Peel Healthy Urban Development Evaluation Tool James Dunn, Marisa Creatore, Jonathan Weyman, Evan Peterson and Richard Glazier Prepared for Peel Public Health by The Centre for Research on Inner City Health (CRICH) at St. Michael's Hospital with support from The Ministry of Health Promotion

Overview Background & Rationale Development of Tool The Initial Tool Consultation & Assessment Process Moving Forward

Background & Rationale Alarmingly high rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and CVD in Canada. Being physical active can reduce the risk of these diseases by up to 50%. However, 54% of Peel adults were inactive in The region has some of the lowest active transport rates in Canada.

Background & Rationale Peel Health Report (2005) suggests that sprawling, auto-oriented development could be a cause of these problems. Peel Council approves Resolution , directing Peel Public Health to make planning recommendations that provide greater opportunity for active living. CRICH hired to create an evidence-based planning tool to encourage activity-friendly development. CRICH previously developed the Toronto Diabetes Atlas and indices of health of built environment

Development of Tool Literature review conducted on over 200 research and best practices articles relating to health and the built environment. Emphasis on research-based evidence and quantitative recommendations. Established 7 elements associated with healthy communities in the literature (e.g., density). Each element broken into quantifiable measures with significant associations with physical activity and health (e.g., net residential density).

Development of Tool Strength of evidence (both scientific and expert) analysis determined measures: inclusion or exclusion designation as prerequisite (for approval) or credit (for bonus certification) Targets/ranges established using research- based benchmarks, expert recommendations, and similar planning tools (e.g., LEED-ND).

The Initial Tool 7 built environment elements associated with active living: Density (residential, non-residential) Service Proximity (to a variety of services, to transit, to employment) Land Use Mix (mixed land use, mixed building use, mixed housing types) Street Connectivity (intersection density or block size)

The Initial Tool 7 built environment elements continued … Road Network & Sidewalk Characteristics (complete streets, traffic calming, traffic speed & pedestrian- priority, sidewalks & buffer strips, cycle-friendly design, lighting) Parking (elimination of minimums, unbundled/shared, price & difficulty, location) Aesthetics & Human Scale (setbacks & streetwalls, height to width ratio, tree placement/characteristics)

1. Density Increased density significantly associated with both walking outcomes and lower BMI. Interacts with Proximity and Land Use mix to determine the concentration and distribution of people and destinations in the built environment. Higher residential densities can better support a variety of services, jobs, and other destinations within walking/cycling distance of where people live.

1. Density Current trends: Autocentric Suburbs Driveways dominate < 10 units/hectare Drive-up services Strip Malls FAR < 0.5

1. Density Suggested new requirements: Residential Net Dwelling Density 35 units/ha (as shown) Non-residential Floor Area Ratio > 0.7 FAR Compact, walkable

2. Service Proximity Objective & subjective distance to neighbourhood services was significantly associated variety a variety of walking outcomes. The greater the variety of services close by, the more likely people can visit multiple destinations in the same walk/cycle trip. Proximity is most important for daily destinations (e.g., work, grocery, school, transit).

2. Service Proximity Current trends: Separated uses Distant Destinations

2. Service Proximity Nearby Destinations Mixed Uses New requirements: Proximity to a variety of services Proximity to employment Proximity to transit

3. Land Use Mix Interacts with Proximity and Density to determine the relative distance between people and destinations and between destinations. Aids in reducing trip distance on a multi-destination trip. Tool encourages a mix of habitual (e.g., work, grocery) and non- habitual (e.g., entertainment, parks) land uses Outcomes: livelier (more people at more times) neighbourhood, more convenient (live, work, play) neighbourhood, safer (more surveillance at more times) neighbourhood => all of these features encourage activity

4. Street Connectivity Higher connectivity significantly associated with walking outcomes and lower BMI. Increased connectivity encourages active transport by providing a more direct route to and between any given destinations, thereby shortening distances. Increased connectivity also dissipates vehicular traffic and enhance non-vehicular networks through specialized pathways.

4. Street Connectivity Small blocks Shorter, direct routes

4. Street Connectivity 580/km 2 58/km 2 5.8/km 2 (Prerequisite: 75 intersections/km 2 )

5. Road Network & Sidewalk Characteristics Determines traffic calming and speed, sidewalks and buffers, cycle-friendly design, lighting, and street furniture. All influence the safety, comfort, convenience, and enjoyment of active transportation or recreational activity. Key to provide for all users, not just cars. If you build it, they will come – more lanes, more parking, etc. invites more cars.

5. Road Network & Sidewalk Characteristics Incomplete Streets Built for the car Single use(r) Complete Streets Built for people A true public space Prerequisite in tool

6. Parking Parking minimums are a key factor in limiting densities, as they increase land requirements per unit, which also... Increases development costs Encourages peripheral development Decreases housing affordability Contributes to urban heat sink problem Increases demand on storm water infrastructure Degrades the pedestrian environment

6. Parking We recommend eliminating the minimums. Replace with maximums or only supply parking where revenue covers costs. Encourage car-sharing, car-free housing, public transportation, and other health-friendly initiatives. Other options include: unbundled parking in all multifamily dwellings, shared parking, market rate parking zones, and other programs.

7. Aesthetics & Human Scale Determines the scale/size and design of the built environment. Controlling for aesthetics reduced the walkability difference of a low vs high SES neighbourhood to insignificant. Building to a human scale is essential for pedestrian comfort, safety, and enjoyment. Urban trees are vital contributors to city aesthetics, the environment, and the economy.

7. Aesthetics & Human Scale Large setbacks: Increase distances Degrade pedestrian world Allow parking lots in setback

7. Aesthetics & Human Scale Shorter setbacks (required): On human scale, increased densities, shorter tips People places, window shopping, surveillance/safety, Street enclosure, social cohesion & interaction

Consultation & Assessment Process Dan Leeming of the Planning Partnership Meetings with key stakeholders – Planning staff at Peel region – Planning staff from municipalities (Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon) – private planning firms Gap analysis of municipal & regional by-laws and planning standards; Review of relevant provincial legislation & regulations + modifications of tool for conformity GIS validation & comparison to existing areas

Consultation & Assessment Process Key Outcomes from Consultation & Assessment: Jurisdiction of measures By-law vs developer vs public department Most measures controlled by by-laws that do not correspond with the targets. Some measures calculated differently than in existing processes. Opposition from current mandates & directives (e.g., transportation safety/efficiency vs. walkability) Suitability for infill vs. Greenfield

Moving Forward Peel Public Health to seek continuity between tool- recommended standards and: Official Plan(s) Municipal by-laws Transportation & other public standards Provincial legislation & regulations Governments at all levels can lead by example and by normal channels They are major property developers in many areas Private sector will follow? Modification of tool for infill development – initial priority on greenfield new- build

The End.

2.a. Proximity to a Variety of Services and Employment Prerequisites:  > 70% of residents within 800m of 5 public services.  > 70% of residents within 800m of 7 retail services.  Centre of community within 800m of the same number of full-time jobs as 50% of the number of total dwelling units.  Centre of community within 800m of the same number of dwelling units as 50% of the number of full-time jobs.

4. Street Connectivity Low connectivity Longer, indirect routes

5.a. Complete Streets Complete streets are those designed for all users, not just cars. Separate travel lanes reduce conflicts between users and greatly increase convenience for walking and cycling. Lower speed limits greatly increase safety and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists. Lower volumes offer more pedestrian- oriented spaces with increased opportunity for play and socializing in the street.

5.a. Complete Streets 00-15km/h – Lanes: 1-2. Lane width: ≤ 3.2m*. Sidewalks: 0-2. Bikes Lanes: km/h – Lanes: 1-2. Lane width: ≤ 3.2m*. Sidewalks: 1-2. Bikes Lanes: km/h – Lanes: 1-2. Lane width: ≤ 3.2m. Sidewalks: 2. Bikes Lanes: km/h – Lanes: 2-4. Lane width: ≤ 3.2m. Sidewalks: 2. Bikes Lanes: 2. All new local roads ≤ 40km/h All new non-local roads ≤ 50km/h * Single lane roads may be ≤ 5m should it accommodate two- way traffic (e.g., woonerf or other low volume, low speed road).

7.a. Building Setbacks Prerequisites:  Detached residential ≤ 7.6m  Attached & multifamily ≤ 4.6m  Commercial & light industrial ≤ 3m  ≥ 70% commercial/mixed-use flush to sidewalk  Main entrances cannot face parking

7.a. Building Setbacks Commercial: Activity nodes Human scale Street enclosure

7.a. Building Setbacks Commercial: Strip malls Failed mixed use Drive-ups & -throughs