Objective PI.5 Increase park, open space and recreation facilities

Indicators, Development Targets and Policies/Design Strategies

Indicators Development Targets Policies/Design Strategies
Primary
a. Proportion of population within 1/4 mile of a neighborhood or regional park

Benchmark #1: Is the project within 1/4 mile access of a neighborhood or regional park (a park larger than 1/2 acre)?

AND

Benchmark #2: Does the project contribute funding (via impact fee or community benefits agreement) towards existing open space or to the construction of new open space or parks facilities?

Regulatory Minimum: San Francisco Planning Code, Section 139 Downtown Park Special Fund requires $2 per square foot of the net addition of gross floor area of office use to be constructed as set forth in the final approved building or site permit to be contributed to a Downtown Park Fund to help the City acquire and develop public park and recreational facilities to serve the daytime population.

Regulatory Minimum: San Francisco Planning Code, Section 138 – Open Space Requirements in C-3 Districts requires new buildings or increased floor area (equal to 20% or more of an existing building) to provide open space in the ratio of 1 square foot of open space for every 50 square feet of specified uses and for every 50 square feet of C-3 R uses. Additional requirements related to size, design, exposure to wind and sunlight, and maintenance are also delineated.

  • Local policy-makers support policies that maintain and create new neighborhood parks and pocket parks in close proximity to residents' homes.1

  • Design parks and open spaces to be accessible and usable for arts and cultural activities.2
  • Promote transparency in funding allocations per park or by neighborhood for maintenance, clean-up, and resource allocation costs.3,4
  • Create an open space impact fee on development to provide funds for purchase of new open space, and maintenance and programming of new and existing open space.5
  • Create safe, continuous, and functional bicycle and pedestrian routes to parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities from development projects through the use of well-defined crosswalks, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, street lights, and traffic calming measures on streets near parks.6,7
  • Consider existing and proposed designs that improve visibility of green and open space.8,9
  • Establish joint-use agreements with school districts and other agencies that identify roles and responsibilities and provide standards for operations and maintenance, scheduling, and capital improvements. 10,11
  • Acquire irregular, surplus parcels located in retail and commercial areas for use as open space, plazas, and community gathering spaces and evaluate maintenance and safety impacts and compatibility with surrounding uses before developing park plans.12

  • Develop or designate perimeter trails with lighting and mileage markers around parks to encourage regular use by the community to increase safety and extend evening hours of park usage.12

  • Prioritize acquiring parkland in high-density, low-income and/or minority neighborhoods to ensure that each neighborhood meets the city's park level of service standard (5 acres per 1,000 of active community parkland).13,14
  • Establish and implement a regular evaluation of community park and recreation needs, especially the needs of youth and seniors. 15
  • Preserve the availability of sites for civic facilities, such as parks, to ensure that facilities are adequate for population growth.16
  • Encourage sustainable sources of funding for park facility maintenance and programming.17,18
  • Modify Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to include children as an additional demographic to be serviced in order to promote families' use of public transit and carpooling to children's activities (i.e., school, day care, playgrounds, and community activities).19,20
b. Proportion of population within 1/4 mile of a recreation facility

Benchmark #1: Is the project within 1/4 mile of a recreational facility?

AND

Benchmark #2: Does the project contribute funding (via impact fee or community benefits agreement) towards an existing recreational facility or to the construction of a new recreational facility?
c. Proportion of public parks receiving a Park Evaluation Score of 95% or more

Benchmark: Does the project contribute funding (via impact fee or community benefits agreement) towards parks maintenance and/or programming to improve park accessibility and quality?
d. Per capita public recreational and park funding

Same as above.

Health-based Rationale

  • The number of neighborhood parks in proximity to one's residence and the types of amenities at the park are associated with physical activity in children.21
  • Access to places for physical activity is associated with increases in the frequency of physical activity.22
  • Living in proximity to green space is associated with reduced self-reported health symptoms, better self-rated health, and higher scores on general health questionnaires.23
  • Parks and open spaces provide needed reprieve from everyday stressors, acting as “escape facilities”. Being able to escape fast-paced urban environments improves the health by reducing stress and depression and improving the ability to focus, pay attention, be productive, and recover from illness.24
  • A study in Chicago showed that people living in a housing project who had some green space near them scored higher on the ability to manage major life issues, they procrastinated less, found their issues to be less difficult, and reported them to be less severe and long-standing than those who lived in barren surroundings.25
  • In a study in Chicago, observations of vegetated areas with trees and grass indicated that green spaces contained on average 90% more people. In addition, 83% more people were involved in social activities in green spaces vs. barren spaces.26
  • A 1% increase in park space can increase physical activity in youth by 1.4%.27

  • An analysis of data from 2,134 women in five states found that the density of fitness facilities in an individual’s ZIP code predicted their body mass index. The study estimates that an additional fitness facility per 1000 residents in ones ZIP code is associated with a reduction in BMI of 1.39 kg/m2.28

  • Children who live in close proximity to parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities tend to be more active compared to children who do not live near those facilities.29

Established Standards

  1. The San Francisco General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) states that “every San Franciscan should be served by a park within walking distance of their home,” and establishes that a neighborhood area has adequate access to open space if it is within one-half mile of city wide open space, three-tenths of a mile of district open space, one-quarter mile of neighborhood open space or one-eight mile of subneighborhood open space. Policy 1.3 Increase the accessibility of regional parks by locating new parks near population centers, establishing low user costs, improving public transit service to parks and creating regional bike and hiking trails. Policy 2.1 Provide an adequate total quantity and equitable distribution of public open spaces throughout the City. Accessed on May 13, 2008: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=41414
  2. According to the Quimby Act (California Code §66477), a city may require the dedication of land or the payment of fees to provide up to five acres of park per area per 1,000 residents.
  3. A park classification system and a set of guidelines has been development by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) to identify park types and recreation opportunity for each type. The NRPA provides standards for a vast number of recreational activities and the number of units per population (e.g. Tennis – 1 court per 2,000 population; Soccer – 1 per 10,000 population). http://www.lib.niu.edu/1997/ip970317.html
  4. San Francisco Planning Code, Section 139 Downtown Park Special Fund requires $2 per square foot of the net addition of gross floor area of office use to be constructed as set forth in the final approved building or site permit to be contributed to a Downtown Park Fund to help the City acquire and develop public park and recreational facilities to serve the daytime population. Available at: http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?sid=5&browseAllCodes=San%20Francisco
  5. San Francisco Planning Code, Section 138 – Open Space Requirements in C-3 Districts requires new buildings or increased floor area (equal to 20% or more of an existing building) to provide open space in the ratio of 1 square foot of open space for every 50 square feet of specified uses and for every 50 square feet of C-3 R uses. Additional requirements related to size, design, exposure to wind and sunlight, and maintenance are also delineated. Available at: http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?sid=5&browseAllCodes=San%20Francisco
1. Leadership for Healthy Communities Advancing Policies to Support Healthy Eating and Active Living. Action Strategies Toolkit: A Guide for Local and State Leaders Working to Create Healthy Communities and Prevent Childhood Obesity. May 2008. http://www.leadershipforhealthycommunities.org/images/stories/toolkit/lhc_action_strategies_toolkit_0900504final.pdf
2. Project for Public Spaces. Plazas, Parks, and Central Squares http://www.pps.org/project_lists/ParksPlazasCentralSquares/PlazasEtc.html
3. PolicyLink. "Safety, Growth, and Equity: Infrastructure Policies That Promote Opportunity and Inclusion." http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97c6d565-bb43-406d-a6d5-eca3bbf35af0%7D/SAFETYGROWTHEQUITY-INFRAPOLICIES_FINAL.PDF
4. San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond 2008. http://www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm_recpark/GOBond/ParksTrust100907.pdf http://www.sfgov.org/site/recpark_page.asp?id=64140
5. California Park and Recreation Society. Information & Referral: Park Development, Quimby Act, Impact Fees. http://www.cprs.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=129&Itemid=99
6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. There is a Need for Interesting/Important Destinations within Walking Distance http://www.walkinginfo.org/problems/problems-destinations.cfm
7. Project for Public Spaces. Parks Resources http://www.pps.org/parks_plazas_squares/
8. American Journal of Public Health. "Healthy Places: Exploring the Evidence" http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/93/9/1451
9. Municipal Research and Services Center for Washington. Scenic View Protection http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/view.aspx
10. California Department of Education. School Facility Program Joint-Use Projects. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/jtuse.asp
11. New Schools Better Neighborhoods. Joint-Use Case Studies. http://www.nsbn.org/case/jointuse/
12. City of Lancaster. Parks, Recreation, and Arts Master Plan. http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/Index.aspx?page=358
13. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. "Planning for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space in Your Community" http://www.cted.wa.gov/_CTED/documents/ID_1691_Publications.pdf
14. National Recreation and Parks Association. "Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines" by James D. Mertes and James R. Hall (only in hard copy)
15. Redwood City Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Customer Satisfaction Survey http://ask.redwoodcity.org/TakeSurvey.asp?SurveyID=33Jl83MK4693G
16. Urban Institute. "The Right Way to Sell Off Public Assets" http://www.urban.org/publications/900984.html
17. City of Sacramento Neighborhood Park Maintenance Community Facility District Fee http://www.cityofsacramento.org/finance/fees/fees-by-department-division.cfm?DeptDiv=DIV-51
18. City of Davis Park Maintenance Tax http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=15-15_14-15_14_040&frames=on
19. Canada. School Transport Management http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/UTSP/schooltransportation.htm
20. National Center for Transit Research at University of South Florida: School Pool Programs http://www.nctr.usf.edu/clearinghouse/schoolpool.htm
21. Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, Overton A, Evenson KR, Staten LK, Porter D, McKenzie TL, Catellier D. Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):e1381-1389.
22. Kahn EB. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2002;22:87-88.
23. Vries S, de Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, Spreeuwenberg P. Natural environments - healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between green space and health. Environment and Planning. 2003;35:1717-1731.
24. Maller C, Townsend M, Pryor A, Brown P, St. Leger L. 2005. Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International 21(1):45-53.
25. Guite HF, Clark C, Ackrill G. 2006. The impact of physical and urban environment on mental well-being. Public Health 120:1117-1126.
26. Sullivan WC, Kuo FE, DePooter Sf. 2004. The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior 36(5):678-700.
27. Roemmich JN, Epstein LH, Raja S, Robinson J, Winiewicz D. 2006. Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children. Preventive Medicine 43(6):437-441.
28. Mobley LR, Root ED, Finkelstein EA, et al. Environment, obesity, and cardiovascular disease risk in low-income women. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(4):327-332.
29. Bauman A, Bull F. Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity and Walking in Adults and Children: A Review of Reviews. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007.