to get enough daily physical activity.30 The links between physical activity and health are well established. Sedentary lifestyles are estimated to contribute to as many as 255,000 deaths each year.31 Many children and teens are already at risk for heart disease and type 2 diabetes, once considered "adult" ailments. Today's youth may turn out to be the first generation in modern history to live shorter lives than their parents .31 Physical inactivity is an important factor in the rising rates of obesity and chronic disease —and transportation practices strongly influence physical activity habits. The more time a person spends in a car, the more likely he or she is to be overweight. Conversely, higher rates of walking and bicycling are associated with lower rates of obesity. A 2004 study found that every additional hour spent in a car is associated with a six percent increase in the likelihood of obesity, and every additional kilometer walked is associated with a 4.8 percent reduction." There are many ways to be physically active, but quite a few require time, skill, and money. Walking and bicycling not only for recreation but also for transportation are the most practical ways to improve fitness. They are often the only viable option for low- income residents who live in neighborhoods without parks, who cannot afford gym memberships, and who do not have the luxury of leisure time. People who use public transportation tend to walk to and from bus stops and train stations, increasing their likelihood of meeting physical activity recommendations .14 Residents of compact neighborhoods walk, bike, and use public transportation more than residents of spread -out communities, and they have lower rates of obesity. Mental Health Rush -hour gridlock, long waits for the bus, and arduous commutes are stressful. They take time away from family, friends, and the activities that provide emotional sustenance: hobbies, religion, sports, clubs, civic engagement, and volunteer commitments. Every 10 minutes spent commuting is associated with a 10 percent drop in the time spent traveling for social purposes." Many people find commuting by high - quality public transportation to be less stressful than commuting by car. As we discuss below, the financial costs associated with long commutes exacerbate the stress, particularly in low - income households. Safety Traffic crashes are a leading cause of death and injury for Americans in the prime of life.36 In 2000, motor vehicle crashes cost $230.6 billion in medical costs, property damages, lost worker productivity, travel delays, and other expenses .37 That figure equals about half of all spending on public education from kindergarten through 12th grade. Native Americans die in traffic crashes at more than 1.5 times the rate of other racial groups.38 African Americans drive less than whites but die at higher rates in car crashes. Walking, too, is also more dangerous in communities of color. CDC data in the mid -1990s revealed that the pedestrian death rate for Latino males in the Atlanta metropolitan area was six times greater than for whites.39 African Americans make up 12 percent of the U.S. population but account for 20 percent of pedestrian deaths.40 Inequitable transportation policies and resources contribute to these disparities. Low - income people and people of color have fewer resources to buy products that improve safety, such as late -model cars and new child safety seats. In underinvested neighborhoods, poorly designed streets, neglected road maintenance, inadequate lighting, limited sidewalks, and minimal traffic enforcement place residents at higher risk of injury. Safety is also a huge concern for older adults —the fastest - growing segment of the population —and for rural residents. Driving skills decline with age, and frailty makes older adults especially vulnerable in a collision .41 They are more likely to be killed or injured in a crash of a given severity than any other age group." Older adults also walk slower and are more susceptible to pedestrian injuries. Although less than a quarter of all driving in the United States takes place in rural settings,43 more than half of all motor vehicle crashes occur there .44 The more we drive, the more likely we are to get hurt or die in a crash; there is a strong positive relationship between per capita vehicle miles traveled and traffic casualty rates .41 Communities with high annual mileage tend to have higher traffic death rates than communities where people drive less. Passengers on buses, light rail, and commuter rail have about one - tenth the traffic death rate as people in cars. Investments in public transportation and walking and bicycling infrastructure can reduce injuries and deaths. Contrary to popular belief that more walkers and cyclists lead to more casualties, greater numbers of walkers and bicyclists actually decrease the risks .41 Indirect Health Effects Transportation is a lifeline. We depend on it to get to work, school, the doctor's office, the bank, the supermarket, the gym, or a friend's house. People without reliable, efficient, affordable ways to get around are cut off from jobs, social connections, and essential services. Access to transportation, to economic and social opportunity, and to resources for healthy living are inextricably linked. Gaps in all three areas feed on one another in complex ways. Policy reforms that put health equity objectives at the center of transportation planning and funding decisions can reduce these inequities. Transportation, Income, and Health As housing and jobs have moved farther apart, the distance has created employment barriers for anyone without unlimited ability to drive. Nineteen percent of African Americans and 13.7 percent of Latinos lack access to automobiles, compared with 4.6 percent of whites. Poverty complicates the problem: 33 percent of poor African Americans and 25 percent of poor Latinos lack automobile access, compared with 12.1 percent of poor whites .41 Cars owned by low- income people tend to be older, less reliable, and less fuel- efficient. This makes commuting to work unpredictable and more expensive, at best. Income is an important determinant of health .411 The association between poverty and poor health is well documented. Jobs with good wages, including those in the transportation sector, are essential to sustaining health. Transportation impacts not only family earnings but also expenses. The cost of getting around takes a significant bite out of household budgets. The general standard holds that a family should spend no more than 20 percent of income on transportation, or the costs will eat into other necessities, such as nutritious foods, and medical care .49 The average family in the United States spends about 18 percent of after -tax income on transportation, but this varies significantly by income and geography. For example, low -wage households (earning $20,000 to $35,000) living far from employment centers spend 37 percent of their incomes on transportation. 10 In neighborhoods well served by public transportation, families spend an average of nine percent." Older Americans and People with Disabilities More than one in five Americans ages 65 and older do not drive because of poor health or eyesight, limited physical or mental abilities, concerns about safety, or because they have no car. More than half of nondrivers, or 3.6 million Americans, stay home on any given day —and more than half of that group, or 1.9 million, have disabilities .52 Isolation is especially acute in rural communities, sprawling suburbs, and black and Latino communities. Compared with older drivers, older nondrivers take 15 percent fewer trips to the doctor; 59 percent fewer trips to shops and restaurants; and 65 percent fewer trips for family, social, and religious activities." When affordable, high - quality public transportation and safe, walkable streets are available, older adults take advantage of them. More than half of older adults make walking a regular activity. More than half of older nondrivers in dense communities use public transportation at least occasionally, compared with one in 20 in spread -out communities .14 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 significantly expanded transportation options for people with disabilities. ADA required public bus and rail operators to provide accommodations, such as lifts and ramps, to enable people in wheelchairs to ride. But street design in most communities makes traveling to and from bus stops challenging —and often unsafe —for people with disabilities. Paratransit systems, which use vans or shared taxis to transport people door -to -door, are helpful, but many systems are stretched thin and require appointments well in advance. What Does Healthy, Equitable Transportation Policy Look Like? Healthy, equitable, transportation policy supports the development of accessible, efficient, affordable, and safe alternatives to car travel, and especially to driving solo. These alternatives enable everyone to walk more, travel by bicycle, and use public transportation more —in other words, to get around in ways that improve health, expand access to opportunity, and reduce toxic pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Healthy, equitable transportation policy is forged and implemented in concert with sustainable land use planning. Together, they encourage and support high- density, mixed - use, mixed - income metropolitan development and affordable housing with good access to transportation options. Together, they focus, particularly, on underserved and economically isolated communities. Healthy, equitable transportation policy recognizes that income is important to health, and it encourages hiring low- income residents of color for well - paying jobs in transportation construction, maintenance, and service. Healthy, equitable transportation policy understands the importance of ensuring equal representation. All community members, regardless of race, gender, or geographical location should be equitably represented and involved in making decisions which impact their communities, their infrastructure, and their options for travel. Because access to healthy foods is integral to good health and because transportation systems are integral to food production and distribution, healthy, equitable transportation policy specifically addresses food access issues, including transportation to grocery stores and food transport practices. This report draws on the book, Healthy, Equitable Transportation Policies: Recommendations and Research commissioned by the Convergence Partnership, a collaborative of funders. The book describes innovative transportation and land use policies, strategies, and programs built on a foundation of equity and sustainability. It includes six key chapters authored by academics and advocates working at the intersection of transportation, health, and equity. The book is available online at www.convergencepartnership.org / HealthyEquitableTransport. Three chapters in the book address transportation options: Todd Litman, M.E.S., founder and executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute in British Columbia, identifies numerous economic, social, and environmental benefits that can result from public transportation improvements. Among them: reduced traffic crashes, improved physical fitness and health, energy conservation, reduced pollution emissions, increased community livability, increased affordability, consumer savings, economic development, and expanded opportunity. Litman contends that improving public transportation is one of the most cost - effective ways to improve public health, and better health is one of the most significant potential benefits of public transportation improvements. Litman identifies policy and planning reforms to create a more diverse and efficient transportation system. Litman recommends developing a strategic vision of high - quality public transportation services, with supportive land use policies to provide basic mobility to people who are socially isolated, economically disadvantaged, or physically disabled, as well as to attract "discretionary" travelers, or people who would otherwise drive for a particular trip. Susan Handy, Ph.D., director of the Sustainable Development Center at the University of California at Davis, argues that increasing walking and bicycling while assuring safety, particularly for low- income families, children, and older adults, is an important goal for federal transportation policy. Walking and bicycling, or "active travel," are low -cost, physically active, and environmentally clean alternatives to driving, yet they represent fewer than 10 percent of all trips in the United States. In addition to expanding specialized programs for active travel, the federal government should assist, enable, encourage, and, in some instances, require state, regional, and local governments to address pedestrian and bicycling needs. Catherine L. Ross, Ph.D., the Harry West Chair and director of the Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development at Georgia Institute of Technology, argues that roadways are more than transport routes; they are also our primary spaces for civic, social, and commercial enterprise. Roadways— highways in particular— receive the largest share of federal transportation dollars by far. Federal policy has historically emphasized highways designed to move large numbers of cars and freight vehicles at high speeds. Ross argues for greater investments in roadways that integrate physical activity, enrich social interaction, increase safety, and provide transportation linkages in underserved communities. She urges policymakers and others to consider expanded assessments of the effects of roadways on health, through the use of methodologies similar to health impact assessment (HIA) .55 Three additional chapters offer transportation policy perspectives in key areas that have a significant impact on public health and equity Todd Swanstrom, Ph.D., the E. Desmond Lee Professor of community collaboration and public policy administration at the University of Missouri – St. Louis, makes the case that federal transportation policy can and should address economic development, particularly in communities left behind by decades of transportation planning that favored car travel and encouraged sprawl. Targeted transportation investment can promote economic opportunity and reduce health disparities by (1) improving transportation linkages between housing and employment hubs and between residential neighborhoods and clinics, pharmacies, and grocery stores; (2) encouraging affordable, high- density, mixed -use transit oriented development; 56 and (3) creating workforce strategies to ensure that jobs in the large, growing transportation sector are open to all, including minority and women workers and contractors. Swanstrom also asserts that while the goals of equity and environmental sustainability are not mutually exclusive, policymakers and advocates must address the short -term needs of low- income families who live in places where driving is essential. Kami Pothukuchi, Ph.D., associate professor of urban planning at Wayne State University, and Richard Wallace, M.S., senior project manager at the Center for Automotive Research, argue that federal transportation policy should seek to increase access to healthy foods. Today's transportation networks make large quantities of foods from around the nation and the globe readily available for many Americans, but industrialized agriculture and the concentrated structure of food retail have negative health and environmental consequences for low- income communities, especially people of color, inner -city and rural residents, and immigrant farm workers. For example, urban and rural communities often have fewer and smaller supermarkets than suburban communities (if they have any at all) as well as more limited selections of healthy foods. As a result, residents eat fewer fruits and vegetables and have higher rates of diet - related illnesses. In addition, long - distance food hauling has a disproportionate impact on the air quality and noise levels in poor and minority communities along freight routes. Although food access falls outside the traditional realm of transportation policy, improved public transportation, transit oriented development, and cleaner methods to move freight can increase access to healthy foods in underserved communities, reduce air and noise pollution, and foster local, sustainable agri -food systems. Larry Cohen, M.S.W., Leslie Mikkelsen, R.D., M.P.H., and Janani Srikantharajah, B.A., of Prevention Institute argue that traffic crashes are preventable and that federal transportation policy must make safety for all travelers a priority. Traffic crashes rank as the leading cause of death for people ages one to 34 and contribute to unnecessary human, social, and economic costs. Resources should be directed to communities with the least infrastructure to support safe walking, bicycling, and public transportation use and continue to support effective vehicle safety and occupant protection strategies. Traffic safety is an important strategy not only to reduce injuries and death but also to encourage physical activity, improve air quality, and increase transportation accessibility. The Federal Transportation Legacy and Challenges Ahead Transportation in America is a federal system, not a centralized, national system. Federal policy plays a critical role, not by dictating practices but by enabling and encouraging innovation by states, regional transportation organizations, transit operators, and other agencies. This happens in several ways. First, the federal government sends billions of dollars for transportation to states and localities For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides nearly $50 billion to build and repair roads, bridges, railways, and ports. The current surface transportation bill, SAFETEA -LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), set to expire in September 2009, guaranteed $244.1 billion over six years. These dollars, in turn, leverage direct infrastructure investments by state governments, local governments, and private investors. Second, the policies and requirements embedded in federal transportation programs influence state and local land use decisions and transportation priorities. Many observers contend that transportation stands as one of the biggest policy successes in United States history. The Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1956 and its progeny promoted mobility, which contributed mightily to American growth and prosperity. However, many advocates take a more nuanced view of the federal legacy. They point to the health, equity, and environmental consequences of an ethic that held the faster, the farther, the better, as well as the consequences of policies focused almost wholly on car and truck travel, with little accountability to goals beyond mobility. Either way, the current transport system is no longer sustainable or fixable by incremental changes such as pilot projects, encouragements, and small incentives. As the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, created by SAFETEA -LU, wrote in its final report to Congress: "The strong and dynamic American surface transportation system is becoming a thing of the past." At 300 million people, the nation's population has doubled since the creation of the Interstate Highway System. We will number 420 million by 2050. "Congestion was once just a nuisance. Today gridlock is a way of life," the commission's report said. Growing transportation demand threatens to dwarf regulatory and legislative efforts to mitigate its health and environmental consequences. Increases in total vehicular mileage have all but wiped out the gains achieved through hard -won regulations on fuel efficiency and emissions control. Expansion of freeways cannot get us out of these problems; it will only make them worse. The more we have expanded highways, the more traffic we have created. The United States needs multi -modal systems with public transportation that efficiently serves a large segment of the population, using existing streets and highways. The Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the 1991 version of the federal surface transportation bill, was supposed to lead us there. The act incorporated significant policy change. Since then, the stated goal of federal transportation policy has been to expand access and improve efficiency through an interconnected multi -modal system that supports highways, public transportation, walking, and biking. This goal has yet to be achieved. Funding mechanisms and formulas have continued to favor highway construction and car travel. For example, the allocation formula for the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the largest program within the federal bill, rewards states that consume more gas, have more miles of highway, and have residents who drive a lot." Alternatives to driving remain underinvested. Approximately 80 percent of the surface transportation bill is allocated for distribution through the Federal Highway Administration for mostly highway programs, while less than 20 percent goes to the Federal Transit Agency for public transportation. Other modes of travel constitute a minute amount of spending in comparison to highways and public transportation. Case in point: Walking is the only travel mode that has not had significant declines in casualties in 40 years. Yet only a tiny share of transportation funding goes to infrastructure initiatives that would make walking and biking safer. Walking and bicycling accounted for 8.6 percent of all trips in 2001 but 12 percent of traffic deaths .18 Another case in point: Operating costs for public transportation systems present a huge challenge for many communities. Yet federal transportation investment is focused on capital projects. For example, cities with 200,000 people or more may not use grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation's main public transportation programs for transit operating costs.59 In the face of budget shortfalls, local and regional transportation agencies throughout the country have cut service, hiked fares, and deferred maintenance — arguably at a time when people need affordable, reliable links to jobs more than ever. While federal policy plays a significant role in shaping transportation systems, states and metropolitan regions are also critical agents of change. The new surface transportation bill offers an opportunity to increase support, encouragement, and pressure for integrating land use and transportation planning to promote balanced regional growth, equitable economic opportunity, and healthy communities for all. A Foundation for 21st- Century Transportation Policy Healthy, equitable transportation policy is grounded in four principles. These may also serve as benchmarks to assess the impacts of transportation plans on public health, equity, and environmental quality: 1. Develop transportation policies and plans that support health, equity, and environmental quality. Federal, state, and local transportation policies should be aligned with the top health and environmental goals of federal departments and agencies. For example, transportation policies should be aligned with the Department of Health and Human Services' strategic goals to promote health equity and foster the economic and social well -being of individuals, families, and communities. Transportation policies should also support the CDC's commitment to eliminate health disparities and to promote its "healthy people in healthy places" goals. Prioritize transportation investments in distressed regions, low- income neighborhoods, and communities of color. Federal, state, and local transportation agencies should emphasize projects that will revitalize the economy of struggling communities, lower health disparities, and will connect vulnerable populations to jobs, business opportunities, healthy food outlets, medical services, and other necessities. Government agencies must ensure that these projects are financially sustainable by providing adequate funding for maintenance and operations. The jobs associated with transportation construction, maintenance, and service should be available to low- income people and communities of color. 3. Emphasize accessibility, instead of simply mobility, in transportation policies and programs at all levels of government as well as across sectors and policy silos. Transportation systems should give communities wider access to all the things that are necessary for a good life, not to move people faster and farther. The definition of access must also include affordability. If transportation is physically accessible, yet unaffordable, it is not truly accessible. Accessibility- oriented transportation policies can catalyze and support balanced regional growth, walkable communities, the renewal of long- neglected neighborhoods, and street design that makes walking and bicycling safe, popular transportation options. 4. Ensure transparency, accountability, and meaningful participation by residents, advocates with diverse interests, and experts from different fields. State and regional transportation officials and private developers must engage new partners in decision - making and provide the data, training, and resources to allow full, informed participation by the people affected most by decisions and investments. Voices and expertise from local communities, public health, environmental justice, community development, and other arenas can help ensure that transportation plans respond to local needs and deliver health, environmental, and economic benefits broadly. Policy and Program Priorities to Improve Health and Equity Government at all levels must consider the health and equity impacts of transportation investments at the beginning of decision - making processes. Public and private transportation investments must be designed to promote health rather than to erode it. The following recommendations can help policymakers and planners achieve these ends: 1. Prioritize investments in public transportation, including regional systems that connect housing and jobs as well as local services that improve access to healthy foods, medical care, and other basic services. Investments should include capital costs as well as costs for maintenance and operations. Because older diesel buses have high emission rates and since bus depots and other facilities are often concentrated in low- income and minority neighborhoods, policies must be in place to ensure that expanded public transportation does not lead to increased exposure to pollutants in these same communities. 2. Prioritize investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to make walking and biking safer and more convenient. Strategies include complete streets designed with all users in mind, not just drivers; traffic - calming measures; and safe routes to transit and Safe Routes to Schools programs, which create infrastructure and programming to support safe walking and bicycling to bus stops, rail stations, and schools. Targeted infrastructure investments should also support walking and bicycling in rural communities by, for example, improving road shoulders and building trails to town centers. 3. Encourage equitable transit oriented development by creating incentives for integrated land use and transportation planning. Transit oriented development must emphasize affordability and accessibility. It also must incorporate affordable housing and commercial properties that provide jobs, services, and essential goods near people's homes. Because people of all income levels desire walkable neighborhoods and shorter commutes, displacement of longtime neighborhood residents can be an unintended consequence of transit oriented development. Policymakers must ensure that the local residents guide planning and development and that equity is a goal from day one. 4. Create incentives and accountability measures to ensure that transportation plans account for their impacts on health, safety, and equity. New projects must be held accountable for better results. Government investment should support the creation of tools that more sensitively and accurately measure walking and bicycling practices and improved outcomes. Health impact assessment is an emerging methodology to evaluate the effects of policies, programs, and plans on the health of a population and should be considered an important tool. People should also have the right to sue under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they suffer disparate impacts from federal transportation investments, and the U.S. Department of Transportation should have the power to withhold dollars if investments are not made equitably.60 5. Give state, regional, and local government agencies and organizations more flexibility to move dollars among funding categories and to target spending to meet local needs. Greater flexibility would give communities more leeway to fund walking, bicycling, and public transportation programs. It would also enable communities to invest in fixing, maintaining, and operating local bus and rail systems. Flexibility should be strongly tied to new standards for accountability, transparency, and inclusion which ensure all people impacted by transportation decisions are equitably represented in the decision - making process. 6. Prioritize transportation investments in communities with high unemployment and poverty rates to stimulate economic growth and provide access to jobs. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has language to direct resources to struggling and disinvested communities. The new version of the surface transportation bill should include similar language and expand on this commitment by creating strong accountability and enforcement measures tied to achieving equitable economic benefits. Make sure that jobs and contracts created by federal transportation investments reach low- income people and communities of color. A Sense of Congress amendment to SAFETEAU -LU, passed in 2005, encourages local hiring provisions for highway construction projects. Some projects aim for 30 percent of workforce hours to be filled by employees who live in the community. Local hiring should be made a requirement, not just encouraged. It should also be expanded beyond highway projects to include public and mass transit development. Capital investments should also fund workforce development programs to train local residents for jobs in the transportation sector .61 8. Support the development of cleaner bus and truck fleets and invest in freight rail infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve local air quality, promote health, and foster energy independence. 9. Advance safety for all travelers, with particular emphasis on those at the highest risk of car injuries and death. Investments should continue advancing known vehicle safety and occupant - protection strategies as well as roadway and community design modifications to protect the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, and passengers. 10. Support policies and programs that increase access to healthy foods. Promote public - private van and bus systems to shuttle customers to grocery stores. Expand weekend bus service to connect low- income neighborhoods to supermarkets and other food outlets. Invest in safe and affordable transportation for farm and food production workers. Promote sustainable modes of transporting foods from farms to stores as well as policies to increase the viability of local and regional farming. 11. Give low- income rural communities greater access to public transportation funds from the surface transportation bill providing the opportunity to access employment and education opportunities. Low- density and long travel distances make developing and operating conventional bus and rail systems financially challenging. Federal public transportation dollars should support economically efficient innovations, such as vanpools and voucher programs. C 0 .y 7 U C 0 U Conclusion The authorization of the next federal surface transportation bill can be a starting point for creating many changes Americans say they want: better health, cleaner air, more time with our families, opportunities to connect with our neighbors. The new legislation can also mark an important step toward building a society in which everyone can participate and prosper, and no community is left behind. Change will not come easily. The car culture has deep roots in America. The interest groups supporting highway investment are powerful and well funded. But advocates and grass -roots activists around the country have demonstrated that change can happen. They have successfully fought for cleaner buses and for public transportation in communities that never had it. They have transformed train stations into centers of vibrant community development in disinvested neighborhoods. They have pressured local officials and supermarket operators to provide free bus rides so families can shop for food. Now is the time to tap into that kind of energy and lift successes like these to the level of federal policy. Leaders, experts, and advocates from many spheres — public health, environmental justice, food policy, agriculture, labor, equity, community economic development, business, and government —must join in partnership to push for broad reform. Collectively, we can gain power and build political support for creating transportation systems that address the big challenges we face and that nourish healthy communities throughout our nation. Author Biographies Judith Bell is the President of PolicyLink in Oakland, CA, and oversees policy development, strategic planning, program implementation, and policy campaign strategy; she leads projects focused on equitable development, such as the fair distribution of affordable housing, equity in public investment, and community strategies to improve health. Bell is a frequent speaker, trainer, and consultant on advocacy strategy. Her work at PolicyLink includes access to healthy foods, transportation, and infrastructure investment. In addition, Bell leads PolicyLink work with the Convergence Partnership, a multi - foundation initiative to support equity- focused efforts to advance policy and environmental changes for healthy people and healthy places. For more information: http: / /www.policylink.org/ JudithBell. Larry Cohen is Founder and Executive Director of Prevention Institute, a nonprofit national center that moves beyond approaches that target individuals to create systematic, comprehensive strategies that alter the conditions that impact community health. With an emphasis on health equity, Cohen has led many successful public health efforts at the local, state, and federal levels on injury and violence prevention, mental health, traffic safety, and food- and physical activity - related chronic disease prevention. Prior to founding Prevention Institute in Oakland, CA, Cohen participated in passing the nation's first multi -city smoking ban. He established the Food and Nutrition Policy Consortium, which catalyzed the nation's food labeling law. Cohen also helped shape strategy to secure passage of bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws and to strengthen child and adult passenger restraint laws. For more information: http:// www. preventioninstitute .org /larry.htm1. N N L CL m it 0 m 0 L a' Acknowledgments This publication is a collaborative effort including the insights and assistance of numerous individuals. Our sincerest thanks to the following for their contributions to the development of this report: • Todd Litman, Manuel Pastor, Carli Paine, Jason Corburn, and Larry Frank for their careful reviews of various portions of the report. • Fran Smith, for her skillful writing, editing, and research assistance, as well as her valuable input throughout the development of this report. • Victor Rubin, Janani Srikantharajah, and Leslie Mikkelsen for their insightful review N and input. £ Paulette Jones Robinson, Ariana Zeno, and Erika Bernabei, for their thorough and diligent 3 copyediting, fact - checking, and proofing. 0 aThe members of the Convergence Partnership, for their guidance throughout this project: Linda Jo Doctor, W. K. Kellogg Foundation David Fukuzawa, Kresge Foundation Allison Gertel- Rosenberg and Rich Killingsworth, Nemours Laura Kettel -Khan, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Angie McGowan and Maisha Simmons, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Brian Raymond and Loel Solomon, Kaiser Permanente Marion Standish, The California Endowment Notes ' John King, "Bus Route Closing Devastates Disabled Couple," CNN, March 27, 2009, http: / /www.cnn.com /2009 /POLITICS /03/27/ st.louis.no.bus /. Henry K. Lee, "Diesel Exhaust Poses Health Risks in West Oakland, Study Finds," San Francisco Chronicle, November 16, 2003, http: / /www.sfgate.com /cgi- bin /article. cgi ?file =/c hronicle /archive /2003/11/16/ BAGQE334JL1.DTL. s Jennifer Langston, "No Easy Access to Fresh Groceries in Many Parts of Seattle," SeattlePl. com, May 1, 2008, http: / /www.seattlepi. com/local/361235—foodvoid0l.html. 4 See http: // www .investininfrastructure.org /. President Franklin D. Roosevelt took a similar tack during the Great Depression. Addressing transportation needs accounted for much of the work of the WPA. By 1938, the WPA had paved or repaired 280,000 miles of road and had built 29,000 bridges and 150 airfields, according to Jim Couch, professor of economics and finance at the University of North Alabama and co- author of The Political Economy of the New Deal (Williston, VT: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1998). See the policy platform of the Transportation Equity Network, a national coalition of more than 300 grassroots and partner organizations working to reform transportation and land use policies, http: / /transportationequity.org /index. php? option =com content &task = view &id = 15 &ltemid =32. See also American Public Health Association, At the Intersection of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy Transportation Policy, 2009, http:H www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/43FlO382- FB68-4112-8C75-49DCB1 OF8ECF/O/ Transportation Brief.pdf. National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, Transportation for Tomorrow, December 2007, http:H transportationfortomorrow.org /final— report /. E. Burgess and A. Rood, Reinventing Transit: American Communities Finding Smarter, Cleaner, Faster Transportation Solutions (New York: Environmental Defense Fund, 2009), http: / /www.edf.org /documents /9522- Reinventing—Transit_FINAL.pdf. 9 M. Turner, "Transit Oriented Development Revitalizes Chicago Neighborhood," Race, Poverty, and the Environment (Winter 2005/2006), http: / /www.urbanhabitat.org/ files /24.Marcia.Turner.pdf. 10 See http : / /www.cleanandsafeports.org. Information and resources on the impacts that transporting goods have on health and community life is available from the Trade, Health, & Environment Impact Project, a community- academic partnership, http:H hydra.usc.edu /scehsc /web /Welcome/ Welcome.html. " For information on authorizations and allocations under SAFETEA -LU, the surface transportation bill that expires in September 2009, see http: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov/ safetealu/factsheets/step.htm. 12 Transportation for Tomorrow (see endnote 7). 13 P. Latzin et al., "Air Pollution during Pregnancy and Lung Function in Newborns: A Birth Cohort Study," European Respiratory Journal 33 (2009): 594 -603. 14 W. J. Gauderman et al., "The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age," New England Journal of Medicine 351, no. 11 (2004): 1057 -87. 15 C. A. Pope III et al., "Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long -Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Pollution," Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 287, no. 9 (2002): 1132 -41. d a Z 0 Z 16 American Lung Association, "Highlights of 26 K. L. Ebi et al., "U.S. Funding is Insuff Recent Research on Particulate Air Pollution: to Address the Human Health Impact Effects of Long -term Exposure," 2008, of and Public Health Responses to http:// www .lungusa.org /atf /cf /f7a8d42c2- Climate Variability," Environmental HE fcca- 4604- 8ade- 7f5d5e762256} /ANNUAL- Perspectives Online, February 27, 20C AVERAGE -PM- STUDIES - OCTOBER- 2008.PDF. 10.1289/ehp.0800088, http: / /dx.doi. 17 M. Bell et al., "Ozone and Short -Term Mortality in 95 U.S. Urban Communities, 1987 - 2000," The Journal of the American Medical Association 292, no. 19 (2004): 2372 -89, http: / /research.yale.edu/ environment /bell /research /files /bell_ mortality – jama.pdf. 18 American Lung Association, "Highlights of Recent Research" (see endnote 16). t9 See http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /research /health/ fs /pm– ozone - fs.pdf. 20 See http: / /www.lungusa.org /site/ pp.asp ?c= dvLUK9O0E &b= 44567. 26 See http: / /thomas.loc.gov /cgi- bin /query/ z ?c111:H.R.2323. 2' T. Brikowski, Y. Lotan, and M. S. Pearle, "Climate- related Increase in the Prevalence of Urolithiasis in the United States," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, no. 28 (2008): 9841 -46, http: / /www.pnas.org/ content /105/28/9841.full.pdf +html. 28 Ebi et al., "U.S. Funding" (see endnote 25). 29 CDC, "Preventing Obesity and Chronic Diseases Through Good Nutrition and Physical Activity," 2008, http: / /cdc.gov/ nccdphp /publications /factsheets /Prevention/ pdf /obesity.pdf. 2' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "America Breathing Easier," http:H 30 www.cdc.gov /asthma /pdfs /breathing – easier- brochure.pdf. 12 S. Nicholas et al., "Addressing the Childhood Asthma Crisis in Harlem: The Harlem Children's Zone Asthma Initiative," American Journal of Public Health 95, no. 2 (2005): 31 245 -49. 23 W. J. Gauderman et al., "Childhood Asthma and Exposure to Traffic and Nitrogen Dioxide," Epidemiology 16, no. 6 (2005): 737 -43. 32 24 Meredith Minkler et al., "Promoting Healthy Public Policy Through Community -based Participatory Research," PolicyLink, 2008, http: / /www.policylink.org /documents /CBPR- final.pdf. See also http: / /www.weact.org. CDC, "Prevalence of Regular Physical Activity among Adults— United States, 2001 and 2005," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 56, no. 46 (November 23, 2007): 1209 -12, http: / /www.cdc.gov /mmwr/ preview /mmwrhtml /mm5646al .h2tm #tab. Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine, "Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence," Special Report 282 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005) S. J. Olshansky et al., "A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century," New England Journal of Medicine 352, no. 11 (March 17, 2005): 1138 -45, http: / /www.muni.org /iceimages/ healthchp /life ° /o20expectancyl .pdf. 33 L. D. Frank, M. Andresen, and T. L. Schmid, "Obesity Relationships and Community Design, Physical Activity, and Time Spent in Cars," American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27, no. 2 (2004): 87 -96, http:H www. act- trans.ubc.ca /documents /ajpm- aug04.pdf. 34 U. LaChapelle and L. D. Frank, "Transit and Health: Mode of Transport, Employer - Sponsored Public Transit Pass Programs, and Physical Activity," Journal of Public Health Policy 30 Supplement (2009): S73 –S94, http: / /www.palgrave- journals.com /jphp/ journal /v30 /nSl /pdf /jphp200852a.pdf. 35 L. Besser, M. Marcus, and H. Frumkin, "Commute Time and Social Capital in the U.S.," American Journal of Preventive Medicine 34, no. 3 (2008): 207 -11. 36 U.S. Department of Transportation, "Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause of Death in the United States, 2005," Research Note DOT HS 810 936 (Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008). 3' Lawrence J. Blincoe et al., "The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000," Report no. DOT HS- 809 -446 (Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002), http: / /www. nhtsa.dot.gov /staticfiles /DOT /N HTSA/ Communication %20 & %20Consumer %20 Information /Articles /Associated %20Files / Economiclmpact2000.pdf. 38 CDC, "Web -based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS)," http: / /www. cdc.gov /ncipc /WISQARS /. 39 CDC, "Pedestrian Fatalities —Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties, Georgia, 1994 - 1998," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48 (1999): 601 -05, http: / /www.cdc. gov /mmwr /PDF /wk /mm4828.pdf. 40 J. Pucher and J. L. Renne, "Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS," Transport Quarterly 57 (2003): 49 -77, http -.H policy .rutgers.edu /faculty /pucher/ TQPuchRenne.pdf. 41 David A. Morena et al., Older Drivers at a Crossroads (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2007), http: / /www. tfhrc.gov /pubrds /07jan /02.htm. 42 U.S. Department of Transportation, "National Household Travel Survey," Older Drivers: Safety Implications (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2006). 43 Federal Highway Administration, "National Household Travel Survey," 2001. 44 Fatality Analysis Reporting System Encyclopedia, http: / /www - fars.nhtsa.dot. gov /Main /index.aspx. 45 T. Litman and S. Fitzroy, "Safe Travels: Evaluating Mobility Management Traffic Safety Benefits," Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2006, http : / /www.vtpi.org /safetray.pdf. 46 Peter L. Jacobsen, "Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling," Injury Prevention 9 (2003): 205 -09, http: / /www.tsc.berkeley.edu/ newsletter /Spring04 /Jacobsen Paper. pdf. 4' Steven Raphael and Alan Berube, "Socioeconomic Differences in Household Automobile Ownership Rates: Implications for Evacuation Policy," paper prepared for the Berkeley Symposium on "Real Estate, Catastrophic Risk, and Public Policy," March 23, 2006, http : / /urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu / pdf /raphael.pdf. 0 Z 48 "Overcoming Obstacles to Health," Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2008, http -.H www.commissiononhealth.org /PDF/ ObstaclesToHealth- Highlights.pdf. See also R. D. Wilkinson and K. E. Pickett, "Income Inequality and Population Health: A Review and Explanation of the Evidence," Social Science & Medicine 62 (2006): 1768 -84. 49 "Transportation Affordability: Strategies to Increase Transportation Affordability," TDM Encyclopedia, updated July 2008, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, http,.Hvtpi.org/ affordability.pdf. d so Barbara Lipman, "A Heavy Load: The Z Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families" (Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy, October ■ 2006), http: / /www.nhc.org /pdf /pub — heavy- load_10-06.pdf. 51 "Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities near Transit," Reconnecting America's Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2007, http -.H www.reconnectingamerica.org /public/ reports ?page =2. 52 See http: / /www.bts.gov /publications/ issue— briefs /number- 03 /html /transportation — difficulties— keep — over — half— a— million— disabled—at— home.html. 53 L. Bailey, "Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options," Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2004, http: / /www.apta.com/ research /info /online /documents /aging- stranded.pdf. 54 Ibid. 56 Health impact assessments are a combination of procedures, methods, and tools to evaluate the potential health effects of a policy, program, or project as well as the distribution of those effects within a population. See http: / /www.cdc.gov/ healthyplaces /hia.htm. 56 Transit oriented development is a planning and design trend that seeks to create compact, mixed -use, pedestrian - friendly communities located around new or existing public transportation stations. For more information, see Todd Swanstrom's paper in this series. See also http: / /www.policylink. org /EDTK /TOD /default.html. 57 See http : / /www.fhwa.dot.gov /safeteaIu/ factsheets /stp.htm. 58 Pucher and Renne (see endnote 40). s9 See http: / /www.fta.dot.gov /funding /grants/ grants — financing- 3561.html. 60 Transit Riders for Public Transportation, "Ensuring Non - Discrimination in Transportation Investments," http: / /www. publicadvocates.org /ourwork /transportation / docs/ TRPT - Ensuring — Non — Discrimination —in- Transportation _Investments- 04- 08- 09.pdf. 61 Swanstrom T. The Road to Good Jobs: Patterns of Employment in the Construction Industry, (September 30, 2008), http: / /www. umsl.edu/ services /media /assets /pdf /study. pdf. SMART GROWTH COALITION INFRASTRUCTURE CONDUCIVE TO HEALTHY LIVING MEMBERS www.HealthyCollier.or2 sion Statement: To enhance the health, safety and welfare of our community through increasing awareness of responsible growth. Why Smart Growth Matters in Collier County • Increases active living and healthy eating Provides connectivity amongst neighborhoods, schools, parks and shopping • Increases multi -modal transportation options • Preserves green space for children to play and wildlife to thrive • Mitigates urban sprawl development Vision The Smart Growth Coalition envisions a community where: • Current and future generations can thrive in a healthier, safer and sustainable environment. • Development is designed to promote safety and well -being while making daily life more practical. • A walkable community connects neighborhoods, schools, businesses and recreational areas. • A multi -modal transportation system encourages synergistic infrastructure and responsible growth. • Social capital is increased by promoting face to face interaction with neighbors thus creating a greater sense of community. • Developers are encouraged to undertake more "infill" and redevelop vacant lots in developed areas. =a Smart Growth Coalition For more information go to: www.HealthyCollier.org or call Stacy Revay at (239) 252 -2594 Goals 1. Provide education for community stakeholders and decision makers on how we can col- lectively impact health (obesity, inactivity, social and mental health) in Collier County. 2. Fortifying the Smart Growth Coalition to include all members who are positioned to support environmental, systems and policy changes to positively affect the obesity and inactivity epidemics in Collier County. 3. Assess and conduct a survey of the communities' perceived barriers and opportunities for healthy eating and active living for all families. 4. Influence the Growth Management Plan to strengthen opportunities for implementing environmental, systems and policy changes to promote healthier living for all families in Collier County. 5. Foster the development of walkable, bikeable compact communities throughout Collier County, with connectivity including public transportation and multi -use path- ways. 6. Educate the community and assess the barriers to multi -modal transportation systems and demonstrate ways to overcome the barriers, perceived and real. ----------------------------------------- -� 1 Please fill out the questions below and return this part to Stacy Revay (P.O. Box 429 Naples, FL 34106) ! Zip code where you live in Collier County 1 1 ! 1. List your barriers to healthy eating in your community? 1 1 I 12. List your barriers to active living in your community? 1 I ! 1 I I If you would like to receive information regarding the Smart Growth Coalition please complete the section below: ! Name: ! 1 ! Email or phone number: ! L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Health and the Built Environment By Stacy Revay Chair of The Smart Growth Coalition Collier County Health Department Who we are... The Smart Growth Coalition's current stakeholders include: Collier County Health Department Collier County Transportation Department Community Traffic Safety Team Edison State College Florida Gulf Coast University Commuter Services Collier County Public Schools City of Marco Island Councilman Lighthouse of Collier Pathways Advisory Committee Naples Pathways Coalition Citizen Advocates Collier Area Transit Metropolitan Planning Organization Collier County Parks and Recreation YMCA Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department Smart Growth Coalition Overview The issues we are currently looking at include: Health Principles of Smart Growth Built environment Sprawl Transportation Making the connection between health and the built environment Health Physical In a new study conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation... Collier County is #1 for Health Outcomes (morbidity and mortality). Mental Social #11 for Health Factors #17 for Physical Environment (access to healthy foods, exposure to air - pollution ozone days, etc.) ki M FOUR CORNERS LACKING CONNECTIVITY Increasing Connectivity in Collier County will... w Increase physical activity among residents and tourists • Decrease Green House Gas Emissions Increase the health and wellness of Collier County residents Decrease the obesity epidemic that is currently plaguing our youth Allow for multi -modal transportation 1 ~SU ccess _ Failures Continued.... • Reduce the cost associated with repairing roadways • Create efficient public transportation Improve access to healthy food options if there is a safe place to walk /bike Create a sense of place between neighborhoods so children and families can feel like part of a community, in turn this will create safer neighborhoods Reduce time needed for emergency vehicles to arrive at an incident Increase access to health care facilities for low- income families, elderly and people with disabilities Transportation � r 1t i*'. a r 2007 Growth and Transportation Survey 75% said improving public transportation and building communities that don't require as much driving were better long -term solutions for reducing traffic. 90 said new communities should be designed to walk more and drive less. 80% prefer redeveloping older, existing urban and suburban areas first. From Statistics from: What is the relationship between public health and the built environment? 1Y NAPLES PARK An individual's everyday life is structured around the environment in which he or she lives. Built environment affects the following: Travel patterns Destination points Physical activity levels Ultimately, plays a large role in health outcomes of our communities Specific actions for increasing physical activity Plan, build, and maintain a network of sidewalks and street crossings that create a safe and comfortable walking environment that connect schools, parks, and other destinations through the adoption of a pedestrian and bicycle master plan Promote alternative modes of transportation through increasing destinations within walking and bicycling distance of residential units Collaborate with the School District and developers to locate new schools central to residential areas and establish joint use agreements allowing playing fields, playgrounds, and recreation centers to be used by the larger community. 11 Continued.... Costs to the health and well -being of Collier County residents: More sick days and more days in the hospital Unnecessary deaths and injuries from traffic accidents Reduced opportunities for physical activity, which contribute to rising obesity and cost of health care Disproportionate impacts on poor and minority populations, whose neighborhoods often are cut off or harmed by transportation facilities Recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control July 2009 Communities should... Improve access to outdoor recreational facilities and enhance infrastructure supporting bicycling and walking Support locating schools within easy walking distance of residential areas Enhance personal and traffic safety throughout the county and improve access to public transportation Incentivize mixed use development Improve geographic availability of supermarkets in underserved areas Contact Information Stacy Revay Healthy Communities Coordinator Smart Growth Coalition Collier County Health Department 3301 East Tamiami Trial, Building H Naples, Florida 34112 239 - 252 -2594 Stacy_Revay @ DOH. State. FL. US TIMELINE FOR SMART GROWTH COALITION November 2008 - Growing Collier Smarter Workshop was the kick -off for the Smart Growth Coalition. Smart Growth Workshop Overview • When reading over the pre - survey worksheets from the workshop I noticed most people had minimal understanding of what Smart Growth was. A few people had no understanding and a few strongly understood the concept. • After the workshop the post - survey showed most people understood and strongly understood what Smart Growth was. • Everyone liked the speakers and enjoyed leaming about Smart Growth and how we can make this happen in Collier County A few things that people wanted to know • How are we going to do this here? • What can I personally do to help? The people who should have been there according to the surveyed individuals: • Local officials • Educators • People from the community • Commissioner's • Neighborhood Watch • Rotary Club • Community Associations • County and city officials • Collier Building Industry, real estate industry • People representing colleges (FGCU, Edison, CCPS) 1. December 2008 - Applied for three different grants for the Smart Growth Coalition: a. NACCHO (The National Association of County and City Officials) -March 2009 b. NACDD (National Association of Chronic Disease Directors) -April 2009 c. RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) -April 2009 2. January 2009 -Smart Growth Coalition formed and first meeting held Key partners include: Collier County Health Department (Healthy Communities Coordinator, Environmental Health, School Health, Epidemiology, and Tobacco Free Partnership), Collier County Government (Commissioner Jim Coletta), Collier County Planning Commission, Comprehensive Planning Department, Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Collier Area Transit, Community Traffic Safety Team, Collier County Sheriffs Office, Pathways Advisory Committee, Parks and Recreation, Collier County Public Schools, Edison State College, Florida Gulf Coast University, Community Coalitions and Organizations (Twenty -Fifty, YMCA, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Resilient Collier; interested citizens of all ages and demographics, Naples Pathways Coalition, Health Promotion Coalition (chaired by CCHD,) and University of Florida Extension (4H and health education). 3. February 2009- Mike Bosi Collier County Comprehensive Planning FLUME map for 2006 -2016 and growth management a. Walkability Workshop b. Smart Growth Committee in Lee County 4. March 2009- attended a Transit Oriented Development workshop in Lee County with Commuter Services (FDOT). 5. April 2009 - Strategic Planning Committee to establish mission, vision, goals and objectives. 6. June 2009 - Daphnee Boulin, intern from Haiti/University of Iowa masters in Urban Planning to evaluate Community Character Plan of Collier County. Tried to cross reference Growth Management Plan with Community Character Plan but was unable to do so. We found that most of the pressing issues surrounding the built environment and health were not addressed. 7. August 2009 - Brochures for Smart Growth Coalition completed (a member's brochure and a public information brochure). 8. September 2009 -Report completed for the Community Character Plan by Daphnee Boulin and Stacy Revay. 9. September 2009 -EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) meeting at the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. Working on amendments to update in the Growth Management Plan. 10. October 2009 -was invited by Transportation 4 America, American Public Health Association, and the Department of Health to meet with Congressman Connie Mack, Congresswoman Corrine Brown, Congressman John Mica, and Congressman Kendrick Meek. I met with their Legislative Directors. 11. November 2009 - invited to present to the Collier County Planning Commissioners on December 17th. Unfortunately, this was pushed back due to complicated agenda items in December. The presentation was rescheduled for March 18`". Participated in a Road Safety Audit for Vanderbilt Drive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway. The Health Promotion Coalition will now start working in 2010 on sustainable elementary school gardens. 12. December 2009 - improvements are being made to the brochure that was created during the summer. We will be reviewing FDOT's 12 steps to a walkable community. South Regional Library has pictures of the garden at Lely Elementary School on display and a sign -up sheet to keep the garden sustainable. The next meeting is set for Tuesday, January 261' at 9am at the North Collier Government Services Center on Orange Blossom Drive. 13. January 2010 - Applied for two ACHIEVE grants for environmental, policy and systems change. Beginning to build www.healthycollier.oriz website. 14. February 2010 - Getting ready for the Collier County Planning Commission presentation on March 18t`. Meeting with Collier Area Transit, Commuter Services and Transportation about a Try-It Transit -Day in April 2010. Updating `h materials for Edison State College Green Fest presentation on March 27