Local Planning Networks and Neighborhood Vulnerability Indicators

Transcription

1 Local Planning Networks and Neighborhood Vulnerability Indicators Philip Berke Department of Landscape Architecture & Urban Planning, Professor Institute of Sustainable Communities, Director Texas A&M University College Station, Texas Tel:

2 Project Overview --Land use planning is key to resilience. --Cities adopt networks of plans. --Integration of hazards/climate change in local plans affects future resilience. Ft. Lauderdale Downtown Area Plan Ft. Lauderdale Future Park Plan Washington, NC Comprehensive Plan League City Open Space & Sensitive Area Plan

3 Chestnut Street Chestnut Street Highlands, NJ Before Hurricane Sandy: Opposing Intentions? Hazard Mitigation Plan FIGURE LU YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAP Comprehensive Plan FIGURE LU-6 CONCEPT PLAN M AP Atlantic Highlands Bayside Laurel Drive Locust Shore Drive Drive 36 Willow Ring Mathews Ralph Street Marie St. Linden Avenue 8B Ocean Avenue Water Witch Drive Central Avenue Beach Boulevard Snug Harbor Avenue Middletown 100-year floodplain & severe repetitive loss designation Rogers Street Water Witch Avenue Waddell Street Shore Drive North Peak Street ValleyAv enue Mo Marine Place Recreation Place Cheerful Place Huddy Avenue Washington Avenue Linden Avenue Barberie Avenue Sea Drift Avenue Prospect Street u ntainstreet Bay Avenue Atlantic Street Second Street CedarStreet Holly StḞourth Street New Jersey State Highway 36 Wo odland Bay Avenue Valley Avenue Shore Drive Highland Avenue Bay Street Fifth Street Oak Peak Street Grand Tour New Road Miller Street Hills 8B ide Avenue 36 TwinLight Point St. LightHouseRoad Center Avenue North Street Cornwell Street John St Jackson Gateway National Bay Avenue Recreation Area Shrewsbury Avenue Portland Road Sea Bright Atlantic Highlands Bayside Laurel Drive Locust Shore Drive Drive 36 Willow Ring KEY Middletown Potential Gateway Redevelopment Area Potential CBD Redevelopment Area Potential Waterfront Redevelopment Areas County Park Mathews 0' 500' 1,000' Ralph Street Focal Point Locations Gateway Treatments Marie St. Linden Avenue 8B Ocean Avenue Water Witch Drive Central Avenue Beach Boulevard Rogers Street Waddell Street Snug Harbor Avenue Water Witch Ave. North Peak Street ValleyAv enue Mo Marine Place Recreation Place Cheerful Place Washington Avenue Linden Avenue Huddy Ave. Barberie Avenue Sea Drift Avenue Shore Drive Prospect Street u ntainstreet Bay Avenue Atlantic Street Second Street CedarStreet Holly StḞourth Street Wo odland Bay Avenue Valley Avenue Shore Drive New Jersey State Highway 36 Highland Avenue Bay Street Fifth Street Oak Peak Street Grand Tour New Road Miller Street Hills 8B ide Avenue 36 TwinLight Point St. LightHouseRoad Gateway National North Street Cornwell Street John St Recreation Area Center Avenue Jackson Bay Avenue Shrewsbury Avenue Portland Road Sea Bright Waterfront Gateway Treatments 0' 500' 1,000' Potential Municipal/Public Use Public Fishing Piers KEY 100 Year Floodplain 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAP Highlands Borough, Monmouth County, New Jersey Twin Lights National Landmark Rt. 36 Bridge CONCEPT PLAN MAP Highlands Borough, Monmouth County, New Jersey 500 Year Floodplain Figure LU-4 Heritage Trail Figure LU-6 Outside the Floodplain 1"-1000' October 2004 Waterfront Connection 1"-1000' October 2004

4 Develop and apply a resilience scorecard: Project Objectives 1. To spatially evaluate the coordination of local networks of plans. 1. To spatially assess the degree to which the network of plans targets areas most physically and socially vulnerable. 2. To develop a guidebook and a software tool for local practitioners to evaluate networks of plans.

5 Phases for Spatial Evaluation of Networks of Plans for a Resilience Scorecard Phase 1 Delineate planning districts and hazard zones Phase 2 Determine vulnerability Phase 3 Score plans

6 Mean Policy Scores for Physical Vulnerability for All Districts 100-year floodplain (# districts)* Washington(8) League City(21) Fort Lauderdale(111) Boston(21) Tampa(137) Asbury Park(11) Overall mean policy scores for all plans *Higher scores indicates greater support for vulnerability reduction -4.00

7 Correlation between physical vulnerability and policy scores for plans Correlation between Physical Vulnerability and Policy Scores* (# districts) Washington(8) League City(21) Fort Lauderdale(111) Boston(21) Tampa(137) Asbury Park(11) *Pearson s r coefficient: Negative r means that greater policy scores are associated with lower vulnerability of districts

8 Vulnerability Policy Scores by District: Ft. Lauderdale, FL Hazard Mitigation Plan Comprehensive Plan

9 Networks of Plans Asbury Park, New Jersey League City, Texas Master Plan (2006) Comprehensive Plan 2035 (2013) Monmouth County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012) Local Mitigation Plan (2010) Consolidated Housing Plan (2015) Parks & Open Space Master Plan (2006) Waterfront Redevelopment Plan (2005) Consolidated [Housing] Plan (2012) Main Street Redevelopment Plan (2008) CBD Redevelopment Plan (2003) Scattered Site Redevelopment Plan (2003)

10 District #7: Clear Creek, League City, TX Total Plan Integration Score = +37 (Supports Reducing Vulnerability) Policies Land use regulations that limit new development. riparian buffer, cluster development, low density Land acquisition in proposed conservation areas. repetitive loss areas, parks and recreation Public facility investments for stormwater. low impact design technologies Development limits tied to evacuation times.

11 District #12: Waterfront Redevelopment, Asbury Park, NJ Total Plan Integration Score = -12 (Supports Increasing Vulnerability) Policies Smart growth Raise density, mix uses, complete streets Zoning overlays that support economic development Boardwalk, entertainment, renewal areas Development agreements for affordable housing 5% of the new housing units

12 Publications Berke, P., G. Neman, J. Lee, T. Combs, C. Klosna, and ZD. Salveson Evaluation of Networks of Plans and Vulnerability to Hazards and Climate Change, Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(4): (Best Article of the Year Award, American Planning Association) Berke, P., M. Malecha, S. Yu, J. Lee, J. Masterson Plan Integration Scorecard for Resilience: Evaluating Networks of Plans in Six Coastal Cities, Landscape and Urban Planning (under review) Berke, P. J. Cooper, S. Yu, J. Lee, J. Masterson Do Plans Pay Attention? Social Vulnerability and Networks of City Plans, Nature Climate Change (under preparation) Doctoral Dissertations Matt Malecha, Urban & Regional Science Siyu Yu, Urban & Regional Science

13 ACTIVITIES Meetings May 16, 2016 July 14, 2016 Oct 17, 2016 Jan 5, 2017 Objective: To discuss and offer feedback on the scorecard and guidebook Outcomes: Guidance and leadership to oversee the process. Guidance for low-capacity communities. Connected the scorecard with other agency initiatives. Framed physical and social vulnerability so communities could utilize existing efforts, resources. Refined the visually appealing version of guidebook. Advisory Board MEMBERS Chad Berginnis, CFM- Association of State Floodplain Managers, Executive Director Darrin Punchard, AICP, CFM- Punchard Consulting Gavin Smith, PhD- University of North Carolina; UNC Coastal Resilience Center, Exec. Director Jennifer Ellison- City of Urbandale, Community Development Director Allison Hardin, CFM- City of Myrtle Beach, Planner and Coastal Hazards Education Specialist FEMA, National Coordinator for Community Recovery Planning and Capacity Building Recovery Support Function Michele Steinberg, National Fire Protection Association, Wildfire Division Manager Rich Roths- URS Corporation, Principal Planner Barry Hokanson, AICP- PLN Associates, President of the American Planning Association Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Recovery Division (APA-HMDR)

14 Criteria for selection: Population less than 250,000 Potential for sea level rise Approval from local legislative body Communities positioned to leverage partnerships Pilot communities commit to: Assemble a team of stakeholders and key informants familiar with local planning Receive training on how to apply the scorecard Score their own network of plans with technical assistance from the research team Pilot Communities Communities Norfolk, VA (George Homewood, FAICP, CFM- Planning Director) League City, TX (Mark Linennschmidt, AICP- Senior Planner) San Luis Obispo, CA (start July 2017)- Michael Codron, AICP- Community Development Director Technical assistance: One training session per community Three progress checks per community Assist in local identification of incongruities within plans Assess the feasibility of plan implementation Use scorecard to update comprehensive plans Use scorecard to revise ordinances and subdivision regulations

15 Translating Research to Practice: Guidebook & Software Tool Scoring as Learning: What s in the plans? Scoring as Analysis: How do plans measure up? Use Scorecard to: Search the Plans Evaluate the Contents Calculate the Scores Improve Existing Plans Create New Plans

16 Additional Outreach Activities 2016: APA-HMDR website, LinkedIn, newsletter Model Forest Policy Program (MFPP) monthly webinar Sept : American Planning Association Conference in New York session, May 2017 Hurricane Conference session, April 2017 Natural Hazards Conference, July 2017 New Jersey Workshop, August 2017 Association of State Floodplain Managers host quarterly webinars of participants (upcoming) Colorado s planningforhazards.com upcoming Blogs upcoming: Island Press, Center for Disaster Philanthropy APA Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Recovery Division, host scorecard application sessions at annual conference

17 Proposed Follow-on Work EXPAND SCORECARD CAPABILITIES Disaster recovery How can scorecard make recovery go faster? Business continuity and economic development Incorporate new research on Business Vulnerability indicators (Song et al. 2016, vol. 84, Natural Hazards) Helps corporate decision-making, assets, and facilities Ordinances, infrastructure investments Show communities how they can change /update ordinances Additional hazards wildfire, drought, seismic

18 Proposed Follow-on Work LINK TO FEMA s COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM Demonstrate how to maximize credits in integrating mitigation in multiple local planning efforts CRS Activity 510: review of other local plans CRS Activity 330: outreach TRAINING Association of State Floodplain Managers host quarterly webinars of participants APA Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Recovery Division Host scorecard application sessions at annual conference

19 Anticipated Project Impact What difference will it make to end users? Eliminate duplication of effort, improve efficiency, reduce conflicts. De silo mitigation planning practice. Equitably reduce vulnerability reduction efforts across neighborhoods. Examples of Quotes from Advisory Board Members This is the next generation of FEMA guidance. This is proof of concept. The local impact of this is incredible. For larger cities, there are so many layers to pull back and this helps you do that. Really love the spatial aspect of plan integration. The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard is so important because it looks at everything. Too often communities want to silo... This should be the gold standard for CRS requirement 510. The guidance...is very user-friendly, from the checklists, boxes, chapter openings, recommended skills, specific examples