|
 |
 |
|
|
Planning Home > General Plan > Community Facilities Element
Community Facilities Element
Introduction The purpose of the Police Facilities Section of the Community Facilities Element is to establish objective, policies, and criteria, for meeting San Francisco's long-range police facility requirements. The objectives address broad goals as they relate to the distribution, location, design and use of police facilities. Policies are courses of action which are supportive of the objectives and, together with criteria, provide a continuing guide and directive for public decisions. The plan deals with police facilities. It does not represent a plan for police operations. That task is the responsibility of the Police Department. However, the Police Facilities Section recognizes that changes in operations will inevitably take place and that inherent flexibility to accommodate operational changes is an essential component of a responsive and effective facility plan. The plan was prompted by an awareness by the Police Department of general facility inadequacies and deterioration of older buildings, and reflects a joint effort by the Police Department and the Department of City Planning. Historical Perspective Many of San Francisco's police facilities reflect the operational and locational criteria of the early 1900's. Police practice at that time required that the location of police stations be determined by the walking radius of officers in developed areas. Patrol by horse required stables at outlying stations. The grooming and care requirements for horses suggested that station with stables be located in or adjacent to parks. Only a few police buildings approach contemporary facility standards. The remaining facilities vary only in degree as to their level of physical deterioration and functional obsolescence. Several stations still have stables and none have accommodations for female patrol officers. While the prospect of replacing or rehabilitating police facilities implies a burden in terms of cost, it also poses the opportunity to plan, design and locate new facilities in a manner responsive to future community needs and desires. To this end, this plan has been formulated based on several fundamental assumptions. Fundamental Assumptions
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OBJECTIVE 1
The distribution, location and design of police facilities contribute to operational efficiency and flexibility. Improved efficiency frees officers for patrol and community relations work, while flexibility allows for adjustments in deployment of police resources in response to changing needs. In order to provide responsive police service, the organization of police operations should meet two basic concerns: police service on a neighborhood level, and overall citywide coordination of police activities. Responsiveness to neighborhoods calls for close community integration of services such as patrols, community relations, and public information. Overall departmental coordination requires the centralization of administration, communications staff services, records, and investigations in order to provide a citywide overview. Those police services which relate on a neighborhood level, or which need not be carried out centrally, should be assigned to district stations. Activities which relate to the city as a whole should be centralized. The expansion of the number of free standing facilities housing specialized functions should be discouraged since facilities in themselves require manpower for security and administrative staffing. As a general rule, expansion of police services should be accommodated either at district stations or at police headquarters. POLICY 1.1 Effective police service and management require the overall coordination of departmental activities and programs so that all citizens are assured of an equitable level of police service. Such coordination can best be achieved through the centralization of certain key activities. Such as administration, departmental policy formulation, program planning, manpower and resource allocation, information management, citywide operations ad communications control and dispatch, and centralization of police records. Centralization of these functions minimizes administrative activities at the district station level, while maximizing effectiveness by freeing police officers for patrol work and by supporting them with a comprehensive communications and information network. POLICY 1.2 The distribution, location, and design of district stations should provide effective policy services at the neighborhood level and maximize the number of police personnel available for patrol work. A relationship and possible trade-off exists between the number of district stations and the effectiveness of police service since police personnel required for station staffing might be poorly utilized if there is insufficient demand for their services. In order to maximize patrol and service effectiveness and still maintain the symbolic neighborhood value and public service convenience provided by neighborhood police facilities, a balance must be struck between operational requirements for district stations and community desires for maintaining police facilities in their neighborhoods. Community sentiment clearly favors nine district stations, and that number represents a satisfactory balance between operational efficiency and community desires for a neighborhood police presence. Therefore, unless public sentiment changes in the future, nine district should be retained. POLICY 1.3 Expressed community desires for maintaining a district station concept stems from the feeling that stationing police officers within a neighborhood fosters a greater sense of commitment, concern, and understanding, resulting in better police service and expanded community participation and cooperation in public safety efforts. This feeling is shared by police officers and suggests a greater decentralization of police personnel, operations, and services. To the extent possible, the broad range of police services that do not require centralization for effective performance, should be decentralized with service responsibility assigned on a neighborhood or a district station level. Decentralization of services should be based on a comprehensive review of current police operations, long-range programs for future services, and community input. New and renovated district stations should have the inherent capacity and flexibility to accommodate decentralization of services. POLICY 1.4 Firearms training should be supported by indoor facilities incorporated into the designs of district stations and police headquarters. Until there are sufficient indoor facilities, the Pistol Range at Lake Merced should be maintained but not expanded. Diverse opportunities for physical fitness training should be readily and conveniently available to police personnel. Exercise facilities should be included in district stations. A major athletic facility should also be available to all personnel and relate closely to headquarters and the police academy. Training for recruits and in-service training for sworn personnel should be supported by a police academy. The police academy should relate to the instructor pool at police headquarters and to the athletic facility. Classrooms for in-service instruction at district stations should also be provided. The unique requirements of the Mounted Unit and direct service relationship with Golden Gate Park suggest that the existing stables be maintained and improved as required. The two horse stables in McLaren Park should be maintained. A permanent hangar facility and landing pad for police helicopters is required and should be located in the "god weather belt" along the Bay. Proximity to headquarters is desirable. The design and setting of heliport and hanger facilities should be consistent with applicable control guidelines for this activity. POLICY 1.5 Stable and horse care requirements for mounted patrols, prior to the widespread use of vehicles, suggested that police stations be located in parks. Ingleside and Park Stations, which were built in 1910, are located in Balboa Park and Golden Gate Park for this reason. Likewise, the noise aspect of pistol practice suggested the remote location of this activity at Lake Merced. Replacement of horses by vehicles and developments in gunfire muffing techniques bring into question the logic of maintaining Ingleside and Park Stations and the Pistol Range in their current remote open space settings. In light of the high community value attached to parks in San Francisco, the preservation and restoration of park areas to park use is a long-range objective. Under the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, police facilities in designated recreation and open space areas are nonconforming uses. As these facilities become obsolete and require replacement, they should be relocated, consistent with the location and neighborhood service policies of this plan, and consistent with community desires for continued location of a district station in the neighborhood. POLICY 1.6 The long-term service life of police facilities requires flexibility in their design so that changing methods for providing police services can be accommodated. Technological, social and attitudinal changes affect police operations, requiring facility modifications to accommodate changing personnel, equipment, and work patterns. Police facilities should be easily adaptable to new special configurations and have sufficient capacity to meet future service requirements. Police facilities should be built to be operable in event of a seismic disaster, sited so as to minimize opportunities for covert attack and designed to provide protection of personnel. In achieving security, design treatments should be such as to maintain an open and inviting character which integrates the police facility with the community. Police facilities should be easily identifiable, set community standards for maintenance, appearance, neighborhood amenity, and enhance the dignity of and respect for the law enforcement process. Experience has shown that police facilities located in isolated settings are particulate vulnerable to attack. In addition to being security hazards, such facility locations are generally inaccessible to the community and should be avoided. Existing police buildings should be phased out of such locations. POLICY 1.7 Multiple use of police, fire, public health and other services or land uses should be encouraged whenever combined use is mutually reinforcing. In general, similar criteria govern the location of police, fire and emergency public health facilities and sufficient linkages exist between these services to warrant the consideration of combining these activities within one facility. Combined use of public services is further prompted by the scarcity of available sites that meet locational criteria. OBJECTIVE 2 The nature of police work entails numerous daily contacts with citizens, often during trying situations wherein the police are called upon to resolve conflicts or maintain law and order. Continuous communication, interaction and cooperation between the police and community on an informal basis foster understanding and develop ties which strengthen the community and aid the police in their peace-keeping responsibilities. Neighborhoods want to relate to police personnel on an individual basis, as partners working together to improve the quality of community life. That process is aided by deploying police personnel on a district station basis. However, district station buildings in themselves do not generate community ties. Police personnel should continue their efforts to establish, maintain and expand those ties which reinforce police/community relations. The location, distribution, design and operation of police facilities can be a catalyst for promoting closer police, community understanding, and more responsive and effective police service. POLICY 2.1 Convenient community access to both police services and personnel promotes better public use of police services and develops closer police/community ties. District stations, conveniently located to neighborhood shopping areas, provide the opportunity for filing crime and accident reports, paying traffic warrants, receiving crime prevention information, discussing problems with community relations officers, and meeting neighborhood patrol personnel. Police officers in turn get to know the people they serve, including their concerns and expectations relating to police services. Community needs may warrant the establishment of a "Neighborhood Services Facility," such as a storefront facility which provides municipal services on a neighborhood level. Inclusion of community relations and other police services should also be considered in conjunction with such a facility. Police neighborhood storefronts should be tested for their feasibility. However, in light of high administrative, security, and maintenance costs attached to "Neighborhood Store-fronts," expanded police/community relations service for San Franciscans should be primarily a function of outreach programs conducted by police personnel utilizing existing community facilities. POLICY 2.2 Locating district stations near the centers of their service areas reinforces community awareness of police service presence, adds to the convenience of personal visits to district stations, and is conducive to increasing interaction between neighborhood residents and district police personnel. In general, those elements which define neighborhoods also tend to be barriers to movement. Efficient police operations generally call for using barriers to movement as district boundaries. Locating stations centrally within a district also tends to minimize travel time within the district. Both of these operating criteria reinforce this policy. POLICY 2.3 The primary purpose of pistol practice, in-service training, and physical fitness facilities is to maintain police force performance standards. However, these facilities can serve as community resources when they are made available to the public, particularly youth, on a supervised basis. Opening police facilities for community use promotes opportunities for informal interaction between police personnel and the public, establishing ties which foster police/community understanding. Pistol range facilities can be used for recreational marksmanship programs. In-service training classrooms can be used for community meetings and police safety information programs. Athletic facilities can be used for "Youth Services Bureau programs and major youth tournaments.
Based on the objectives and policies of this plan, the following functional, locational, neighborhood relations, and design criteria are recommended for police facilities. POLICE HEADQUARTERS
Pistol Range
Police Athletic Facility
Park and Beach, and Mounted Unit Facilities
Police Heliport Facilities
Neighborhood Service Offices
Introduction The purpose of the Neighborhood Center Facilities Section is to establish
objectives, policies and criteria for meeting San Francisco's need for
such centers. The objectives address broad goals as they govern the location,
distribution, design and use of neighborhood centers, and the more detailed
policies and criteria articulate the objectives and serve as guidelines
for decision-making. The plan was prompted by community requests for development of City-owned neighborhood centers, and subsequent funding allocations for a Neighborhood Centers Program utilizing Community Development and other funds that may become available. Background Perspective Community services and facilities to meet social, cultural, educational, recreational and civic needs contribute significantly to the quality of community life. Traditional public facilities such as libraries, schools, recreation centers and public health clinics have long been recognized as meeting many of those needs. In addition, many neighborhoods are served by private non-profit community centers that are often available to the general public and provide services at no cost or low to moderate fees. These neighborhood centers, such as those connected with the YM/YWCA's or Golden Gate Neighborhood Centers Association, often provide recreational and cultural programs, child-care services, senior citizen programs, health screening, and various counseling and referral services. In many instances, however, citizens are deprived of ready access to the foregoing services because neighborhoods lack adequate facilities to house needed services. In other cases, the inability of facilities to meet code requirements, such as open space standards for child care or kitchen health standards for meals programs, precludes provision of services. Furthermore, existing services are often inaccessible to many people they ought to serve. For these reasons, many San Franciscans do not have adequate access to needed human services, and therefore a commitment should be made to develop a network of neighborhood centers that will provide a focus for neighborhood activities and services. These centers would provide new and better locations for existing services that are inadequately housed, and would have space for new services or expanded existing services to meet the needs of a particular neighborhood. In addition to providing services directly, the neighborhood centers can be used to refer residents to other locations in a citywide network of services. Fundamental Assumptions
OBJECTIVE 3 One component contributing to the quality of the living environment is the availability of community services and facilities designed to meet the cultural, social and recreational needs of neighborhood residents. While there are already many neighborhood services and facilities (libraries, recreation centers, health centers, police stations, schools) there are still unmet needs. Services to be provided vary according to the composition and needs of the population in the area and include activities such as child care, health care, youth activities, senior citizen programs and adult education and enrichment programs. A multi-purpose neighborhood center not only is a facility that provides needed services, but is a place where neighbors can gather and socialize, and is a symbol to all residents of the binding sense of "community" shared by the neighborhoods. As such a neighborhood center serves as a focus for community activities. POLICY 3.1 Some San Francisco neighborhoods lack adequate physical facilities for needed services and for neighborhood activities. Therefore, the City should undertake programs to provide multipurpose centers in neighborhoods where they are lacking or inadequate. Centers need not be new, independent buildings, but can be additions to existing community facilities such as schools, libraries, health centers and recreation centers. Rehabilitation and renovation of such existing public buildings can result in useful neighborhood centers. POLICY 3.2 In assigning resources to develop neighborhood centers, care must be taken so as not to duplicate existing facilities with adequate capacity. Before a neighborhood center is constructed or acquired by the City, all existing facilities in the neighborhood should be surveyed and evaluated with respect to their adequacy. Expansion of existing facilities should first be explored before establishing a new facility. If required and practical, new facilities should be conveniently located in relation to existing public facilities. When developing a new facility consideration should also be given to relocating existing City and private services into it from rental quarters or spaces which are too small or otherwise substandard. POLICY 3.3 A community must strongly identify with its neighborhood center if successful and responsive use and service is to occur. Clearly locating a center within a perceived neighborhood strengthens the sense of identity between the residents and the center. As a physical symbol of the neighborhood the center could generate greater neighborhood interest and participation in its activities and programs. The diverse character and size of San Francisco's districts and neighborhoods will cause considerable variety in the scale and character of centers. POLICY 3.4 Participation in neighborhood centers activities and programs is encouraged when centers are visibly located near or within areas where neighborhood activity is clustered such as neighborhood shopping areas, recreation centers, libraries, schools and health centers. Centers should be easily accessible, particularly by foot and public transit. Major trafficways are not good locations in view of possible congestion and lowered standards of safety and traffic engineering. POLICY 3.5 In order for neighborhood centers to be effective they should be multi-purpose and sufficiently flexible to accommodate all potential users, including children, handicapped people, and elderly. Spaces and rooms should lend themselves to various activities in response
to the many and changing needs of a particular community. This can be
achieved through the use of movable partitions and by providing ample
storage space. POLICY 3.6 The general level of need for and access to community services varies among neighborhoods. The types and mix of services desired also varies. In determining priorities, consideration should be given to neighborhoods in greatest need of centers, with special emphasis for the disadvantaged. Income is a key indicator of service need, since lower-income people do not have the financial ability to purchase services such as child care, health care, recreation and personal development/career enrichment programs. Likewise, existing facilities in lower-income neighborhoods tend to be older and inadequate for needed services. Another major consideration is access to services. Many people, particularly lower-income and elderly people, are denied needed services because these services are virtually inaccessible. Facilities should be first provided in those neighborhoods where basic livability services are needed and where people are being denied these services due to poor access. POLICY 3.7 All neighborhoods have some social services, and facilities that house those services. However, often there are "service gaps" where needs and services do not match. Child care, senior citizen programs and activities, and places for neighbors to meet and conduct community programs are often lacking. New neighborhood centers should seek to complement and supplement existing services and activities. Since the facilities that house existing services may be inadequate, often jeopardizing the continuation of expansion of a much-needed service, new or improved neighborhood centers should provide for the relocation of services from substandard facilities. POLICY 3.8 It is often not practical, and even not desirable, to house a full range of services for the entire neighborhood in a single center. For example, child care and a drug abuse program may not be compatible in the same facility. However, in order to facilitate broad access to services, neighborhood centers should be the pivotal point in the community, providing referrals to other facilities and thus linking together all services to make them available to each neighborhood. Neighborhood centers should have linkages with and relate to the neighborhood programs and facilities of the Art Commission, Commission on Aging, Recreation and Park Department, Public Library, Unified School District, Police Department, Health Department, Department of Social Services, and private service agencies. OBJECTIVE 4 Basic to the notion of a neighborhood center is that it be responsive to the broad needs and desires of the community served. If a center fails in this regard it will cease to be used by neighborhood residents. In order to develop and operate centers that are responsive, active neighborhood participation in the planning, programming and ongoing management of the center must be maintained. In general, centers should be planned so that no single group, activity or program is predominant. Programs should be oriented toward all age groups and provide a mix of specialized services, referral services and general activities. The effectiveness of the centers' program and activities should be periodically evaluated to assess whether the needs of the community are being met and whether potential center users are being denied access due to inadequate programming or other causes. POLICY 4.1 Neighborhood participation is essential to the successful and responsive functioning of a neighborhood center. Neighborhood input, from the initial planning stages through center programming and management, instills a sense of neighborhood control of the center. This is vital to the acceptance of the center as a true neighborhood facility. Also, broad neighborhood participation in center programming is essential to the definition of unmet needs and assessment of the level of interest in various programs and activities. Neighborhood comment and reaction to center operation and programs should be continuously monitored and programs and activities modified to meet changing needs. POLICY 4.2 Effective center management and administration is essential if the many and varied needs of a neighborhood are to be met. The various center programs and activities must, in addition to being responsive to neighborhood needs, be compatible, coordinated and scheduled to match user needs. In addition, provision must be made for ongoing facility operation, maintenance and administrative management. There are several alternative approaches for assigning neighborhood center management responsibility, including having one agency/service provider within each center take the lead and assume this responsibility, contract with an independent firm for center management services, or management by a non-profit corporation responsible to either a community board or a coalition of service providers located within the neighborhood center. POLICY 4.3 In order to insure that neighborhood centers in each community continue to function in a responsive and responsible manner, some entity, separate from center management, should be assigned the responsibility of administrative supervision of centers for the City. Administrative supervisory responsibilities include general monitoring of center activities, assessment of programs, technical assistance and general supervision of center operations, management and maintenance. There are several alternative approaches for assigning administrative supervisory responsibilities, including assumption of responsibilities by an experienced private agency acting for the City, use of an existing agency of local government, or creation of a new public agency.
One of the key elements in successfully planning multi-service centers for use by specific population groups is the location. Location plays a major role in the outreach efforts of service providers. A conveniently placed facility, for example, will help encourage people who have already heard of the center to use its services. If the center is prominently placed it will remind people of its presence and even advertise itself to people who otherwise would not know of its existence. Location Criteria The Center should be centrally located
The location should contain elements which act as a focus for the community.
Centers should be near public transit stops, especially those directly serving the population groups to be reached. Service centers should be located within neighborhood boundaries; however, programs could be developed to serve surrounding or adjacent communities. Information and referral services, for example, could be utilized by persons other than local residents without causing a measurable reduction in program services to the local community. Centers should be located so that center-related activities and center uses are compatible and supportive of adjacent land uses, and do not disrupt nor detract from adjoining uses. Center sites should be protected from the negative effects of vehicular traffic. Facilities should be accessible without requiring patrons, particularly children and the elderly, to cross streets which carry heavy vehicular traffic. Entrances should be located in such a manner as to provide safe ingress and egress and smooth circulation patterns. The Fire Facilities Section of the Community Facilities Element is intended to serve as a guide to the greatest degree possible the following objective: OBJECTIVE 5
Principles The following principles are an integral and basic part of the Fire Facilities Section:
The Library Facilities Section of the Community Facilities Element is intended to serve as a guide to the following objective: OBJECTIVE 6
Principles The following principles are an integral and basic part of the Library Facilities Section:
The Public Health Centers Section of the Community Facilities Element is designed as a guide to the following objective: OBJECTIVE 7 The goals of the public health program are to create and maintain a healthy environment in which people may live and work, to help each individual in a community reach and sustain his maximum capacity for health, and to promote physical and mental efficiency through organized community effort. In a city such as San Francisco, district health centers properly located to suit the public need and convenience are important in achieving these goals.
Principles The following principles are an integral and basic part of the Public Health Centers Section:
OBJECTIVE 8 POLICY 8.1
OBJECTIVE 9 POLICY 9.1 The areas that are shown on the Institutional Facilities Plan are those occupied by or reserved for large groups of buildings of a public or a semi-public nature. They include San Francisco State College, University of San Francisco, Laguna Honda Home, Youth Guidance Center, several large parochial schools and the University of California Medical Center and the Civic Center.
OBJECTIVE 10 POLICY 10.1
OBJECTIVE 11 POLICY 11.1
|
© City & County of San Francisco. All rights reserved. |
