Objective SC.1 Promote socially cohesive neighborhoods, free of crime and violence

Indicators, Development Targets and Policies/Design Strategies

Indicators Development Targets Policies/Design Strategies
Primary
a. Number of violent crimes

Benchmark #1: Does the project include environmental design elements and community programs that protect and enhance public safety? Actions consistent with this benchmark would include but are not limited to:

  • analyzing and improving environmental quality for bicyclists and pedestrians
  • using traffic calming devices on interior streets
  • contributing street trees
  • meeting or surpassing city standards for adequacy of sidewalk and street lighting
  • designing front entrances to buildings to be seen from the street and other front doors
  • limiting the number of alcohol, tobacco and firearm outlets
  • supporting community policing, neighborhood watch groups, and, community organizing related to blight abatement

Benchmark #2: Does the project include environmental design elements and community programs that promote and enhance social interaction and integration? Actions consistent with this benchmark would include but are not limited to:

  • incorporating public open space, public parks, public plazas, recreational centers, community facilities or other gathering places into project design
  • enhancing access to existing neighborhood or regional parks and recreational facilities
  • funding maintenance or programming at parks, recreational centers, public art or public performance spaces
  • having porches oriented towards streets and public spaces
  • supporting the development of intentional housing co-operatives, collectives or cohousing
  • sponsoring a neighborhood organization that supports community building
  • sponsoring civic and cultural activities that promote social interaction
Benchmark #3: Does the project promote educational, afterschool, and other related opportunities for youth? Actions consistent with this benchmark would include but are not limited to:
  • using schools as multi-use community facilities
  • funding school infrastructure development explicitly for use as multi-use facilities
  • supporting arts, afterschool programs, and other activities in recreation centers, parks, and schools
  • funding cultural events using local parks, recreation and open spaces
Benchmark #4: Does the project promote economic opportunities for low income and underemployed or insecurely employed individuals? Actions consistent with this benchmark would include but are not limited to:
  • promoting reliable and affordable transportation to jobs
  • hiring locally for construction, retail, maintenance, and landscaping
  • providing self-sufficiency wages and benefits in project-associated employment
  • preserving PDR jobs
  • conducting job training or skills development for low income and underemployed local residents in expected commercial uses

  • Define property lines and distinguish private spaces from public spaces using landscape plantings, pavement designs, gateway treatments, and "CPTED" fences.1-3

  • Increase natural surveillance and “eyes on the street” using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies such as building doors/entrances and windows to look out on to streets and parking areas; pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and streets; front porches; and adequate nighttime lighting.1-3

  • Increase the use of and care for green landscaping to reduce violence and help individuals and families flourish.4

  • Increase social connection and sense of  community by providing appealing and comfortable street environments, parks, and active open spaces for social networking, civic engagement, personal recreation, and other activities that create social bonds between individuals and groups.5

  • Incorporate space in building design that could be used for community meetings, afterschool programming, tutoring/mentoring, senior activities or other social programs.6

  • Create community centers where people can gather and mingle as part of their daily activities.7

  • Facilitate the creation of neighborhood emergency response teams to promote emergency preparedness/safety and build community and self-efficacy of neighbors.8

  • Facilitate the organization of block parties to promote interactions and relationship building between neighborhoods, which may help lead to collaborative clean-up or improvement projects.9

  • Limit the number, type or distance between locations selling alcohol, or limit the number of hours, days or conditions of sale where alcohol may be sold - i.e., limiting sales in grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, laundromats, drive-through windows, etc10,11,12

  • Do not issue a new liquor license when a particular alcohol retail outlet goes out of business, especially in areas with high densities of alcohol outlets10,11
b. Number of property crimes

Same as above.
c. Residential mobility

Benchmark #1: If the project results in the demolition or loss of deed restricted, public, inclusionary, or rent-controlled housing, does the project replace the demolished/lost housing stock at a 1:1 ratio?

AND

Benchmark #2: Are relocation costs and compensation provided to displaced residents?

Regulatory Minimum: Section 37.9C of the SF Rent Ordinance requires the landlord to pay relocation fees to tenants for no-fault evictions, including owner move-in, as well as capital improvement, demolition, removal of unit from housing use and substantial rehabilitation evictions. Relocation fees are increased every year on March 1st. Fees as of March 1, 2009 are $4,941 per tenant up to $14,825 per unit. Elderly or disabled tenants, as well as families with children under the age of 18 are entitled to an extra $3,295.  Relocation payments are also required in Ellis Act evictions.
d. Proportion of households likely to move away from San Francisco in the next three years

Benchmark: Are inclusionary/below market rate housing units built on-site?
e. Proportion of population within 1/2 mile from community center

Benchmark #1: Is the project within 1/2 mile of a community center?

AND

Benchmark #2: Does the project contribute funding (via impact fee or community benefits agreement) towards a existing community center or to the construction of a new community center?
f. Density of off-sale alcohol outlets

Benchmark: If the project includes retail or commercial uses and is within 1,000 feet of a sensitive use (such as a school, licensed day care center, public park or playground, churches, senior citizen facility, or licensed alcohol or drug treatment facilities), does it disallow off-sale alcohol outlets?

Regulatory Minimum: Off-sale alcohol licenses will not be granted by the California Alcohol & Beverage Control in areas with “undue concentration” of off-sale alcohol outlets (“Undue concentration” is defined as 1) police districts where the number of reported crimes is 20% or greater than the city average and 2) census tracts where the ratio of off-sale alcohol licenses per population is greater than the county wide ratio).
Secondary
g. Number of neighborhood block party permits No identified development target
h. Number of spiritual and religious centers No identified development target
i. Social support reported by San Francisco population No identified development target
j. Residents' perceived safety No identified development target
k. Number of police officers per capita [in process] No identified development target

Health-based Rationale

  • Neighborhoods in which residents feel social cohesiveness toward their neighbors (through mutual trust and exchanges of aid) tend to have lower mortality rates compared to neighborhoods that do not have strong social bonds.13

  • Support, perceived or provided, can buffer stressful situations, prevent feelings of isolation, and contribute to self-esteem.14 In one study, people with self-reported severe lack of social support were 2.19 times more likely to report fair or poor health than people who did not lack social support.15
  • Emile Durkheim’s work on suicide showed that the lowest rates of suicide occurred in societies with the highest degrees of social integration. An excess of suicides occurred in societies undergoing dislocation and loosening of social bonds.15
  • Homicides, physical assaults, and rapes/sexual assaults are direct and adverse health outcomes for a community. Witnessing and experiencing community violence can cause long-term behavioral and emotional problems in youth.16 17 Community violence also impacts the perceived safety of a neighborhood, inhibiting social interactions and adversely affecting social cohesion.18
  • Poverty; lack of economic opportunity; access to criminogenic substances such as drugs, guns, alcohol; poor response to community calls about blighted properties and nuisances by police and other city agencies; and lack of programming for youth and parolees are all risk factors for crime.19
  • The average hospital bill for one gunshot wound in the US is over $40,000. 60-80% of these costs are paid by the public. In Alameda County, CA in 1996-1997, costs for assaults were $32.9 million, and firearm-related costs were $12.4 million. The annual detention cost at the California Youth Authority is $27,000 per year/per youth.20

  • The density of alcohol outlets is strongly associated with greater rates of physical assaults, violent crimes, and violence in general.10 In one study in California, for every 6 additional alcohol outlets, there was one additional violent assault that resulted in at least one overnight stay in a hospital.21

  • Land use patterns that encourage neighborhood interaction and a sense of community have been shown not only to reduce crime, but also create a sense of community safety and security.22  Evaluations of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies have shown a 30-84% reduction in robberies, depending upon how many CPTED components were implemented.23

  • In one study of Chicago public housing, researchers found that the greener the surroundings, the fewer the number of crimes that occurred. Specifically, buildings with high levels of greenery had 48 percent fewer property crimes and 56 percent fewer violent crimes than buildings with little or no greenery.24

  • In another study of Chicago public housing, residents of buildings with more trees and grass reported that they knew their neighbors better, socialized with them more often, had stronger feelings of community, and felt safer and better adjusted than did residents of more barren, but otherwise identical, buildings.25

Established Standards

  1. SF Planning Code, Section 781.8. establishes the Mission as an Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict and prohibits new establishments selling alcoholic beverages in bars and off-sale liquor establishments, with the exception of restaurants and non-profit theaters. Similar Alcohol Restricted Uses Subdistricts have also been established in the Haight, Lower Haight, Third Street, and Divisadero Street in Planning Code sections 781.9-784. http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?sid=5&browseAllCodes=San%20Francisco

  2. HP 2010 Objective 15-32: Reduce homicides to 3.0 homicides per 100,000. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/

  3. San Francisco General Plan. Community Safety Element. http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=41420

  4. HP 2010 Objective 15-35: Reduce the annual rate of rape or attempted rape to 0.7 rapes or attempted rapes per 1,000 persons. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  5. HP 2010 Objective 15-36. Reduce sexual assault other than rape to 0.4 sexual assaults other than rape per 1,000 persons aged 12 years and older. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  6. HP 2010 Objective 15-37: Reduce physical assaults to 13.6 physical assaults per 1,000 persons aged 12 years older. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  7. HP 2010 Objective 15-38: Reduce physical fighting among adolescents such that 32 percent or less of adolescents in grades 9 through 12 engaged in physical fighting in the previous 12 months in 1999. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/

  8. California ABC Act. Business and Professions Code.  Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 1, Section 23879.  ABC may deny any retail liquor license located (a) within the immediate vicinity of churches and hospitals, or (b) within at least 600 feet of schools, public playgrounds and nonprofit youth facilities. http://www.abc.ca.gov/cbnpc.html

  9. California ABC Act. Business and Professions Code.  Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 2, Section 23817.5.  The number of off-sale beer and wine licenses is limited to one for each 2,500 people in a city or county, and the number of beer and wine licenses that can be issued in a city or county in combination with off-sale general licenses in limited to one for each 1,250 people.  http://www.abc.ca.gov/cbnpc.html  See also Section 23958.4 which defines criteria under which licenses may be denied for areas with "undue concentration" of alcohol outlets or where the addition of an alcohol outlet may create additional law enforcement problems.

  10. Oakland Planning Code.  Chapter 17.102.210 "No Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activity shall be located closer than one thousand (1,000) feet to any other Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activity" with particular three exceptions described in http://library2.municode.com:80/default-test/template.htm?view=browse&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key=9e806c17ea3e618d3da710a972c973a1&infobase=16490

1. International clearinghouse on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. http://www.thecptedpage.wsu.edu/
2. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design website. http://www.cpted-watch.com/
3. Project for Public Spaces. "What Role Can Design Play in Creating Safer Parks?" http://www.pps.org/parks_plazas_squares/info/design/toronto_safety_3
4. Landscape and Human Health Laboratory, University of Illinois. http://lhhl.illinois.edu/index.htm
5. US Green Building Council. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development. NPD Credits 9 & 10. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148
6. City of Arlington. Design Guidelines for Bonus Density and Height in Central Place. http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/forums/rosslyn/CPHDForumsRosslynProposedGuidelines.aspx
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthy Community Design Fact Sheet. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthy_comm_design.htm
8. San Francisco Neighborhood Emergency Response Teams. http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfnert_index.asp; Citizens of Oakland Respond to Emergencies (CORE). http://www.oaklandnet.com/fire/core/citywide.html
9. City of Oakland Police Department. Neighborhood Block Party Guide. http://www.oaklandnet.com/nno2009.html
10. Pacific Institute "How Alcohol Outlets Affect Neighborhood Violence." http://resources.prev.org/documents/AlcoholViolenceGruenewald.pdf
11. Every Block San Francisco: About Liquor License Status Changes. http://sf.everyblock.com/liquor-licenses/about/
12. Colman V, Sparks M. March 2006. "Public Convenience or Necessity": A Guide for Local Government and Interested Citizens. California Council on Alcohol Policy. http://www.ca-cpi.org/Publications/CARS_PCorN.pdf
13. Lochner KA, Kawachi I, Brennan RT, Buka SL. Social capital and neighborhood mortality rates in Chicago. Social Science & Medicine. 2003;56(8):1797-1805.
14. Cohen S, Underwood LG, Gottlieb BH. 2000. Social Support Measurement and Intervention. Oxford University Press. New York.
15. Berkman LF, Kawachi I. 2000. A Historical Framework for Social Epidemiology. Chapter 1 in Social Epidemiology. Oxford University Press. New York, NY.
16. Perez-Smith AM, Albus KE, Weist MD. Exposure to violence and neighborhood affiliation among inner-city youth. J Clin Child Psychol. 2001;30(4):464-72.
17. Ozer EJ, McDonald KL. Exposure to violence and mental health among Chinese American urban adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2006;39(1):73-9.
18. Fullilove MT, Heon V, Jimenez W, Parsons C, Green LL, Fullilove RE. Injury and anomie: effects of violence on an inner-city community. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(6):924-7.
19. 1) Prevention Institute (2005). A Lifetime Commitment to Violence Prevention: The Alameda County Blueprint. http://www.preventioninstitute.org/alameda.html. 2) Garcia, R.T. (2002). Multi-Agency Collaborative: Vallejo Neighborhood Revitalization. Golden Gate University Master’s in Public Administration thesis. 3) Sherman L, Gotfredson D, Mackenzie D, Eck J, Rueter P, Bushway (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress, National Institute of Justice, Washington D.C. http://http://www.ncjrs.gov/works/.
20. Prevention Institute. 2005. A Lifetime Commitment to Violence Prevention: The Alameda County Blueprint. Alameda County Public Health Department. http://www.acgov.org/pdf/AC_VP_Blueprint_7_1_05.pdf
21. Gruenewald PJ, Remer L. 2006. Changes in outlet densities affect violence rates. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 30(7):1184-1193.
22. Calhoun J. 2002. National Crime Prevention Council. New Partners for Smart Growth: Building Safe, Healthy, and Livable Communities. 2nd Annual Conference flyer.
23. Casteel C, Peek-Asa C. 2000. Effectiveness of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in reducing robberies. Am J Prev Med 18:99-115.
24. Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C. (2001). “Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?” Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343-367.
25. Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823-851.