The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-11-05 P & R Packet CITY OF CENTERVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION AGENDA Wednesday, November 5, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call II. SET AGENDA III. APPEARANCES IV. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. October 1, 2008 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes V. COMMITTEE BUSINESS VI. UPDATES 1. Additional Lighting at Tracie McBride Memorial & Eagle Parks 2. Park Signage (hours, park rules, no trespassing, no fishing, etc.) 3. Problems at Eagle Park (teenagers, neighborhood complaints) 4. Hidden Spring Park 5. Fete des Lacs 2009 Centerville Lake WalkIRun 6. Drinking Fountain at Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park 7. Climbing Wall- Tracie McBride Memorial Park VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting dates for November and December. Meetings are at 6:30 p.m. unless noted otherwise November 3 (Monday) - Regular P&Z (moved due to election) Election Day NOVEMBER 4 November 5 6:00 p.m. Special Council re: Election results and reviewing bids on 2009 Street Improvement 6:30 P.M. Park and Rec Committee November 12 Regular Council meeting Regular Council meeting (moved due to Thanksgiving holiday) Council special meeting -Special Assessment Hearing for 2009 Street November 24 (Monday) - December 1 (Monday) - Improvement December 2 (Tuesday) - 6:00 p.m. Council special meeting- Truth in Taxation Hearing 6:30 p.m. Regular P&Z (following Council meeting) December 3 Park and Rec Committee December 10 Regular Council meeting December 30 (Tuesday)- Regular Council meeting (moved due to Christmas Holiday) I believe these are all correct. We will keep you posted if anything needs to change. (])alIas Larson, j'ldministrator City of Centervilfe 651-429-3232 1(:' e w s !J 4 ::> Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes 10-01-08 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, October 1, 2008 - 6:00 p.m. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Parks & Recreation Committee of the City of Centerville held the regularly scheduled Wednesday, October 1,2008 meeting at City Hall, 1880 Main Street. Present: Chairperson Suzanne Seeley Vice-Chairperson Kevin Amundsen Committee Member Kevin Selander Committee Member Savannah Lee Mrro@~~[(@w@@] Absent: Committee Member Mark Haiden Committee Member Patrick Branch Committee Member Lori Harris Council: Council Liaison Tom Lee Staff: Staff Liaison Kim Stephan I. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call Chairperson Seeley called the October 1, 2008 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. II. SET AGENDA Chairperson Seeley requested adding Officer Andy Dixon under Appearances to discuss park issues. Also requested was the addition of Centennial Youth Hockey Association's request to use the Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park facilities for the 2008-2009 hockey season under Committee Business. Motion was made by Vice-Chairperson Amundsen, seconded by Committee Member Selander to set the agenda with the above additions. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. III. APPEARANCES Office Andv Dixon. Ealde Park Problems Officer Andy Dixon made an appearance to discuss lighting at the parks, as well as recent problems reported at Eagle Park. Ms. Stephan informed the committee that there had been multiple complaints from residents regarding teenagers at Eagle Park; loud, swearing, being hard on the equipment meant for smaller children and intimidating younger kids. Ms. Stephan recommended the residents call the police when they see this happening, but they seemed hesitant, one said they didn't want the teenagers retaliating. The Parks & lof6 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes 10-01-08 Recreation Committee did do a spring clean up of this park and found drug paraphernalia, empty bottles and hundreds of cigarette butts in a secluded clearing in the dense pine trees. Vice-Chairperson Amundsen trimmed up the trees so there would be a better view of what was going on, as well as making users of the trail feel a little safer. The resident's complaints also included the park is too dark and the tennis court too isolated and completely surrounded by trees. The residents are asking for a more frequent police presence at this park and are asking Parks & Recreation and Public Works to consider removing some of the trees. Mayor Capra also had met with residents and received emails from other residents with these same concerns. Chairperson Seeley asked Officer Dixon for input regarding additional lighting at Tracie McBride Memorial Park and Eagle Park, does it help to have additional lights or does it encourage use after dark. Officer Dixon prefaced his answer with another officer, who regularly works evenings in Centerville, was supposed to come to the meeting instead of him and Officer Dixon did not regularly work evenings in Centerville. But, he stated he could never say more lights are a bad thing, though cost is certainly a consideration. Officer Dixon asked what the committee would like to see from the Police Department regarding the complaints at Eagle Park. Council Member Lee said they would like stepped up patrol at Eagle Park and when officers do make contact with the teenagers, make a point of letting the teenagers know why you are there, bring the teenagers home and talk to the parents. Perhaps have officers walk the trail at night. Officer Dixon stated the teenagers would be brought home if there were doing anything wrong and citizens should call the police. City Council is already looking at the light issue for Tracie McBride Memorial Park. Officer Dixon has information regarding park lighting he will get to Ms. Stephan before the next committee meeting and he will talk to Chief Makela about stepping about patrolling around Eagle Park. Park Simae:e The committee discussed why park signs stating the rules have not been put in place as this was something that went to City Council in early spring. If would be much easier for the officers to enforce the rules, such as hours, if they were posted. The committee then also questioned why the signs requested in 2007 and again in the spring of 2008 have never been put up in Hidden Spring Park? There were also supposed to be 'No Trespassing' signs on the north and south borders of Hidden Spring abutting the St. Paul Water Utility property and the property owner to the south. Vice-Chairperson Amundsen asked why the entry signs into Centerville have not been replaced, he came across a discussion in his notes the committee had in 2005 regarding this issue and they have still not been replaced. The recycling and no parking signs are so faded they can barely be read. Ms. Stephan will forward questions to Public Works. IV. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Seotember 3. 2008 Parks and Recreation Committee Meetine: Minutes The first paragraph under Committee Business regarding additional lighting states 'committee members individually toured all the parks.' Chairperson Seeley requested that be modified to 'individually toured the parks', as each member did not go to each park. Also in the same paragraph change 'Tracie McBride Memorial Park is the only park without a street light in the immediate vicinity' to 'Tracie McBride Memorial Park and Eagle Park are the only parks without a street light in the immediate vicinity of the entrance.' Vice-Chairperson requested changing the sentence under Fete des Lacs 8K Run from 'discussion was had regarding planning of this event' to 'discussion was had regarding the design and ad 20f6 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes 10-01-08 deadlines for this event. ' Motion was made by Chairperson Seeley, seconded by Vice-Chairperson Amundsen, to approve the September 3, 2008 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes with the above corrections. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. v. COMMITTEE BUSINESS YMCAlWar20 Pro2rams At the September meeting the committee made a motion to request Council consider funding an additional $693 to the YMCA for costs incurred with the 2008 Park Play Days. At the February 2008 Parks & Recreation meeting the committee made a motion to recommend that City Council authorize up to $1000 to support the youth activities of the YMCA and Wargo Nature Center for the 2008 Park Play Days at Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park. The February motion was approved by City Council for $1,000. Council was not willing however, to approve the additional $693. Chairperson Seeley requested the committee consider asking City Council again to support the additional $693, as she did not want the YMCA to operate in Centerville at a loss or not be willing to continue with the Park Play Days in the future for lack of funding from the City. The committee discussed the financial support of the program over the last few years which began with $300 the first year and in 2007 the City contributed $750. The majority of the committee felt $1,000 was more than adequate to subsidize a program in Centerville. It was originally stated the YMCA would keep the committee informed if there were low registration numbers for the program and the committee would review the proposal. The YMCA did not come back to the committee requesting more funding until the program was over. The skate park portion was cancelled due to low registration. The committee feels comfortable with funding the $1,000 portion which was invoiced to the City following the council meeting and has been paid. Ms. Liz Guimont from the YMCA asked via ernail whether the committee was interested in the program next summer as they were currently putting together their program guide. The committee is certainly interested. Ms. Stephan will pass that on to Ms. Guimont. Chem-Lawn I Tru-Green In response to the discussion at the last committee meeting regarding the City employing Chern Lawn and the possibility of phosphorus being put on the City's parks, Mr. Palzer contacted the company representative at Tru-Green, which is actually the company the City uses, not Chern-Lawn. The representative said that Tru-Green only uses phosphorus in their lawn starter and not in any of the applications they applied in Centerville this year. The committee was satisfied that there is no need to change companies or do further research if the company the City uses is not using phosphorus. VI. UPDATES Tracie McBride Memorial Park Renovations Additional Lighting Request at Tracie McBride Memorial Park This item was discussed under appearances and will be included on the next Parks & Recreation 30f6 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes 10-01-08 Committee Meeting Agenda. Message Board at Tracie McBride Memorial Park The committee asked at the last meeting when would the message board be installed in place of the faux window. Mr. Palzer had said there was a message board available at City Hall which could be installed at Tracie McBride Memorial Park, but he was mistaken, there is not a board available. Ms. Stephan informed the committee that if this is something the committee would still like to do they would need a motion to have staff purchase one. Also to please consider who would be keeping this board updated and what type of information would be posted. No action was taken at this time. Ms. Stephan also asked the committee to consider who would be responsible for an additional flowerbed installed around the Tracie McBride Memorial Park building as discussed at the last committee meeting. We have one resident volunteer who has adopted the flowerbed at this park, the rest of the parks (5) are being done by staff, as time permits. Another flowerbed would probably not fit into staff time. Dead Broke Saddle Club/Climbing Wall The Dead Broke Saddle Club met Tuesday, September 23, 2008 and discussed the donation to Parks & Recreation for the climbing wall and has donated $6,000 for this purpose. This information will be passed on to Public Works and Mr. Larson to order the equipment. Hidden SPrint!: Park Ms. Stephan passed on the following update submitted by Mark Statz, City Engineer, via email 09-02-08 from Viet, the Hidden Spring contractor. Veit has replaced the hose-bib connection on the fountain again. We also straighten the fountain and talking with the fountain supplier they recommend a concrete pad poured around to help stabilize. If you want us to provide one please send a design. Regarding the damage to some asphalt areas, Veit is not responsible for these damages. We were substantially complete prior to Centerville's Centennial celebration in the park and the damage was discovered after that. There were numerous trailers and heavy activities during that festival. The damage occurred during that time frame, not during construction. Once the raingarden plant replacement is finished, Veil will consider this project 100% complete and no other punch list items remaining. We will request full retainage released at that time. Thank you and if you have any questions let me know. Jesse Roush, Project Manager/Estimator Ms. Stephan discussed this with Mr. Tedd Peterson, Public Works who was adamant the damage was done by Veit and has nothing to do with the 'Centennial Celebration' and pointed this out to the contractor at the site as it was done. He also pointed it out to Bonestroo, multiple times. This information was forwarded again to Bonestroo and Veit then responded with Quality Restoration was out to fix the black top. Mr. Peterson has also asked that the Comeast cable hanging from the post at Hidden Spring Park be buried as it has been cut multiple times, not to mention it looks bad and is a Safety hazard. He has talked to Comcast and to Chris Long at Bonestroo and it is still not buried. Ms. Stephan passed this information on to Bonestroo, the Public Works Director and City Administrator. 40f6 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes 10-01-08 Fete des Lacs 2009 Centerville Lake WalklRun In the packet was a copy of the Special Use Permit Request Form used by Anoka County Parks and filled out by Committee Member Branch. Ms. Stephan emailedthisapplicationtoieff.perry@co.anoka.mn.us and asked him how to proceed. He reviewed the application and gave preliminary approval. Closer to the actual race they will need insurance information and the $25 fee. Also included was a map which needs to have the specific spots marked for things such as start, finish, water stations and first aid. The City's insurance representative had said adding the binder listing Anoka County is not a problem for the event, but it is not something that can be provided now. Committee Member Branch was unable to attend this meeting but the committee did discuss various routes and the problem with the frrst choice of the race going down Mill Road, Peltier Lake Drive and Main Street around Centerville Lake and ending at Laurie LaMotte memorial Park is the 2009 Street Project affecting Mill Road and Peltier Lake Drive. The goal is to make it an 8K and ending in the park where all the fete des Lacs activities are held. The route is yet to be determined, but will again be discussed at the next scheduled committee meeting Drinkinf! Fountain at Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park The committee was under the impression that a drinking fountain for Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park was to be installed and had questioned why it had not been. Ms. Stephan went back to Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes in late 2006 when pavilions were frrst being discussed for Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park, all the way through current and there was not a motion made or requests for information concerning costs associated with a drinking fountain at this park by the committee. It was just discussed a few times vaguely. At this time the committee would like to move forward with researching costs and a precise location of where a drinking fountain would work in this park. Motion was made by Committee Member Selander, seconded by Vice-Chairperson Amundsen to request the Public Workers Director provide the committee with a cost estimate for a drinking fountain at Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park, as well as a precise location the fountain could be installed and a timeline of installation. The committee would like a spigot with spring loaded push button automatic type shutoff with an under access door to unscrew for maintenance. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. In discussing removing trees at Eagle Park is was suggested by Vice-Chairperson Amundsen that the committee should discuss ways to enlighten residents about the perils of buckthorn as it is in all of our parks, is very invasive and should be removed. The roots put out a toxic substance that will kill other trees. The berries are eaten by birds and easier spread by bird droppings. The berries are black and are abundant right now and the plant stays green into November. Buckthorn is not native. It was suggested information be included in utility bills as how it can be eradicated. There is also abundant poison ivy in Eagle Park that needs to be removed. The committee would like to meet at the Eagle Park to determine which trees to remove and perhaps do the work as a committee. This will be discussed at the next committee meeting. The goal would be to open up the park. Centennial Youth Hockev Association - Use of Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park 2008-2009 Season Included in the packet was a request from the Centennial Youth Hockey Association for the use of Laurie 50f6 L Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes 10-01-08 LaMotte Memorial Park Hockey Rink for the 2008-2009 season. Mr. Tedd Peterson, Public Works to reviewed the request to see if there were any problems. He requested a few specific items from CYHA; do not use chalk or paint on the cement, use cones instead and they will need to go through the player gate opposed to the service gate as the service gate keeps getting vandalized and is currently locked. The Parks & Recreation Committee made the following recommendations at the October 1, 2008 committee meeting. Centennial Youth Hockey Association - Use of Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park Hockey Rink for Dry Land Practice 2008-2009 Season The Parks & Recreation Committee discussed the use of the facilities for dry land practice and agreed to the usage with the following conditions: . A schedule of usage, as well as a contact list of coaches responsible during the time it is being used will be provided by the association. . There will be no use of the facilities after 9 p.m. daily. . The nets will be padlocked when not in use. The key to the lights and padlock will be supplied in a lock box by Public Works. . The Centennial Youth Hockey Association will sign a waiver releasing the City of Centerville from any liability and will take responsibility for any damage occurring while the association is using the facilities. . There will be no use of chalk or paint on the concrete surface of the rink. Motion was made by Vice-Chairperson Amundsen, seconded by Committee Member Selander to recommend to City Council approving the Centennial Youth Hockey Association's use of dry land time with the use of the park lights at Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park for the 2008-2009 season with the above conditions. All in Favor: Motion passed unanimously. Centennial Youth Hockev Association - Use of Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park Hockey Rink for the 2008-2009 Season Motion was made by Vice-Chairperson Amundsen, seconded by Committee Member Selander to recommend to City Council approving the Centennial Youth Hockey Association's use of the hockey rink for the 2008-2009 season with a dedicated half sheet of ice from 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. and a dedicated full sheet of ice from 8:00 - 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. All in Favor: Motion passed unanimously. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Committee Member Lee, seconded by Committee Member Selander to adjourn the October 1, 2008 Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting at 8:25 p.m. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously. 60f6 MEMO TO: Parks and Recreation Committee Members FROM: Kim Stephan SUBJECT: Committee Business & Updates DATE: October 31,2008 Additional Lie:htine: at Tracie McBride Memorial & Eae:le Parks The following email is from Officer Andrew Dixon regarding supplying the committee with more information about lighting at the parks: I had planned on attending the meeting last I understood, however my schedule has been moved and I am no longer working the day of the Nov. meeting. I will have a CSO deliver some iriformation to you promptly and I appreciate the reminder. Andy Dixon Included in your packet is information from Officer Dixon. Drinkine: Fountain at Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park Included in your packet is a cost estimate from Mr. Paul Palzer regarding a drinking fountain being installed at Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park. Mr. Tedd Peterson, Public Works asked me to have the committee also consider a few things concerning drinking fountains at the parks, he said they are a nightmare from Public Works standpoint and he would like the committee to reconsider putting yet another one in Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park. He would also like the committee to reconsider the spigot idea. While both of these are nice amenities for nice people, there are not so nice people who are causing problems with the already existing drinking fountains. They are being damaged and vandalized, the fountain at Tracie McBride Memorial Park was jimmied and left on (which he says will happen to the spigots regardless of the spring loaded shut oft) they are finding garbage, dirt, rocks, gum, etc. in them on a daily basis. It has not been a good experience at this point and Mr. Peterson said people who use the ball fields bring their own water. ,. .. Jt' OPTED Wltoh Cri.e Pre..nt.on lhrough En.iron.ent,1 DI,ign Single Family Subdivisions Multi-Family Stores Malls Offices Industrial Parking CPTED Crime Prevention "CPTED is the proper design and effective use of the built environment which may lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement of the quality of life. " - National Crime Prevention Institute Wednesday October 1, 2008- We live with crime every day. It has become, unfortunately, a fact of life. Discussions on the subject have traditionally focused much less on crime prevention than on arrest and punishment; measures that cannot be taken until after a crime has been committed. Only in the last 20 years have designers and architects begun to see the need to plan and build with more in mind than just the traditional threats of nature: fire, earthquakes and hurricanes. They must now consider the threat of crime. Enter a new approach to crime prevention - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design - or CPTED. Much more far-reaching than dead bolts on doors and locks on windows, CPTED crime prevention principles can be applied easily and inexpensively to building or remodeling, and have been implemented in communities across the nation. The results have been impressive; in some CPTED communities, criminal activity has decreased by as much as 40 percent. What is the secret to CPTED crime prevention? Design that eliminates or reduces criminal behavior and at the same time encourages people to "keep an eye out" for each other. These are just a few of the ingredients that go into creating an effective CPTED crime prevention environment; that is, a safer more livable community. The Four Strategies of CPTED 1. Natural Surveillance - A design concept directed primarily at keeping intruders easily observable. Promoted by features that maximize visibility of people, parking areas and building entrances: doors and windows that look out on to streets and parking areas; pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and streets; front porches; adequate nighttime lighting. 2. Territorial Reinforcement - Physical design can create or extend a sphere of influence. Users then develop a sense of territorial control while potential offenders, perceiving this control, are discouraged. Promoted by features that define property lines and distinguish private spaces from public spaces using landscape plantings, pavement designs, gateway treatments, and "CPTED" fences. 3. Natural Access Control - A design concept directed primarily at decreasing crime opportunity by denying access to crime targets and creating in offenders a perception of risk. Gained by designing streets, sidewalks, building entrances and neighborhood gateways to clearly indicate public routes and discouraging access to private areas with structural elements. 4. Target Hardening - Accomplished by features that prohibit entry or access: window locks, dead bolts for doors, interior door hinges. Presented along with each of these CPTED strategies are guidelines which, as a homeowner, builder or remodeler, you can apply to reduce the fear and incidence of crime and improve the quality of life. :u~rrY DE~O ~ & ~ Wf ~ CRIME PREVENTION INSfITUTE, LtC CPTED and the Community Development & Crime Prevention Institute Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) theories contend that law enforcement officers, architects, city planners, landscape and interior designers and resident volunteers can create a climate of safety in a community, right from the start. CPTED's goal is to prevent crime through designing a physical environment that positively influences human behavior - people who use the area regularly perceive it as safe, and would-be criminals see the area as a highly risky place to commit crime. CPTED is based on four principles; natural access control, natural surveillance, territorial reinforcement, and target hardening. National Crime Prevention Council's (NCPC) courses help participants put the theories behind CPTED into action for their communities. As a result of this training, participants will learn: . The theory behind CPTED, including an overview of the history of crime and physical environment . Basics of CPTED principles and how they apply to problem solving, community planning, and safety and security assessments . Exercises about successful applications of CPTED to specific crimes and "hot spot" locations . Specific practical techniques, including street and security lighting, landscaping, barriers, traffic calming, target hardening, and more . The role of maintenance, ordinances, and other local laws in strategies to prevent crime and improve quality of life in neighborhoods . How to conduct a community safety assessment utilizing tools based on CPTED principles These courses are designed for local law enforcement professionals, local government and private residential and commercial planners, government officials, business leaders, community activists and others who are looking for innovative ways to prevent crime in their communities. Please contact me for additional information: RQbE'!r1:Qt1:E'!r~t~1:tE'!.r r\LCltionC!LCQm.munityQ~\t'~19jJm~nt...&.Crim.ePreY~ntioDI nstituJe P.O. Box 96503 #6855 Washington, DC 20090-6503 tel (877) 362-3274 And now a word from our good friends - These fine folk help pay the rent and keep the lights on around here - why not pay them a visit and see what sort of interesting things they have to offer: Protect your home and family from lock bumping Crime prevention starts with Security design from the largest home '\ Crime preve'f1118lfmr6tr~ki~ti~1onmental design From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from CPTED) Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is a multi- disciplinary approach to deterring criminal behavior through environmental design. CPTED strategies rely upon the ability to influence offender decisions that precede criminal acts. As of 2004, most implementations of CPTED occur solely within the built environment. .... ...... Criminology and Penology Theories Anomie Differential Association Theory Deviance Contents Labeling Theory Rational Choice Theory Social Control Theory Social Disorganization Theory Social Learning Theory Strain Theory Subcultural Theory Symbolic Interactionism . Victimology Types of crimes Blue-collar crime . Corporate crime Juvenile crime Organized crime Political crime' Public order crime Public order case law in the U.S. State crime' State-corporate crime I CPTED was originally coined and formulated by criminologist C. Ray White-collar crime' Victimless crime , Jeffery. A more limited approach, termed defensible space, was developed I Plaid-collar crime concurrently by architect Oscar Newman. Both men built on the previous Penology work of Elizabeth Wood, Jane Jacobs and Schlomo Angel. Jeffery's book, Deterrence' Prison "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" came out in 1971, but his Prison reform . Prisoner abuse work was ignored throughout the 1970s. Newman's book, "Defensible Space: - Crime Prevention through Urban Design" came out in 1972. His principles Prisoners' rights. Rehabilitation were widely adopted but with mixed success. The defensible space approach Recidivism' Retribution was subsequently revised with additional built environment approaches Utilitarianism supported by CPTED. Newman represented this as CPTED and credited Criminal justice portal Jeffery as the originator of the CPTED term. Newman's CPTED-improved See also: Wikibooks:Social Deviance defensible space approach enjoyed broader success and resulted in a --~-------- reexamination of Jeffery's work. Jeffery continued to expand the multi-disciplinary aspects of the approach, advances which he published, with the last one published in 1990. The Jeffery CPTED model is more comprehensive than the Newman CPTED model, which limits itselfto the built environment. Later models of CPT ED were developed based on the Newman Model, with Crowe's being the most popular. . 1 History . 1.1 1960s . 1.2 1970s . 1.3 1980s . 1.4 1990s . 1.5 2000s . 2 Strategies for the built environment . 2.1 Natural surveillance . 2.2 Natural access control . 2.3 Natural territorial reinforcement . 2.4 Other CPTED Elements . 2.4.1 Maintenance . 2.4.2 Activity Support . 3 Effectiveness and criticism . 4 Four obstacles to adopting CPTED . 5 References . 6 External links History 't As of2004, CPTED is popularly understood to refer strictly to the Newman/Crowe type models, with the Jeffery model treated more as multi-disciplinary approach to crime prevention which incorporates biology and psychology, a situation accepted even by Jeffery himself. (Robinson, 1996). A revision of CPT ED, initiated in 1997, termed 2nd Generation CPTED, adapts CPTED to offender individuality, further indication that Jeffery's work is not popularly considered to be already a part of CPT ED. 1960s In the 1960s Elizabeth Wood developed guidelines for addressing security issues while working with the Chicago Housing Authority, placing emphasis on design features that would support natural surveillability. Her guidelines were never implemented but stimulated some of the original thinking that led to CPTED. Jane Jacobs' book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) argued that urban diversity and vitality were being destroyed by urban planners and their urban renewal strategies. She challenged the basic tenets of urban planning of the time: that neighborhoods should be isolated from each other; that an empty street is safer than a crowded one; and that the car represents progress over the pedestrian. An editor for Architectural Forum magazine (1952-1964), she had no formal training in urban planning, but her work emerged as a founding text for a new way of seeing cities. She felt that the way cities were being designed and built meant that the general public would be unable to develop the social framework needed for effective self-policing. She pointed out that the new forms of urban design broke down many of the traditional controls on criminal behavior, for example, the ability of residents to watch the street and the presence of people using the street both night and day. She suggested that the lack of "natural guardianship" in the environment promoted crime. Jacobs developed the concept that crime flourishes when people do not meaningfully interact with their neighbors. In Death and Life, Jacobs listed the three attributes needed to make a city street safe: a clear demarcation of private and public space; diversity of use; and a high level of pedestrian use of the sidewalks. Schlomo Angel was an early pioneer of CPTED and studied under noted planner Christopher Alexander. Angel's Ph.D. thesis, Discouraging Crime Through City Planning, (1968) was a study of street crime in Oakland, CA. In it he states "The physical environment can exert a direct influence on crime settings by delineating territories, reducing or increasing accessibility by the creation or elimination of boundaries and circulation networks, and by facilitating surveillance by the citizenry and the police. " He asserted that crime was inversely related to the level of activity on the street, and that the commercial strip environment was particularly vulnerable to crime because it thinned out activity, making it easier for individuals to commit street crime. Angel developed and published CPTED concepts in 1970 in work supported and widely distributed by the United States Department of Justice (Luedtke, 1970). 1970s The phrase crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) was first used by C. Ray Jeffery, a criminologist from Florida State University. The phrase began to gain acceptance after the publication of his 1971 book of the same name. Jefferys work was based on the precepts of experimental psychology represented in modern learning theory. (Jeffery and Zahm, 1993:329) Jeffery's CPTED concept arose out of his experiences with a rehabilitative project in Washington, D. C. that attempted to control the school environment of juveniles in the area. Rooted deeply in the psychological learning theory of B.P. Skinner, Jefferys CPTED approach emphasized the role of the physical environment in the development of pleasurable and painful experiences for the offender that would have the capacity to alter behavioral outcomes. His original CPTED model was a stimulus-response (S-R) model positing that the organism learned from punishments and reinforcements in the environment. Jeffery "emphasized I material rewards. . . and the use of the physical environment to control behavior" (Jeffery and Zahm, 1993:330). The major idea here was that by removing the reinforcements for crime, it would not occur. (Robinson, 1996) 1- ___ For reasons that have received little attention, Jeffery's work was ignored throughout the 1 970s. Jeffrey's own explanation is that, at a time when the world wanted prescriptive design solutions, his work presented a comprehensive theory and used it to identify a wide range of crime prevention functions that should drive design and management standards. Concurrent with Jeffery's largely theoretical work was Oscar Newman and George Rand's empirical study of the crime- environment connection conducted in the early 1970s. As an architect, Newman placed emphasis on the specific design features, an emphasis missing in Jeffery's work. Newman's "Defensible Space - Crime Prevention through Urban Design (1972) includes extensive discussion of crime related to the physical form of housing based on crime data analysis from New York City public housing. "Defensible Space" changed the nature of the crime prevention and environmental design field and within two years of its publication substantial federal funding was made available to demonstrate and study defensible space concepts. As established by Newman, defensible space must contain two components. First, defensible space should allow people to see and be seen continuously. Ultimately, this diminishes residents fear because they know that a potential offender can easily be observed, identified, and consequently, apprehended. Second, people must be willing to intervene or report crime when it occurs. By increasing the sense of security in settings where people live and work, it encourages people to take control of the areas and assume a role of ownership. When people feel safe in their neighborhood they are more likely to interact with one another and intervene when crime occurs. These remain central to most implementations of CPTED as of 2004. In 1977, Jeffery's second edition of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design expanded his theoretical approach to embrace a more complex model of behavior in which variable physical environments, offender behavior as individuals and behavior of individual members of the general public have reciprocal influences on one another. This laid the foundation for Jeffery to develop a behavioral model aimed at predicting the effects of modifying both the external environment and the internal environment of individual offenders. 1980s By the 1980s, the defensible space prescriptions of the 1970s were determined to have mixed effectiveness. They worked best in residential settings, especially in settings where the residents were relatively free to respond to cues to increase social interaction. Defensible space design tools were observed to be marginally effective in institutional and commercial settings. As a result, Newman and others moved to improve defensible space, adding CPTED based features. They also deemphasised less effective aspects of defensible space. Contributions to the advance of CPTED in the 1980s included: . The "broken windows" theory, put forth by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in 1982, explored the impact that visible deterioration and neglect in neighborhoods have on behavior. Property maintenance was added as a CPTED strategy on par with surveillance, access control and territoriality. . Canadian academicians Patricia and Paul Brantingham published Environmental Criminology in 1981. According to the authors, a crime takes place when all of the essential elements are present. These elements consist of: a law, an offender, a target, and a place. They characterize these as "the four dimensions of crime", with environmental criminology studying the last of the four dimensions. . British criminologists Ronald Clark and Patricia Mayhew developed their "situational crime prevention" approach: reducing opportunity to offend by improving design and management of the environment. . Criminologist Timothy Crowe developed his CPTED training programs. 1990s Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach (1990), was Jeffery's final contribution to CPTED. The Jeffery CPTED model evolved to one which assumes that The environment never influences behavior directly, but only through the brain. Any model of crime prevention must include both the brain and the physical environment. ... Because the approach contained in Jeffery's CPTED model is today based on many fields, including scientific knowledge of modern brain sciences, a focus on only external environmental crime prevention is inadequate as it ignores another entire dimension of CPTED -- i.e., the internal environment. (Robinson, 1996) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (1991) by criminologist Tim Crowe provided a solid base for CPTED to move forward into the rest of the 1990s. In 1997, an article by Greg Saville and Gerry Cleveland, 2nd Generation CPTED, exhorted CPTED practitioners to consider the original social ecology origins of CPTED, including social and psychological issues beyond the built environment. 2000s As of 2004, elements of the CPTED approach have gained wide international acceptance due to law enforcement attempts to embrace it. The CPTED term "environment" is commonly used to refer to the external environment of the place. Jeffrey's intention that CPTED also embrace the internal environment of the offender seems to have been lost, even on those promoting the expansion of CPTED to include social ecology and psychology under the banner of 2nd Generation CPTED. Strategies for the built environment CPTED strategies rely upon the ability to influence offender decisions that precede criminal acts. Research into criminal behavior shows that the decision to offend or not to offend is more influenced by cues to the perceived risk of being caught than by cues to reward or ease of entry. Consistent with this research, CPTED based strategies emphasise enhancing the perceived risk of detection and apprehension. Consistent with the widespread implementation of defensible space guidelines in the 1970s, most implementations of CPTED as of 2004 are based solely upon the theory that the proper design and effective use of the built environment can reduce crime, reduce the fear of crime, and improve the quality of life. Built environment implementations of CPTED seek to dissuade offenders from committing crimes by manipulating the built environment in which those crimes proceed from or occur. The three most common built environment strategies are natural surveillance, natural access control and natural territorial reinforcement. Natural surveillance and access control strategies limit the opportunity for crime. Territorial reinforcement promotes social control through a variety of measures. Natural surveillance Natural surveillance increases the threat of apprehension by taking steps to increase the perception that people can be seen. Natural surveillance occurs by designing the placement of physical features, activities and people in such a way as to maximize visibility and foster positive social interaction among legitimate users of private and public space. Potential offenders feel increased scrutiny and limitations on their escape routes. . Place windows overlooking sidewalks and parking lots. . Leave window shades open. . Use passing vehicular traffic as a surveillance asset. · Create landscape designs that provide surveillance, especially in proximity to designated points of entry and opportunistic points of entry. . Use the shortest, least sight-limiting fence appropriate for the situation. . Use transparent weather vestibules at building entrances. · When creating lighting design, avoid poorly placed lights that create blind-spots for potential observers and miss critical areas. Ensure potential problem areas are well-lit: pathways, stairs, entrances/exits, parking areas, A TMs, phone kiosks, mailboxes, bus stops, children's play areas, recreation areas, pools, laundry rooms, storage areas, dumpster and recycling areas, etc. . Avoid too-bright security lighting that creates blinding glare and/or deep shadows, hindering the view for potential observers. Eyes adapt to night lighting and have trouble adjusting to severe lighting disparities. Using lower intensity lights often requires more fixtures. . Use shielded or cut-offluminaires to control glare. · Place lighting along pathways and other pedestrian-use areas at proper heights for lighting the faces ofthe people in the space (and to identifY the faces of potential attackers). Natural surveillance measures can be complemented by mechanical and organizational measures. For example, closed- circuit television (CCTV) cameras can be added in areas where window surveillance is unavailable. Natural access control Natural access control limits the opportunity for crime by taking steps to clearly differentiate between public space and private space. By selectively placing entrances and exits, fencing, lighting and landscape to limit access or control flow, natural access control occurs. . Use a single, clearly identifiable, point of entry . Use structures to divert persons to reception areas . Incorporate maze entrances in public restrooms. This avoids the isolation that is produced by an anteroom or double door entry system . Use low, thorny bushes beneath ground level windows. . Eliminate design features that provide access to roofs or upper levels · In the front yard, use waist-level, picket-type fencing along residential property lines to control access, encourage surveillance. . Use a locking gate between front and backyards. · Use shoulder-level, open-type fencing along lateral residential property lines between side yards and extending to between back yards. They should be sufficiently unencumbered with landscaping to promote social interaction between neighbors. . Use substantial, high, closed fencing (for example, masonry) between a backyard and a public alley. Natural access control is used to complement mechanical and operational access control measures, such as target hardening. Natural territorial reinforcement Territorial reinforcement promotes social control through increased definition of space and improved proprietary concern. An environment designed to clearly delineate private space does two things. First, it creates a sense of ownership. Owners have a vested interest and are more likely to challenge intruders or report them to the police. Second, the sense of owned space creates an environment where "strangers" or "intruders" stand out and are more easily identified. By using buildings, fences, pavement, signs, lighting and landscape to express ownership and define public, semi-public and private space, natural territorial reinforcement occurs. Additionally, these objectives can be achieved by assignment of space to designated users in previously unassigned locations. · Maintained premises and landscaping such that it communicates an alert and active presence occupying the space. · Provide trees in residential areas. Research results indicate that, contrary to traditional views within the law enforcement community, outdoor residential spaces with more trees are seen as significantly more attractive, more safe, and more likely to be used than similar spaces without trees. . Restrict private activities to defined private areas. . Display security system signage at access points. · A void cyclone fencing and razor-wire fence topping, as it communicates the absence of a physical presence. and cues a reduced risk of being detected. . Placing amenities such as seating or refreshments in common areas in a commercial or institutional setting helps to attract larger numbers of desired users. . Scheduling activities in common areas increases proper use, attracts more people and increases the perception that these areas are controlled. Territorial reinforcement measures make the normal user feel safe and make the potential offender aware of a substantial risk of apprehension or scrutiny. Other CPTED Elements Maintenance and activity support aspects of CPTED were touched upon in the preceding, but are often treated separately because they are not physical design elements within the built environment. Maintenance Maintenance is an expression of ownership of property. Deterioration indicates less control by the intended users of a site and indicate a greater tolerance of disorder. The Broken Windows Theory is a valuable tool in understanding the importance of maintenance in deterring crime. Broken Windows theory proponents support a zero tolerance approach to property maintenance, observing that the presence of a broken window will entice vandals to break more windows in the vicinity. The sooner broken windows are fixed, the less likely it is that such vandalism will occur in the future. Activity Support Activity support increases the use of a built environment for safe activities with the intent of increasing the risk of detection of criminal and undesirable activities. Natural surveillance by the intended users is casual and there is no specific plan for people to watch out for criminal activity. Effectiveness and criticism CPTED strategies are most successful when they inconvenience the end user the least and when the CPTED design process relies upon the combined efforts of environmental designers, land managers, community activists, and law enforcement professionals. In terms of effectiveness, a more accurate title for the strategy would be crime deterrence through environmental design. Research demonstrates that offenders cannot be literally prevented from committing crimes by using CPTED. CPTED relies upon changes to the physical environment that will cause an offender to make certain behavioral decisions. Those changes are crafted so as to encourage behavior, and thus they deter rather than conclusively "prevent" behavior. It has only been since the introduction of 2nd Generation CPTED that CPTED has finally made constructive attempts to enhance social cohesion and build a strong sense of community to impact the motives that cause crime in the first place. Beyond the attraction of being cost effective in lowering the incidence of crime, CPTED typically reduces the overall costs of preventing crime. Retrofitting an existing environment to meet CPTED can sometimes be costly, but when incorporated in the original design phase of facility planning, cost of designing to CPTED principles are often lower than with traditional approaches. Operational costs are often lower also, as CPTED lighting designs can significantly lower energy use. Adding to the attraction of CPTED is that it lowers liability. The area of liability has led to the questioning of how much crime prevention is really necessary for a given place. It has been mooted that a risk management approach might be superior to a fear-driven one. [1] (http://www.rudi.net/pages/8864) The question is, "does a community give up too much freedom, usually in terms of movement and assembly, to be free from fear of crime?" This was a question that was not widely asked in the 1990s; note the rise around the world of gated communities and the use of CCTV in public spaces. Four obstacles to adopting CPTED There are four primary obstacles to the adoption of CPTED. First is a lack of knowledge of CPT ED by environmental designers, land managers, and individual community members. For this reason, allocating substantial resources to community educational programs are often required. The second major obstacle is resistance to change. Many specifically resist the type of cooperative planning that is required to use CPTED. Beyond that, skeptics reject the research and historic precedents that support the validity of CPTED concepts. The third obstacle is the perception that CPTED claims to be a panacea for crime that will be used to displace other more traditional approaches rather than a small, but important, complementary tool in deterring offender behavior. The fourth obstacle is that many existing built areas were not designed with CPTED in mind, and modification would be expensive, politically difficult, or require significant changes in some areas of the existing built environment. References · Angel, Schlomo. (1968). Discouraging Crime Through City Planning. (Paper No. 75). Berkeley, CA: Center for Planning and Development Research, University of Cali fomi a at Berkeley. . Crowe, Tim. (2000). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. 2nd edition. Boston: Butterworth - Heinman. ISBN 0-7506-71 98-X . Jacobs, Jane. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679- 60047-7 . Jeffery, C. Ray. (1971). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. . Jeffery, C. Ray. (1977). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. · Jeffery, C. Ray. (1990). Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. . Luedtke, Gerald and Associates. (1970). Crime and the Physical City: Neighborhood Design Techniques for Crime Reduction. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. . Newman, Oscar. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-000750-7 . Robinson, Matthew B. (1996). "The Theoretical Development of , CPT ED' (http://www.acs.appstate.eduldept/ps- cj/vitacpted2.html): 25 Years of Responses to C. Ray Jeffery". Appears in: Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 8. Urllast accessed on May 6, 2006. · Wood, Elizabeth. (1961). Housing Design: A Social Theory. New York: Citizens' Housing and Planning Counsel of New York. . Wood, Elizabeth. (1967). Social Aspects of Housing in Urban Development. ST /SOAI71, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York. External links . Crime prevention and the built environment (http://humanics-es.com/recc-design.htm#cpted). . Washington State University CPTED Annotated Bibliography (http://www.thecptedpage.wsu.edu/Resources.htm1). Ur11ast accessed May 6, 2006. . Oscar Newman, Creating Defensible Space (http://www.defensib1espace.com/book.htm) (pdt) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 1996). Ur11ast accessed May 6, 2006. · CPTED Crime Prevention Guide (http://www.cpted-watch.coml). CPTED Handbook for Architects and Urban Planners. . Law Enforcement Environmental Planning Association of Cali fomi a (http://www.1eepac.org/) . CPTED Training (http://www.cptedsecurity.com/) Retrieved from ''http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime yrevention _through _ environmental_design" Categories: Criminology I Environmental psychology I Security engineering I Crime prevention I Public safety I Crime . This page was last modified on 24 September 2008, at 15:13. . All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia@ is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501 (c)(3) tax- deductible nonprofit charity. '" BEHA VIOURAL BASED DESIGN By: Tom McKay I recently had an opportunity to sit down with a PhD candidate working on his thesis on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) in Ontario. CPTED (pronounced sep-ted) believes that the proper design can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of a crime and an improvement in the quality of life. CPTED concepts and principles have served me well for over a decade as a CPTED specialist with Peel Regional Police. Yet by the conclusion of the interview, I was left somewhat unsettled by the fact that my answer to the oft repeated question "what do you see as the challenges facing CPTED?" had not substantially changed over the past twelve years. For the record, my answer to this question was "CPTED needed to develop". It was time, I had said, to put some "flesh on its bones". My concern however was based on the realization that after waiting twelve years, the development of what was now a forty-two year old concept was in my mind long overdue and for the first time I began to wonder if change would ever come. I subsequently began thinking about how I would develop and expand CPTED beyond its three main concepts - natural surveillance, access control and territorial reinforcement. I also took some tentative steps towards fine tuning that long and cumbersome name. After all, I have seen first hand how that name can sometimes get in the way such as the time when I spent two weeks dealing with a traffic related problem at an elementary school only to have the Manager of Traffic dismiss the effort as he could not relate it to an approach with "crime prevention" in its name. This proved to be a cathartic process when I crystallized my twelve years of crime prevention experience and emerging trains of thought into a new and evolutionary concept that I call Behavioural Based Design. Behavioural based design is a strategic design approach that looks to understand the predictable ways that people interact with a given environment when developing the most appropriate physical settings for inducing desired behaviour. Inherent to this approach is a "socio-design" hierarchy that clearly establishes the primacy of behaviour as a determinant of design. While not limited to crime prevention applications, the design methodology is inherently proactive as the process is predisposed to engineering environments that are in harmony with behaviour while culling negative influences. Put another way, it attempts to unravel behavioural "DNA" then replicate the required elements needed to clone desired behaviours. This effectively results in an adaptable approach that can respond to behavioural change. Such is not the case using a CPTED approach. Exposing CPTED's Limitations CPTED's inability to adapt to behavioural change Potentially, one of CPTED's greatest limitations is its inability to adapt to behavioural change. Graffiti can be used to illustrate this point. Prior to the development of the graffiti subculture, it was uncommon for visible walls to attract a graffiti vandal. This all changed with the development of the hip-hop culture in the 1960's. The desire for fame resulted in kids first ~ 2 approaching those walls to leave their mark. Later an additional motivation developed whereby these same kids began to view blank walls as something that was ugly and in need of graffiti. It was the change in organic behaviour that drove the kids to the walls! Put another way, the walls never changed! This has two major lessons for CPTED. The first is that human behaviour is not static, it is forever evolving. The second is that human behaviour drives physical design which in turn can reinforce desired human behaviour. Any lesser perspective may fail to adapt to change or result in limited success. This has major implications given a society where the respect for property and property rights is losing its traditional influence as we will see later. Criminals who don't act according to the CPTED playbook Another limitation is the presumptive way that it treats offenders regardless of motivation or type. CPTED, through its three main design concepts, effectively makes a presumption that an abundance of natural surveillance, access control and territorial reinforcement will reduce the fear and incidence of crime. What CPTED fails to take into account is that not all offenders play by its rules. For instance, the graffiti vandals we spoke of earlier seek out highly visible locations. This flies in the face of conventional CPTED wisdom and natural surveillance in particular. Natural surveillance is a design strategy that is directed at keeping intruders under observation. Inherent to this strategy is a presumption that criminals prefer to operate in the shadows where they are less likely to be seen. How then can CPTED be expected to effectively deal with crime and criminals who fall outside its logic? The answer is simple. It cannot. CPTED practitioners in the absence of an understanding of the graffiti subculture have no way of properly diagnosing the problem. The tools are simply not there. That is why I have often observed budding CPTED practitioners potentially aggravate a graffiti problem by calling for the addition of light. What the CPTED practitioner fails to understand is that lighting these walls simply makes them more attractive in the eyes of the graffiti artists. Graffiti vandals are motivated by fame. Fame is achieved when a vandal's graffiti is displayed to the greatest number of people. This can be achieved in a couple ways including lighting up the walls. By understanding this motivation, it is easy to avoid aggravating the problem but the fact that it falls outside of the CPTED paradigm can make it difficult for CPTED practitioners to sec. The same holds true for other crimes. Bank robbery is a well documented example. In 1985 the Bank Administration Institute of Rolling Meadows, Illinois undertook an extensive six month review of how the interior design of banks affects the number oftim.es that a bank may be robbed and the manner of the particular robberies. The study involved a thorough literature review, an "archival" analysis of 204 bank robberies in the city of Seattle over a four and a half year period and an extensive analysis of 54 victimized banking institutions that accounted for 111 of the robberies. The study found that the interior elements of the bank do not seem to always be involved in the same way as different "species" of bank robbers use the settings in different ways. Significant amongst their findings were a number of conclusions that once were contrary to natural surveillance. These included: t, 3 · banks that are brightly lit and that have large window areas seem to be more prone to "takeover" robberies as the high visibility also aids the offender in casing the interior, and · armed robbers prefer banks with highly visible teller lines and obscured views from bank officers while unarmed robbers seem deterred by these conditions. Of equal significance were findings that flew in the face of natural access control. Natural access control is a design strategy directed at decreasing crime opportunity and increasing the perception of risk in offenders. Examples of findings that contradicted natural access control included: · banks with single entry/exit doors are robbed more frequently by gunmen, while banks with two or more doors are preferentially selected by surreptitious note passers, and · counter heights, depth and partition heights have a different deterrent effect on different types of robbers. These findings are significant because they once again demonstrate that some observations were contrary to conventional CPTED wisdom and published material on security thinking. This has a potential major implication for unsuspecting CPTED practitioners who could inadvertently attract armed bandits to a bank by applying CPTED techniques! These findings are also significant because they are yet further examples of the limitations of the one size fits all approach to environmental design. Namely different offenders do indeed react differently to their physical surroundings. I found support for this conclusion from a couple of sources including in the readings of Drs. Martin Gill and Ronald Clarke. Gill stated that "Criminoligists have tended to theorise about crime causation on a general level, when in practice offences and offenders differ so markedly that offence-specific explanations and profiles need to evolve". 1 Clarke stated the "opportunity-reducing measures appropriate to certain offenses may not be appropriate to others. This means crime prevention through environmental design must be tailored to the specific problems occurring in particular settings".2 Identifying CPTED's weaknesses A lack of true analysis CPTED's major limitations belie an even larger problem--the pretence of analysis. CPTED "analysis", for all intents and purposes is nothing more than basic information gathering. Timothy Crowe, author of the definitive Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design text book, essentially promotes this perspective in his text by stating that "any attempts to skip the basics in favour of more complex forms of information gathering or analysis often obscures the picture."3. This helps to explain the lack of emphasis that analysis is given by CPTED 4 practitioners which is in fact so cursory in nature that the term doesn't even appear in the index of Crowe's book. The superficial way in which analysis is treated is not, however, common to other established approaches. Problem Oriented Policing for instance, a widely accepted concept developed by Herman Goldstein, Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin, clearly places the emphasis on analysis over all other components of his SARA (scanning, analysis, response and assessment) model. In a February 1997 interview with Law Enforcement News, Goldstein stated "I would hope that we could see much more rigor in the analysis, that we don't jump to conclusions as to how to deal with the problem differently, but instead invest much more in thinking through very critically what we're doing and what might be done differently, getting much more comfortable with the collection and use of relevant data and its analysis". CPTED practitioners would benefit from adopting this perspective for crimes that involve more than the most basic behaviours. CPTED's offender oriented bias Another fundamental weakness is CPTED's offender-oriented bias. This is particularly true of natural surveillance which routinely speaks to opening up sightlines (a prerequisite for keeping intruders under observation) while offering virtually no insight into why "normal" people, particularly people with no stake in the property, should look. Without the answer to this question, natural surveillance is little more than a random possibility. "Territor-reality" ? The latter part of the 20th century witnessed an unprecedented drop in the respect for property and by extension property rights as witnessed by the proliferation of graffiti, gangs and the skateboarding phenomena. This effectively challenges the concept of territoriality as a generation of graffiti vandals, gang members and skateboarders effectively view public and private property as an extension of their own. I have personally witnessed the confusion that this has caused as an informal canvass of teenagers reveals a disturbing number who are unaware that unauthorized graffiti is against the law. Compounding this problem is a general deterioration of the public realm brought about by an ongoing decline in maintenance. Sources of this decline include cash strapped cities cutting back on garbage and litter collection; graffiti being tolerated, weeds being allowed to grow out of control thanks to the banning of herbicides; and even a trend towards naturalization which pushes the limits of property standard tolerances while compromising natural surveillance. Collectively these influences serve to undermine the concept of territoriality which when coupled with its somewhat "nebulous" nature to begin with (see "What Should Be CPTED's Next Step? in the December 1998 issue of Security Management magazine) shakes the very foundation upon that CPTED was built on. 5 The marginal role of form The importance of aesthetics or form is well known to marketers, retailers and interior designers. It can be used to create an ambience that is appropriate to almost any setting. It has also brought about significant drops in vandalism and major cost savings as was demonstrated by an aesthetically pleasing makeover of a community centre in the City of Mississauga (see "Security Centered Around Self-Respect" in the June 1998 issue of Security Management magazine). It is therefore disappointing that form plays such a marginal role in CPTED. This comment notwithstanding, it is unlikely that form will ever have the emphasis it deserves due to CPTED's function oriented bias and the general lack of concepts and strategies that are related to form. CPTED as a seminal work CPTED developed in a remarkably naive time given that it predated most of the significant work done in the field of environmental criminology. Today, the modem criminologist has a much better understanding as to how criminals move about in urban space and why they select the targets they do. The relatively recent development of geographic profiling demonstrates the potential of a scientifically based practice developed from this knowledge. Classic CPTED theory fails to reflect these advances. Behavioural based design is best suited to this task. BBD 101 The essence of Behavioural Based Design can be captured by the following six propositions: 1. The probability of a particular behaviour manifesting itself is a function of its known rate of recurrence in a comparable and conducive setting. 2. The reasons for recurring behaviour are instructive and must be clearly understood. 3. All behaviours may be considered desired, supportive or unwanted depending on the setting. 4. Setting characteristics can be linked to desired and unwanted behaviours. 5. Desired behaviours may be induced by replicating the setting characteristics that are associated with the behaviour. 6. Unwanted behaviours may be discouraged through the manipulation or removal of associated setting characteristics. For practical reasons behavioural based design is only interested in desired or unwanted behaviours. Supportive behaviours, such as the need to use a washroom or family change room, are treated as necessary but ambivalent. It should be noted that these classifications avoid the CPTED pitfall of grouping people into normal and abnormal categories. The reason for this is that a behaviourally based design theory recognizes that people's behaviour is not so cleanly disposed such that: 6 · all so called "normal" users of the environment -- people who you want to be there (according to CPTED's definition}-always act in a positive way, and · all so called "abnormal" users - those you do not want to be in that space-always act in a negative way such as when loiterers actually do patronize a store. This routinely accounts for scenarios where a single individual can alternate between being a normal and abnormal user such as when a skateboarder on plaza property decides to get off his skateboard and patronize a convenience store, only to get back on his skateboard and skateboard where prohibited on his way to a skateboard park. Recognizing that this is not unusual behaviour given people's natural tendency to regularly bend or break the rules, behavioural based designers simply focus on whether the behaviour is desired or not without making a judgment about the perceived nature of the source. Support for this perspective can be inferred from Clarke who concludes that "the image of the predator from outside, which underlies the original defensible space thesis (and Crowe's guidelines), ignores the fact that much crime is committed by residents and other legitimate users of the space."4 By focusing on behaviour, as opposed to user types, behavioural based designers can overcome the CPTED bias towards abnormal users. The Probability of Behaviour -- Proposition No.1 The quintessential notion that behaviour can be predicted is consistent with lessons learned from environmental criminology. This may ultimately result in the incidence of behaviour being quantified with the aid of a yet to be developed mathematical equation. Until that day arrives and behavioural based design achieves its ultimate potential and moves into the realm of a genuine science, behavioural based designers should be content to use their knowledge, instincts, and observations to determine whether the probability of a behaviour is high, low or intermediate. Behavioural Based Profiling -- Propositions 2 through 6 The process by which desircd or unwanted behaviours arc identified, analyzed and understood can be characterized as behavioural based profiling. This process begins in a CPTED like manner by relying on observations and interviews with stakeholders to gather information about how any given property and/or enterprise is intended to work. From there, core behaviours that the stakeholders see as relevant to the success or failure of what they are trying to accomplish are identified and behaviours are broken down into desired, supportive or unwanted categories. Once this has been established, a clear understanding as to why the desired or unwanted behaviour or activity happens or is expected in a particular setting is sought. At its most basic level, behaviour can be instinctive or almost herd-like as people simply react to their environment such as when they follow a desire line that takes the shortest distance between two points. 7 At a more complex level, behaviour may be setting specific or effectively conditioned. This was Barker's focus (1968) when he defined what he called "behaviour settings". It was also was the focus of Gump (1971), LeCompe (1972), and Wicker (1972) who tried to "identify the sets of behaviour that occur in specific settings." 5 Their work collectively addresses why we act differently at a library as compared to a baseball stadium for example. Behaviour may also be the result of a subculture. Case in point: skateboard parks. "Why do so many skate board parks fail? Because well thought-out research into what skateboarding means to the youths, what it involves and what it represents to them and their peers is rarely done. Skateboarding has always been about the use/misuse of public property. That's where it gets its radical sense of appeal to the kids. That's what gives them the "rush" when they skate down a ramp at city hall for instance. Rather than use such information to guide our environmental approaches to the problem, we simply design areas with no connection to the nature of the behaviour itself. The result? 10 to 12 year olds using the parks while the 15 to 24 year old cohort continues to scour the city for better places to skate."6 Behavioural based profiling can also provide insight into inducing a desired behaviour. This brings us back to an earlier point, how to capture witness potential. Behavioural Based Designers realize that people are motivated by self-interest and in this regard will most often be oblivious to things that don't directly involve themselves or fail to catch their attention and, as a consequence, draw on their natural curiosity. Behavioural based designers should therefore be interested in any research that documents what is likely to be seen and remembered. Early research by Carr and Schissler found similiarities between what was watched (eye fixations) and what was remembered as people traveled along a highway outside of Boston using a head-mounted devices to track where a person looked, what the points of visual fixation were and how the person turned his or her head. This research was reinforced by Appleyard in 1969 in a study entitled "Why Buildings Are Known". Appleyard came up with several major characteristics that included buildings of unusual size, distinctive contours, complexity, distinctive landscaping or signage, visibility from major intersections, and single use buildings such as police stations.7 This type of research is needed to assist the behavioural based designer in unlocking the environmental characteristics needed so that we might successfully induce desired behaviour. As the science of behavioural based design grows and evolves, the Behavioural Based Designer's task can be expected to ease as more research is done on behaviour and more is known about the environments that support it. This has already been done to a sufficient degree on the marketing side of the food industry and to a lesser extent on the the security side of the convenience store industry. Applications from the field Over the years, I have frequently encountered problems that were not adequately addressed or anticipated by CPTED yet would benefit from CPTED solutions. Many of these problems are recurring in nature and therefore are predictable. Casual socialization is a common example of a behaviour that can become problematic when the physical environment is used in unconventional and undesired ways such as when congregation and socialization points develop in a rogue manner. 8 Rogue Congregating and Socialization Points Rogue congregating and socialization points typically develop in predictable yet unconventional settings where the socialization needs of a particular group are mimicked or supported and these settings are preferred over their more conventional alternatives. This generally occurs with teenagers in search of their own space. I have also seen this develop with disenfranchised adults, such as males with drinking problems, who often choose to meet outside their residence for the purpose of getting drunk. Teenage Oriented Settings It has been my experience that rogue congregating and socialization points for teenagers routinely develop in readily accessed/high traffic locations that tend to mimic conventional social settings and/or support colonization by teenagers. These typically include after hours play ground equipment, groupings of tables, and impromptu seating areas such as the u-shaped, armour stone drainage culvert featured in the photo. In the armour stone example, the sofa-like arrangement of the stones became such a popular hang out for kids that one nearby resident attempted to address the associated loitering, noise and disorderly activities by erecting a 6 foot privacy fence inside the 4 foot chain link fence that already sat on her property. When this didn't help, the resident called her city Councilor who arranged for Police and transportation and works personnel to meet on site. This resulted in a decision to preclude access to the inner edge of the armour stone by moving the fence that protected the culvert by a distance of 3 feet. Had the potential for rogue congregating and socialization behaviour been considered at the time of development, this problem could have been eliminated. Recognition of this problem would have been much more likely if considered from a behavioural based perspective as it is extremely doubtful that CPTED would have identified what turned out to be the critical need for such a relatively subtle design change. Adult Oriented Settings While much less common, it has been my experience that adult oriented, rogue congregating and socialization points typically develop in poorly observed, largely vacant/little used areas close to beer or liquor stores. With the benefit of this knowledge and a behavioural based perspective, I was able to locate a rogue congregation and socialization point that was critical to the resolution of a stubborn problem, the source of which had failed to be reveal itself during an earlier CPTED audit. The problem involved drunks loitering at a well designed plaza. It defied an obvious CPTED solution as the source of the drunks was unknown and there was a lack of CPTED factors in need of correction on the property itself. The solution was found by investigating an adjacent property located at the rear of the plaza where I recognized the potential for a rogue congregating and socialization point. 9 The property in question was a vacant field featuring a gentle swale. The swale sat in a corner of the property that was not readily visible from the back of the plaza due to a change in elevation between the two properties. Sightlines into the corner of the property were further compromised by low lying branches and tall field grasses that had been allowed to grow around a felled branch undoubtedly placed in front of the swale for the purpose of providing additional cover. So effective was this cover that seven people, five of whom were sitting on milk crates -- the other two passed out, remained invisible until the original CPT ED auditor and myself traveled half way across the field. Once there we discovered a group of fifty year old men with liquor bottles in hand. Discarded in the bushes behind the area were hundreds upon hundreds of empty bottles. Our presence ultimately caused most of the men to leave the area. We watched the men as they headed toward the plaza, walking through the east side of the plaza on their way home. Following their path, it became obvious that this was used as a desire line by the drunks as evidenced by now apparent signs of dried urination and the occasional discarded bottle or cap. As obvious as all of this had now become, it certainly was not apparent prior to the discovery of the rogue congregating and socialization point as other possible scenarios were contemplated. The key to unlocking the problem was locating the rogue congregating and socialization point that I had expected from a behavioural based perspective. Concluding thoughts During the past year, I have shared many of my ideas with advanced CPTED practitioners and, to date, have been very encouraged by the largely favourable and eager response. CPTED practitioners are not a foolish lot. They are bright, articulate people who routinely question everything as per their teachings. It should therefore come as no surprise that the instinct for change would come from CPTED people themselves. We have already seen evidence of this from Greg Saville (founding Chair of the International CPTED Association) and Gerry Cleveland who developed "Second Generation CPTED", a response, in part, to "an emerging belief that some of the basic assumptions of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design have been only partly correct."8 Sherry Carter (past Chair of the International CPTED Association) and her husband Stan have also followed suit with the development of what they call "Community CPTED". While I believe that the instinct for change is correct, I also recognize that a consensus will never be achieved within the existing CPTED framework. There are simply too many practitioners out there and too much politics. This provides yet another compelling reason for a distinct and evolutionary concept. I believe that Behavioural Based Design, while presently little more than the germ of an idea, is capable of attracting attention and rallying significant support from conventional and unconventional sources of support such as psychologists and sociologists who are notable by their absences at CPTED conferences. I believe that if CPTED practitioners seriously challenge their concept in comparison with the potential of a behavioural based approach, they will begin to see their concept in the way that a 10 typical Cuban might see their automobile if exposed to a newer model. Given time, there will hopefully be a paradigm shift towards behavioural based design as more people recognize CPTED's inherent limitations and flaws not the least of which is shoddy analysis and its inability to adapt to change. Until that day, I invite anyone interested in joining this dialogue to contact me directly so that we can direct our energies into the full development of what I believe will be a significant, evolutionary and science friendly approach. 1. Introducing Crime at Work: Studies in Security and Crime Prevention, Gill, M. (1994), leicester: Perpetuity Press 2. The theory of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Ronald Clarke (Rutgers) Pg.10 3. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Tim Crowe, Pg. 37 4. The theory of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Ronald Clarke (Rutgers) Pg.9 5. Patterns in Crime, MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, 1984 Pg. 353 6. e-mail from Patrick Parnaby Feb. 13,03 7. Patterns in Crime, MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, 1984 Pg. 354 8. Integrating the Planning Process and Second-Generation CPTED, The CPTED Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 1 What Makes A Park Safe? By Tom McKay Many of us have a preconceived and general notion about what makes a park safe. However, few of us look at the design of our parks as if we were the criminals or would feel confident in describing all the elements required to make a safe park. As a police officer and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED - pronounced sep-ted) specialist with the Peel Regional Police in Brampton, Ontario, I use my knowledge and experience of CPTED and the criminal element to question everything and never look at a property the same way again. This helps me to objectively conduct a thorough and situational assessment of all the factors that influence the safety of our environment including the assessment of frequently overlooked variables that often form part of a current standard or generally accepted practice. To illustrate this point, I direct your attention to the two photos that accompany this article. The photos represent the end result of a city policy that requires the lighting of paved walkways. The lights are set out according to a common standard and only the setting has changed. Given this fact, the lighting of paved walkways is routinely accepted and seldom, if ever, challenged. Yet I would ask each of you to disregard the policy and take a moment to select the single example that you feel is appropriate based solely on its merits. It is interesting to note that, based on my experience in asking this question in CPTED classes, there is likely to be a debate amongst readers as to which lighting application is correct. The readers choosing the isolated path will select this walkway as the proper lighting application as they will tend to base their selection on the need to light the most dangerous walkway scenario. This group tends to unconditionally equate lighting with ~ improved safety and as such believes that the presence of lighting alone is enough to improve safety. The remaining readers will select the walkway that borders the houses as the proper lighting application. They will base their decision on the belief that a safe environment only occurs when lighting and witnesses are combined. This will cause them to select the populated walkway over the isolated one, as they believe that it is the only example that has all the elements to make it truly safe. It is, in my opinion, an appreciation of this fact that makes the populated walkway the proper choice. Lighting in the absence of witnesses should never be equated with safety. Crimes routinely occur in well-lit, yet inadequately populated, areas. This is certainly true of our walkway example where all the criminal activity is concentrated in the isolated section of the walk despite the fact that the populated section is separated by nothing more than a municipal street. The safety ramifications don't end there however. The mere fact that a walkway is lit will influence people to use it. This is particularly true of the average person who relies on little more than their instincts to keep them free of harm. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the criminal element, who consciously look for crime opportunities that minimize their risks. In the case of the isolated walkway, they recognize that the walkway itself serves as a movement predictor which leads potential victims past a point of their choice at a time that reinforces their advantage. This inevitably occurs after dusk when there are fewer people around. What then can be said of a lit, yet isolated, walkway should a crime occur. In the event of a crime, it can be argued that the lights have done little more than rob potential victims of their night vision while literally leading them down the proverbial garden path. This makes the criminals more difficult to see, who, by virtue of the lights, are themselves in a better position to engage in target selection while visually clearing the area for potential witnesses and interveners. The net effect is increased victimization and a policy in need of review. The application of CPT ED principles can help in this regard. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design believes that the proper design and effective use of the environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime as well as an improvement in the quality of life. Despite its name, the CPTED emphasis is directed towards helping various disciplines achieve their primary objective and in the process reduce crime and loss through improved functioning. Given our park example, the first step should be to ask the simple yet important question "What are you trying to do?" This will help give the CPTED practitioner a basic understanding of the objectives that were intended for the park. The CPTED practitioner will then look for ways to improve the park's function by asking the follow-up question "how can we do it better?" ... This might, for example, result in the development of additional activities throughout the park or the strategic redistribution of existing activities in order to maintain a safe critical intensity of people. Only after the viability and impact of these more basic, function- oriented changes has been assessed, will the CPTED practitioner be in a position to definitively resolve the matter of whether to light the walkway. In this regard, the CPTED practitioner will assess the level of anticipated activity in the vicinity of the walkway. If the level continues to fall short of the critical intensity of people needed to keep the walkway safe, the CPTED practitioner will ultimately recommend the removal of the walkway lights until such time as a safe level of activity can be reached. While potentially controversial, the removal of the lights will naturally direct users to better observed and well traveled routes along sidewalks through populated areas which is consistent with basic streetproofing advice. It will further increase safety by reducing the attraction to the criminal element, who will quickly recognize that the walkway yields fewer crime opportunities and those that remain will be less desirable given an increased tendency to walk in groups, pairs with dogs etc.or be part of a police patrol. These benefits notwithstanding, the probability that an existing lighting system would ever be removed in such a circumstance is unlikely, to say the least. For CPTED benefits to be maximized, they must be implemented at the planning stages. It is at these stages when a space assessment and the CPTED principles of natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement and the strategies that flow from them can be applied for maximum benefit and at minimum cost. The CPTED approach, while not a panacea, is philosophical in nature. This results in safety becoming an integral part of the overall design and not just an after thought based on formulas, checklists or even gut instinct. CPTED provides the conceptual framework from which the development of safe parks can be soundly reasoned on an evolving and situational basis as the need arises. This offers maximum support and utility for park designers who are often presented with once in a lifetime challenges when developing a natural site. It also opens the door for improved communications with local police, planners, politicians and community residents which can lead to better collaboration. This has already led to the formal development of a CPTED advisory committee in the City of Mississauga. The Committee consists of CPTED trained staff from the Police, Mississauga Crime Prevention and the City's Community Services, Development and Design, Corporate Security and Property Standards departments who, amongst other things, review park design with the Community Services department. This is just one of the many opportunities for improved communication that will result from a common interest in CPTED. CPTED is more than just a philosophy or set of design principles. It provides a vehicle for the sharing of ideas and our collective experience which park designers can use to improve the design, function and ultimately the safety of our parks. , ... . ..... Oh .... U) 0 :E 0 E -- U.9- E ... ... t: ... ~ ::l ::l ::l :; C" ~ -0 -0 -0 .... .c .... ..... Q,) Q,) Q,) Q,) bh bO bh t: . to- O :2: :2: :2: ::r: :E ::r: ...... 0 ...J I .. FLOURESCENT INCANDESCENT METAL HALIDE MERCURY VAPOR LOW PRESSURE SODIUM HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM * LPW = Lumen Per Watt ~~@LOGA?rloNs'il~j\X€; _,.,~_L.,., .. ,-., " _ . ;'.-,... .,>:~._...i,.",',> - Offices - Overhead lighting - Porch lights - Interior lighting - Fields - Parking lots - Recreation areas - Yard lights - Street lights - Parking lots - Highways - Dumpsters - Maintenance shops - Gyms - Parking lots - Common areas Good color Long life (12,000-20,000 hours) 67 - 83 LPW * Temperature sensitive Good color Short life (500 - 10,000 hours) Low initial costs High operating costs i Better color than Mercury Vapor Medium to short life (15,000 hours) 80 - 100 LPW Use where color is primary i.e. auto dealers, ball fields, etc. Good color Long life (24,000+ hours) 45 - 63 LPW Used where burning hours are expected to be long. Poor color Long life (18,000 hours) 135 - 180 LPW Good color Long life (24,000 hours) 100-l40LPW Expensive to install Cost efficient to run On average, one high pressure sodium vapor can replace up to 3 Mereu Va or lam s Bulb Type Lumens (Light Output) , Aveta~ Daily Estimated Estimated Fixture Electricity Cost* Bulb Life** Retail Price*** Divide lumens by watts 10 delermine how much lighl YOll gel for your money. Post Lantern t High-Pressure 4,000 Lumens Sodium Golden-White 50 Watts Light Entry Lights Incandescent 1,620 Lumens 90 Watts White Light Accent Lighting ~ Incandescent 'f ' 52 Watts Wall Lights 800 Lumens White Light High-Pressure 4,000 Lumens Sodium Golden- White 50 Watts Light Portable Floodlights ~ Incandescent Projector 1500 Lumens ''''' (PAR) White Light 120 Watts 3 Cents 5 Cents 3 Cents 3 Cents 7 Cents 6Y~ Years ~ J $212 2'1~ Months $ 10 3 '12 ?>'Ionths 6Y:1 Years $ 20 $119 6Y2 Months $ 40 ~t~ .. I " .I I ------------- ~. .... . I .1 Ceiling Lights ~ Incandescen t 90 Wa tts 1,620 Lumens White Light Pole Mounted Area Lights ~i Hig~l-Pressure 9,500 Lume.ns .;' SodIUm Golden-White . 100 Watts Light Floodlights tJS. High-Pressure 4,000 Lumens ", . Sodium Golden-White " , 50 Watts Light 5 Cents 6 Cents 3 Cents 21/2 Months t 1 6'12 Years $ 10 $ 95 $200 '!lased on If) Huur.,; @ 5',.~ Cellls per k \\'h *.\\,hen cOlllrolled br a dusk-co-dawn phococdl switch ***I',.;ce includes bu'b I) 6'12 Years """",1(-.., ,,' I'tllll-."'T \, .\ \..'h..I.... 1----- ! . , FLOURESCENT INCANDESCENT METAL HALIDE MERCURY VAPOR LOW PRESSURE SODIUM HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM * LPW = Lumen Per Watt - Offices - Overhead lighting - Porch lights - Interior lighting - Fields - Parking lots - Recreation areas - Yard lights - Street lights - Parking lots - Highways - Dumpsters - Maintenance shops - Gyms - Parking lots - Common areas . ;:'PECIFIGs...~(:. Good color Long life (12,000-20,000 hours) 67 - 83 LPW * Temperature sensitive Good color Short life (500 - 10,000 hours) Low initial costs High operating costs i Better color than Mercury Vapor Medium to short life (15,000 hours) 80 - 100 LP\V Use where color is primary i.e. auto dealers, ball fields, etc. Good color Long life (24,000+ hours) 45 - 63 LPW Used where burning hours are expected to be long. Poor color Long life (18,000 hours) 135 - 180 LPW Good color Long life (24,000 hours) 100 - 140 LPW Expensive to install Cost efficient to run On average, one high pressure sodium vapor can replace up to 3 Mercury Va or lamps 'r. . Basics of Outdoor Lighting . Functions of lighting: * Safety/security * Identification * Environmental integration * Beautification * Attraction * Recreation . Lumen: unit of measurement 'of the amount of light energy emitted by a light source. . Watt: unit of measure of the amount of electrical energy consumed . Efficacy: measure of how efficiently a light source converts electric power (watts) into light energy (lumens). Calculation = lumens per watt . Footcandle: basic measure to indicate level of illumination. One footcandle is equal to one lumen distributed evenly over a one-square-foot surface area. .. Bulb Life: amount of time that elapses before half the light sources ofa large test group fails. . . Color rendering index: measure of the ability of a light source to represent colors of objects. . Color temperature: color appearance of the light coming from a light source. . Glare: illumination that causes annoyance, discomfort or sometimes a briefloss of vision. . Quality of light, includes: distribution of light, color rendition, and color temperature in an area . Electricity costs oflarnps for 1 year: (based on 8760 hours at a $.06 per KWH rate) Wattage of lamp Cost . 100 watt $52.56 75 watt $39.42 18 watt $9.46 15 watt $7.88 . Where your lighting dollar goes: $.86 - electricity $.03 - lamp $.11 -labor . CPTED STRA TEGI ES Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design A guideto safe environments in Prince William County, Virginia. Prince William County Police Departmmt Spooal Operations Bureau Crime Prevmtion Unit 15948 Donald Curtis Drive Woodbridge, VA 22191 (703) 792-7270 N& \~r ),. ~ ;(~..A ~ ~-:.'. A NATIONALLY ACCREDITED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ~ CPTED Strata;Ji es - Pri nee Wi II i am County. Vi rgi ni a CONTENTS Page I. I ntroducti on 2 II. CPfED and CPfED Strategies 3 Natural Survei II ance Natural A ccess Control T eTi tori aI Rei nf orcanEnt FEnd ng M ai ntelance III. CPfED T ochni ques 4 SingleFanily Homes 4 Neighborhoods 6 Multi-Family HomES-Single Suildingsand Complexes 7 I nsti tuti ons 9 Commffci aI Dri ve- Throughs 10 Commffci aI Storefronts 11 Shoppi ng Mall s 13 Offi ce Sui I di ngs 15 I ndustri es 16 Paki ng Garages/Structures 18 Paks, T rai I s and Opel Spaces 19 Tot Lots IV. Target HardEning Tips and Tochniques 21 Resi dEnces I nsti tuti ons Commffd aI Storefronts Malls Offi ce Sui I di ngs I ndustri es Paki ng Garages V. L andscapi ng and L i ghti ng 24 VI. Watch Programs 25 VII. Cond usi on 26 1 CPTED Strat~i es - Pri nee Wi II i am Countv. Vi rqi nia I. INTRODUCTION We livewith crime eve-y day. Unfortunately. it has bemme a fact of life DiscusSonson the SJbjoct have tradi ti onall y focuse::J more on arreS: and puni shment than on cri me preventi on mEESJres that cannot be taken unti I afte- a cri me has been oommi tted. Prevelti ng cri me offe-s tranendous savi ngs to eve-yone Traditionally, mmt people thi nk of cri me preventi on in te-ms of target hardeni ng or fortifi cation. The-e are othe- options Cri me Prevention Through Envi ronmental DeS gn, or CPT ED , is a diffe-elt approach to preventing crime. Much more far-rEEChi ng than dEed-bolt locks on doors, or locks on wi ndows, CPTED pri no pi es are appl i ed easi I Y and inexpensively during thedeSgn phase of devel opment and have been i mpl anented in oommuni ti es across the nation. DeSgn profes.sonals have aI ways i nt~rated into thei r work resi s:anee to natural thrEets SJch as fi re, EErthquakes, floods and harsh wEEthe-. I n rocent YEErS, desi gn profesS onal s have b~un to remgni ze cri me as a man- mcde hazard that can be reS s:oo through quality design. "The proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the.fear and incidence (~f crime, and an improvement of the quality 4/(fe. "- CPTED, asdefinoo by the Nati onal Cri me Preventi on I ns:i tute Di~laimff Thi s manual prese1ts a wi de sel octi on of CPTED tochni ques and s:rat~y gui del i nes, as well as oome tradi ti onal cri me prevention methods I n any arEE whe-e suggested gui del i nes oonfl i ct wi th the Uniform State.vide Building Code (USBC), the USBC will bethe prevai ling document. 2 CPTED Strat€Qies- Pri nce Wi II iam Countv. Virginia II. CPTED STRA TEGI ES CPTED design strategies have e/olvoo ova- time. While many cctua tochniqueshave beEn in use for hundroosof years, it has only beEn in the I ast feN docades that urban pi anni ng expa-ts SJch as J3ne J3c0bs and Osca" NeNman haveexploroo thereationship betwOO1 the built environment and crimina behav i or . Ecch of the fol lowing CPTED strategiesoffa-s gui de i nes that propa-ty owna-s, desi gn profes3iona S, de/eopa-s or remodea-s may apply to roouce the fear and incidence of crime and improvethequaity of life. Tha-e ere four ova-l appi ng CPTED strategi es. They indudeNatura Survellance, Natural Acce::s Control, Ta-ritorial Renforcement and M ai ntenance. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE The placement of physica features, cctivities and prople in a way that maximizes visibil ity is one concept di rECtoo toward keepi ng intruda-seasily obsa-vcble, and tha-eforeless like y to commi t cri mi nal acts. Features that maximizethevisibilityof prople, parking areas and building entrances are unobstructoo doors and windows, paJestrian-friendly si deNaI ks and strrets, front porches and appropriate ni ghtti me I ighti ng. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL Natural Acce::s Control is anotha- desi gn concept diroctoo primarily at decreasing crime opportuni ty by denyi ng access to cri me targets and creating a pa-ception of risk for offenda-s. PaJpl e are physi ca I Y gu i dOO through a spa:;e by the strategic dfSign of strrets, sideNa ks, bui I di ng entrances, I andscapi ng and neghborhood gateNays. Design eements ere va-y useful tool s to d Effl Y indicate publ ic routes and discourage access to private ereas. TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT Physical design can a19:> create or extend a spha-e of i nfl uence. Usa-s are encouragOO to de/eop a sense of ta-ritorial control. while potentia offfflda-s, pa-ceiving this control , are di scouragOO. This concept i nd udes features that dEti ne propa-ty lines and di sti ngui sh between pri vate and publ i c spaces usi ng I andscape pi anti ngs, pavement desi gns, gateNay treatments, appropriate signage and "open" fences. We normaly rECOmmend a six foot high straight bar tubular stoo fence. This type of fencing will dEta- graffiti, would be attrcctive and not obstruct common obsa-vation. If tha-e wa-ea largecrea that would befencaJ, chain link fenci ng coul d be usOO but it is less attractive and the mai ntenance cost for repai rs and removal of graffiti would be higha-. If chain link isusOO it should bea minima of 8 fret high. The fence fabric shoul d be a 9 gauge or heavia- with the mesh opening not I erga- than 2 inches wi th twi stOO sa vage at the top and bottom. The fence posts shoul d be spacaJ no fertha- than 10 fret apart. The depth of the post hol es shoul d be a mi ni mum of 2 feet (pi us 3 inches deep for each foot ova- 4 fret the fence is). The posts should be sa in concrEte. The spa:;e betwOO1 the ground and the fence fcbric should not exceed 2 inches and the fence should beSEOJroo at 2 foot i nta-val s. A 3-strand bcrbOO wi re fence top is opti onal. We norma I y woul d n' t rECOmmend a wooden fence due to the high cost of repairs and graffiti ra-noval. Signageshould be pi acaJ at the ffltrance and a ong the fence line. The signs should state no loita-ing or trespassing and that all violators will be proSEOJtOO and by whom. All signage and fend ng shoul d be we I mai ntai nOO and repai roo promptl y. MAINTENANCE Lastl y, care and mai ntenance enabl e conti nuoo use of a space for its i ntendoo purpose. Deta-ioration and bl ight indicate less conca-n and control by the i ntendoo usa-s of a si te and i ndi Gate a greata- tol a-ance of di 9:>rda-. A-opa- mai ntfflance pre/ents rooucOO vi si bi I i ty due to pi ant ova-growth and obstructoo, or i nopa-ative, I ighti ng, whil e servi ng as an additional expres3ion of ta-ritoriality and owna-shi p. 3 CPTED Strat~ies- PrinceWilliam County. Virginia Inappropriate mai ntenance, sudl as ove-- pruni ng s,rubs, can prevent landscape 8 e-nents from achiENing desire:l CPTED Effects. Communication of design intent to mai ntenance ~aff is espe::i all y important for CPTED to be effecti ve. . Sel ect and i n~a11 appropri ate I and scapi ng that wi II allow unob~ructe:l vi eNS of vul ne-abl e doors and wi ndows from the street and othe- properti es. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL III. CPTED TECHNIQUES · Urewalkwaysand lands:;aping to dire::t visitors to the prope- entrance and away from private areas. SINGLE FAM I L Y HOMES Resi denti aI arEES are the hEErt of a communi ty. Our homes are the calte- of our lives, whe-ewes,ould fee mo~ safe. And, whilewemay have multiple dloi ces whel it comes to wal ki ng through a certai n part of town or us ng public transportation, we have feN dloi ces whel it comes to the ~reEts whe-ewe live. TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT The gui di ng pri no pi e he-e is," know thy neighbor." StreEts and homes s,ould be designe:l to elcourage i nte-action betWeEn nei ghbors. Good exampl es indudefront porches, sideNalksand property lines that are dEfi ne:l s mpl y by low s,rubbe-y rathe- than high fences. · Ure front stoops or porches to create a trans ti onal arEE between the ~reet and the home. · DEfine propffty lines and private areas wi th pi anti ngs, pave-nent treatmelts, or fences. · Make the streEt address d earl y vi si bl e from the streEt, (at I EEst 3 inches hi gh and rEfI ecti ve at night). MAINTENANCE . Full Y ill umi nate all doorways that Opel to the outs de. . The front door s,ould beat I~ partially visblefrom the~reEt. · I nstall wi ndows on all s des of the houre to provi de for full vi si bi I i ty of the propffty. · Provi de appropri ate ill umi nati on to sdeNalksand all arEESof the yard. · The dri veNay s,oul d be vi s bl e from either the front or back door and at I ~ one wi ndow. · K ~ trees and shrubs tri mmed back from wi ndows, doors and wal kways. K oop s,rubs tri mme:l to 3 feEt and prune the I owe- branches of trees up to 7 feet to mai ntai n dEEr visibi I ity. · Ureexte-ior lighting at night and keep it in working orde-. · K ~ Ii tte- and trash pi cke:l up and the yard nEEt and free of ite-ns that might attract thEft. The house, garage and ~orage bui I di ngs shoul d be kept in good repair. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE 4 CPT ED StratEQies- PrinceWilliam County. Virqinia I ;- .. i ._All-.-,.,.-_.~., -' This residence defines ownership oflhe properly, an important CPTED strate,'SY. Neighborhoods actively involved in Neighborhood Walch programs take pride in lheir area and put the would-be criminals on alert. 5 CPTED Stratooi es - Pri nce Wi II i am Countv. Vi rqi ni a NEIGHBORHOODS Oft6l, the safety mEBsures tak6l in subdi vi son oommuni ti es, such as hi gh f6lces and vi doo-moni tore::l gates, can have a n6dati ve Effect on resi dents. The presence of se:;uri ty devi ces SJmeti mes impliesa nee::l for them. CPTED gui del i nes, when appl i e::l to ne ghborhoods, can crEBte a safer 6lvi ronm6lt wi thout the use of more oommon, intimidating mahods. For instance, streas desi gne::l wi th gateNay trEBtm6lts, roundabouts, spee::l bumps and other" traffi c caI mi ng" devi ces establ i 91 terri tori es and di srourage spee::li ng and rut-through traffic. And by keeping public arEBS observabl e, you are tell i ng potential off6ldersthat they should think twice bEfore oommi Hi ng a cri me. Cri mi nal s prEfer low-risk stuations, and public vi s bi I i ty i ncrEB~ the chance that a perpetrator wi II be caught. These mEBsures are s mpl e, i nexp6ls ve to implement, and will have a much more pos ti ve Eff ect on resi dents than gates and bars. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE . Avoid landscaping that might create bl i nd spots or hi di ng pi aces. . C6ltrall y locate open gr861 spaces and recreational arEBS, SJ that they are vi s bl e from nEBrby homes and streets. · Use pe::lestrian scale street lighting in high-pe::lestrian-traffic arEBS to hel p poopl e rerogni ze potenti aI threats at ni ght. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL . Limit access wi thout oomplaely di smnnecti ng the subdi vi son from adjacent subdivisons. . Design streas to di srourage cut- through or hi gh-spee::l traffi c. . Install pavi ng trEBtments, pi anti ngs and archi tectural desi gn fEBtures, such as 001 umne::l gatevays, to gui de vi s tors to desire::l6ltrancesand aNay from pri vate arEBs. . Install wal kways in I ocati ons safe for pe::lestrians, and koop them unobscure::l. TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT . Design lots, streets and homes to encourage i nteracti on betw861 ne ghbors. . ACC6ltuate entrances with the subdivison name, different pavi ng materi aI s, changes in street eI evati on and archi tectural and landscape design. . Clearly identify homes with street address numbers that are a mi ni mum of 3 inches hi gh and rEfIectiveat night. . D Efi ne property lines wi th post and pi II ar fend ng, gates and pi anti ngs to di rect pe::lestri an traffi c to onl y desi re::l poi nts of access. MAINTENANCE . M ai ntai n all oommon arEBS to very hi gh standards, i nd udi ng entrances, e:pl anades and ri ghts of ways. . Enforce dee::l restri cti ons and ooV6lants i n addition to all oounty rodes. 6 CPTED Strata:lies- PrinceWilliam Countv. Virginia MULTI-FAMILY HOMES , SINGLE BUILDINGSAND COMPLEXES Multi-family homes- duplexes, tri- pi exes and apartment com pi exes - pose the same probl ens as si ngl e- f ami I y structures, aJ though the number of dwe lings and reS dents can compound these probl ems. Publ i c arEES - shared haJ I ways, e e;ators, I aundry rooms and parki ng areas - present opportuni ti es for cri me and cri me pre;enti on. Multi-family buildingsdo not nocessari I y mEEn mul ti pi e probl ens. There is a certai n amount of truth to the old saying, "There' s safety in numbers." M anagenent may nea:J to crEEte opportuni ti es for ne ghbors to get to know one another. When ne ghbors take responsibility for EEch other, multi- family dwelingsmay be safer place to live. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE · DeSgn buildings&> that the exteri or doors are vi si bl e to the street or nei ghbors. . Use good Ii ghti ng at all doors that open to the outsi de. . I nstaJ I wi ndows on all four faca::les of bui Idings to allow for good visibility. . Assign parki ng ~aces to reS dents. Locate the ~aces next to the reS dents' unit but not mark with the unit number. This makes unauthori zed parki ng EEsier to identify and less likey to happen. · DeSgnatevisitor parking. · Make parking arEES visiblefrom wi ndows and doors. This complex succes.~fz"ly utilizes a// (~rthe CPTED concepts. · A dffluatel y ill umi nate parki ng arEES and pEd est ri an wal kways. · Position recreation arEES- pools, tenni s courts, dub houses and playgrounds, to be visiblefrom many of the uni ts' wi ndows and doors. · Scr€€ll or conCEEI dumpsters, but avoi d creati ng bl i nd ~ts and hiding places. · Bui I d eI e;ators and stai rwe I sin I ocati ons that are d EErl y vi si bl e from doors and wi ndows. . A II ow shrubbery to be no more than 3 feet high for dEEr vi si bi I i ty in vul nerabl e areas. · Locate buildings &> that the wi ndows and doors of one uni t are vi si bl e from another. . Construct e e;ators and stai rwell s to be open and we I- lighted, not end osa:l bEtli nd &>1 i d wall s. · Centrally locate playgrounds where they are d EErl y vi si bl e 7 CPT ED Stratooies- PrinceWilliam County, Virqinia from units, but not directly next to parki ng lots or streets. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL . K eE.p bal cony rai lings and pati 0 end osures I ess than 42 inches hi gh and avoi d us ng op~ue materi aI s. . DEfi ne entrances to the s te and a3dl parking lot with I and&::api ng, ardli tectural deS gn or symbol i c gateNays. · Block off dEEd-end spaces with fences or gates. . 0 i roJurage I oi teri ng by non- reS dents and enforce occupancy provi sons. . U ~ devi ces that automati call y lock upon d os ng on common bui I di ng entrances. . Provi de good ill umi nati on in hallways. . Allow no more than four apartments to share the same entrance (individual entrances are recommended). · Central I y locate e evators and stai rwe I s where many u~s may ob~ve them. . Limit access to the building to onl y one or two poi nts. TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT . 0 Efi ne property lines wi th low land&::api ng or da:orative fenci ng. . Accentuate bui Idi ng entrances wi th ardli tectural e ements, lighting and landocaping. . C1a3rly identify all buildings and reS denti aI uni ts us ng stroot numbers that are a mi ni mum of 3 inches high and wel-lightEd at night. . Where posS bl e, locate individually locking mailboxes next to the appropri ate uni ts. MAINTENANCE . M ai ntai n all common areas to very hi gh standards, i nd udi ng entrances, espl anades and ri ghts of way. . Prune trees and shrubs back from wi ndows, doors and wal kways. . Ureand maintain exterior lighting. · Stri ctl y enforce rul es regardi ng junk vEtli d es and i nappropri ate outdoor storage. 0 i sregard of these issues wi II make a s te appa3r uncarEd for and less SEO.J re. Natural Surveillance provides/or more "eyes and ears" in high trqffic areas. 8 CPT ED Stratooi es - Pri nee Wi II iam Countv. Vi rqi ni a INSTITUTIONS Churches, Ii brari es, ochool sand othe- i nsti tuti ons present uni que chal I elges to aimepreveltion. While safEty at these I ocati ons is oftel a hi gh pri ori ty wi thi n a community, feN desire installation of oppressi ve, hi gh-se:uri ty devi ces and programs. The vari a:! hours and vari Ety of patrons and acti vi ti es make good desi gn al I the more important. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE . A voi d constructi ng large bl ank walls, which limit visibility and can serve as targEts for graffi ti . U re wall s wi th wi ndows, archi tectural detai I s or fol i age insta:d. · Do not cove- the eltranee wi ndows wi th posters, announcanelts or othe- signage that obstructs vi si bi I i ty. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL · Hi ghl i ght the mai n eltrance in the desi gn. · Keep bus drop-off arEBS, enpl oyee parki ng and vi si tor parking SEparate from S3Ch other and away from busy streEts. . Li mit the numbe- of eltrances and exits, both to the building and parki ng lots. . Requi re that vi si tors pass through a " dlockpoi nt" attelda:! by those in authori ty. TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT . I nd ude highly visible, archi tectural I y appropri ate si gnage in the desi gn. . Make sure to d earl y mark the boundari es of the prope1y. . Keep parking lot surfaces in good condition. Clearly mark the parki ng spaces to convey a nEEt and orderl y image This library is a good example (?fCPTED with its defined separation fro 111 the a{!jacent apartment complex. its low landscaping. abundance (?fwindows and ample light ing. MAINTENANCE · Ure lands:::ape plants that mature wi thi n the avai I abl e space and don't obstruct light fi xtures. · Renovegraffiti within 24 hours of its appEEranee. MANAGEMENT · Ensure that al I enpl oyees and vol untee-s are fami liar wi th the senJrity systen to avoid falre al arms. 9 ePTED Strata;Ji es - Pri nee Wi II i am Countv, Vi rqi ni a COM M ERCI AL DRI VE- THROUGHSand ATM's D ri ve-through fOO I i ti es, espoci all y automati c te I er machi nes, are potentially the perfect plaeefor crimi nal activity. They are often u~ at odd hours and are hidden from vi eN. Those usi ng them wi II Cfftai nl y be carryi ng cas,. Emphasi s s,ould be placej on visibility when designing drive-throughs. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE . Locate A TM s to face mai n roads. · Locate the orderi ng station for a restaurant wi thi n si ght of the interior and streEt. · L i ghti ng s,oul d be espoci all y good both at the wi ndow or A TM and the queuing lane . Avoid fendng, landscaping and wall s that mi ght provi de hi di ng pi aces for cri mi nal s. ICI A fast food drive-through in view of other businesses. Location is key for A TM's and drive- through.\'. Good Natural Surveillance. lighting and Access Control measures should be inC0l1JONlted to limit potential criminal activity. A bank drive-through facing a wel/- traveled intersection. 10 CPTED Stratooies- PrinceWilliam Countv. Virginia COM M ERCI AL STOREFRONTS For a heal thy ne ghborhood to remai n hEEl thy its loeal busi nesses must fl ouri sh. For busi nesses to do well, they must be safe places to frequent. As I and uses become less mi xed and resi dents are less abl e to watm over rommera al properti es, it is essenti aI that CPTED gui del i nes be followed when bui I di ng or remodel i ng a commera aI propa-ty. Sat ay is often ci ted as an i mpartant consi derati on in choosi ng one store ova- anotha-. IdEES SJch as koopi ng customa-s and a-npl oy~ i n vi eN of EEch other can make customa-s feel safe and socure. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL . Locate check-out rounters at the front of the store, d EErI Y vi si bl e from the outside. When pasi ti oned nEEr the mai n entrance, a-npl oy~ can better watch acti vi ti es. 11 . CI EErI Y mark publ i c paths. Make pri vate arEES hard a- for non- a-npl oy~ to access. . U~ signs to direct patrons to parki ng and entrances. · Prev-ent EE9;j access to the roof or fi re 89::ape from the ground. . Provi de rEEr publ i c access to shops if rEEr publ i c parki ng is off a-ed. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE . Install rEEr wi ndows to face parki ng arEES for i ncrEESed vi si bi I i ty. . A II ow wi ndow si gns to rova- no more than 15 pa-cent of wi ndow. . U ~ i nteri or she vi ng and displays no higher than 5 fea.; ev-en less in front of wi ndows. . Full Y ill umi nate the exta-i or of the building and grounds at night. . Design loading arEES to avoid crEEti ng hi di ng pi aces for poopl e and ma-mandise. . Maintain dEEr visibility from the store to the strea., si deNaI k, parki ng arEES and passi ng vffii d es. . Design wata--raenti on arEES to bevisiblefrom a building or street - they shoul d be vi SJaI amenities, netha- hedged nor fenCEd, which could ronceal undesi rabl e acti vi ti es. . Place all entrances under vi SJal SJrve II ance, moni tored e1octronically if ne::essary. . PI ace any pay telephones wi thi n dEEr vi eN of employees. CPTED Strata;Ji es - Pri nee Wi II i am Countv, Vi rqi ni a TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT . M ark property boundari es, wh6"e posSble, with hedges, low fences or gates. . Make private areas di sti ngui Slabl e from publ i c areas. . Identify SlOpS with wall signs for those parki ng in the rEEl". . Install awni ngs above doors and wi ndows. . Pos ti on parki ng arms to be dEEl"ly visblefrom the building or street wi th nmtl y marked spaces. MAINTENANCE . K e:p bui I di ngs and wal kways d €En and repai red. . M ai ntai n parki ng areas to a hi gh standard wi thout pothol es or trash. . Remove faded post6"s, broken s gns and worn di spl ays. . K e:p pi anti ngs in good condi ti on. MANAGEMENT . sa op6"ati ng hours to coi nci de wi th those of ne ghbori ng bus nesses. . If publ i c phones are avai I 001 e, use call-out types onl y. . Full y ill umi nate i nt6"i or spaces. . A voi d shi fts and si tuati ons wh6"e onl y one employee is present. Regular maintenance shows that a property is caredfor, ~) ~~~~t;-;- I'~, ;1~~ r { ri/./I; ~: , ji'....y~A _' .~ ow - .1' PJ,' v'. ,:,~Ji~~1' . ". - i ~ ...::L J 'B~~"T~ :... · .. ..", . "'_' ,-t--,:--._ . _ _,. ij7iJf.':i~:::~ ,.,-" '-j ,~:" ~ rY'" .. . - oOi) .. ...,~"t''''''~''i, 'li . ..... - .,~A~\.~~ ] ~....~';~;,~:..~ jy. "" ',~;;. .,~ . ~.,: <'~I~ .~,~"'l:; .....'i"...~."'''." '~....', '~'':y'. ".J.~" 1.::4. .~~ ", . It!'7 .'1": ..*~Il~....-'~~ ""..P} _~' _ . _ ~~~~-~ .'~ .~ .~ . ."'~~.. J(\.,~,,:"" '.. ;;;..''-.....~ ; ~;~~_.~~~:.::;: -l 12 CPTED Stratooi es - Pri nee Wi II i am Countv. Vi rqi ni a SHOPPING MALLS Shoppi ng mall s oftm provi de much of the publ i c space in suburban oommuni ties and can bea mixed blessi ng. On one hand, they peiorm the important function of town C81ters, servi ng as gatheri ng pi aces i n the oommunities. On the other hand, a mall can serve as an attracti on for cri mi nal acti vi ty. Whi I e S10ppi ng mall s oonti nuall y grow ins ze and popul ari ty, they aI SJ btcOme a havm for undeS rabl e users and oontri bute to a growi ng number of parki ng-I ot cri mes. It is now more important than eVff that r8110del ers and deS gnffs i mpl811mt CPTED pri no pi es. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE · Pos ti on restroom mtrances to be vi s bl e from mai n poo est ri an areas, but away from outsde exits and pay telephones. . B ri ghtl y ill umi nate parki ng areas at ni ght. . A voi d crEEti ng d63d-md all eys or bl i nd spots in I oadi ng areas. · Design parking garages SJ that all levels, induding stairca~ arevisblefrom thestrea or ground floor. . Equi p garages with high-qual ity lighting and bright paint. . U ~ perpmdi cui ar parki ng in front of stores, rathff than parall eI, to allow grEEtff vi s bi I i ty baweerl cars. · P1acewatff-ramtion areas in locations visblefrom the bui I di ng or strea - they S10ul d be vi sual ammi ti es, not hoogEd orf61cro, if posSble. · Avoid exterior walls devoid of wi ndows. · U~ baffle-type restroom mtrances - no doors to hi nder survei II ance. They S10ul d be well-lighted. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL . CI earl y mark publ i c mtrances with landscape, architecture and sgns. · Desi gnate s daNal ks and publ i c areas wi th speci aI pavi ng or landscaping. . U~landscaping to dividethe parki ng areas into snail er lots. . SEparate loadi ng zones with designatoo delivery hours from public parking areas. · Allow no un~urEd access to roof tops from within orfrom adj ac81t structures, such as parki ng garages. TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT . DEfi ne property pffi maffS wi th landscaping, decorativefmong, gates and sgns. . U~ signs that d earl y idmtify the i ntffi or busi nesses and pi ace s gns mark i ng publ i c mtry poi nts. . Awnings provide for tffri tori al rei nforcernmt as well as protection from wffithff. 13 CPTED Strata:Jies- PrinceWilliam Countv. Virginia MAINTENANCE . M ai ntai n hi gh vi SJal qual i ty by using appropriate landscaping to oontrol mai ntenance oosts. . Keep buildingsand walkways d em and r~ai red. . M ai ntai n parki ng arEES to a hi gh standard wi th no pothol es, trash or graffi ti . · Install attracti ve di spl ays in wi ndows of vacant stores to avoi d creati ng an "abandoned" image. . Keep linesof sight open. Prune trees and shrubs to allow vi SJaI access to all parts of the si te. MANAGEMENT · Close-in parking should be available to nighttime anployees. · B usi ness asroci ati ons shoul d work together to promote shopper and busi ness S3fay and the appearance of S3f ay. . M omi ng wal kers provide addi ti onal natural SJrve II ance bEfore SlOpS open. - -- . L- - . ( ....J ~ I ~~L.... I- I Maintaining landscaping prevents concealment locations. ~... I ~~ I - - - - ~~ II - I -.-.. Many malls utilize security cameras in parking areas as well as inside the building. Bus stop shelters provide .ftJr sqfety using CPTED concepts. 14 CPTED Strat~i es - Pri nce Wi II i am Countv, Vi rqi ni a OFFICE BUILDINGS Asoffice buildingsgrow in size and pede:tri an and vel1i de traffi c increases, safety bocomes an extrenely important i SSJe. Regardl ess of the si ze of the structure being built, it can be safe and sa::ure. For instance, all tenants shoul d show photo identification upon 61tering. Metal grillswith letter-sized slits should rover mai I 51 ots. Steel, anti -ram barri ca:les shoul d sa::ure garages and I oadi ng arEES. NATURAL SURVEillANCE · Posi ti on re:trooms to be observablefrom nearby offices. · I nstall and U93 Eff ecti ve I i ghti ng at all exterior doors, rommon areas and hallways. · Keep dumpsters vi si bl e and avoi d creati ng bl i nd ~ts or hi di ng pi aces, or pi ace then i n sa::ured rorral s or garages. . Design windows and exterior doors SJ that they are vi si bl e f rom the stroot or by nei ghbori ng bui I di ngs. · I nstall windows into all facades. . PI ace parki ng as to be vi si bl e f rom wi ndows. . Keep shrubbery under 3 feet i n height for visibility. . Prune lower brandles of trees to at I €Est 7 foot of the ground. . Do not obstruct vi eNS from wi ndows. . Design interior windows and doors to provi de vi si bi I i ty into hall ways. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL · CI earl y defi ne publ i c 61trances wi th ardli te::tural el en61ts, lighting, landscaping, paving or si gns. · Reduce the number of publ i c access poi nts to those that are watched by guards, recepti oni sts, n€Erby tenants or passi ng traffi c. TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT · DEfi ne peri meters wi th landscapi ng or f61a ng. . Designf61cestomaintain vi si bi I i ty from the stroot. . Diffff61ti ate exteri or pri vate areas from publ i c areas. . Posi ti on sa::uri ty or recepti on areas at the mai n 61trance, if not at all 61trances. ._-_" '~.."""'::Il ~..~I-"" ~ ... L .'... .t..;;,......~_ Planters can serve as a good.form (~f Natural Access Control and prevent vehicles.fi-om getting too close to the building. MAINTENANCE · Keep all exteri or areas neat and d€En. . M ai ntai n all pi anti ngs. 15 CPT ED Strata:Ji es - Pri nee Wi II i am Countv, Vi rqi ni a I NDUSTRI ES I n most industrial site designs, the most important i SSJe is the saf ay of those who wi II be worki ng or travel i ng to these sites. Unfortunatel y, safay r~arding crime isoft61 giv61little consi da-ati on. Afta- work hours, i ndustri aI areas are, for the most part, badly illuminated, seldom unda- any type of surve II anee, and vi rtuall y deserted. Add to this ioolation the industrial danga- arms-loading docks, Sffvi ee 6ltrances, bl i nd all eys and expansi ve parki ng areas - and you have the pot61tial for an extranely unsafe 6lvi ronm61t. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE . III umi nate and dEfi ne all 6ltrances 9J that they are vi si bl e to the publ i c and patrol vEtli d es. . Make parki ng areas vi si bl e to patrol cars, pedestri ans, parki ng att61dants and bui I di ng pa-oonnel. . Posi ti on parki ng att61dants for maxi mum vi si bi I i ty of propffty. · Design the rOCEption arm to have a vi eN of parki ng areas, especi all Y vi si tor's parki ng. . Use wall s onl y wha-e na::essary and, if used, make than high 6l0ugh to prev61t ci rcumv61ti on. . A voi d crEEti ng hi di ng pi aces i n all eys, storage yards, I oadi ng docks, etc. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL · Avoid dm:J-61d driveNaysand strret desi gns to increase surve II anee opportuni ti es from passing traffic and patrols. . Use EEsi I Y securabl e si te 6ltrances. Install 6ltranee control s to anpl oyee parki ng areas, (f61ee, gate or att61dant). . Assign parki ng by shifts and provi de I ate-ni ght worka-s wi th d ose-i n spaces. · Restri ct di red ped est ri an and vel1i cui ar access to rai I road tracks. . PI an storage yards for vEtli cui ar or vi sual access by patrol cars. . Restri ct access to roofs by way of dumpsta-s, I oadi ng docks stacked itans, ac. . Keep building 6ltrancesto a minimum and monitor than. . Usea separate, well-marked, moni tored 6ltranee for del i va-i es. . Have the anpl oyee 6ltrance dose to anployee parki ng and work stati ons. . Keep nighttime parking separate from Sffvi ee arms. · Restrict accessbetw861 diffa-61t areas i nta-nall y and exta-nall y. . Provide access to both the front and back of the si te 00 that the grounds can be patrol I ed. . Use separate docks for shi ppi ng and receving. 16 CPT ED Strata;Ji es - Pri nce Wi II i am Countv. Vi rqi ni a TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT . Creste a we I-defi ne:l entrance or gate.Nay with plantings, fences, gates, Etc. . L i mi t de i veri es to day I i ght hours only, if posSble. . 0 efi ne vehi d e entrances wi th different paving materialsand si gnage. · ~arate employee parking from vi si tor parki ng and shi ppi ng and rece vi ng areas. MANAGEMENT . Sche:lul e operati ng hours to coincidewith thosaof ne ghbori ng busi nesses. Good signs can direct clIstomers and visitors where to go while placing potential criminals on notice. They are positive Territorial Reinforcement !()Ols. 1 17 CPT ED Strateqies- PrinceWilliam Countv. Virqinia PARKING GARAGE~STRUCTURES Studi es SlOW that in both urban and suburban envi ronments, parki ng structures are most probl emati c. Thexl structures i SJI ate poopl e. M any garages or structures are not ani y poorl y desi gna:! - wi th many bl i nd spots and hi di ng areas - but a1SJ poorl y mai ntai na:!. CPTED gui de i nes can do much in the way of i mprovi ng structure safe:y without tremendousmst. With the smpleaddition of high- intensty Ii ghti ng, for exampl e, a parki ng garage or structure can qui ckl y become a much safe- arEa. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE . Monitor all eevatorswith came-as and mi crophones, or use sa7through mate-i aI s for the car wall s. . RE?I ace rol i d barri er wall s wi th stre:cha:! cabl e rai lings for maximum visbility. . Full y ill umi nate all parki ng areas and driving lanes. Me:a1 Halide I amps provi de the best color rendi ti on. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL · Use attendants or came-as and round moni tors. I ndi cate the r presence wi th s gns. · Postion all pa:!estrian entrances next to vehi d e Entrances. . Construct stai rwe I s to be vi s bl e, wi thout rol i d wall s. . PI ace e evators dose to mai n entrances, wi th the Enti re inte-iors in vie"v whEn the e evator doors are OpEn. . Do not install pe-manEnt stop buttons in e evators. . Li mit access to no more than two desi gnata:! and moni tara:! Entrances. MAINTENANCE · KeEf) all surfaces dEan and light- mlora:! to reflect light. Use white pai nt, if necess:lrY, partirularly if unde-ground. . Caref ull y mai ntai n all Ii ghti ng and surve II ance €qui pmEnt. MANAGEMENT . A II ow no unmoni tara:! access to adj acEnt bui Idi ngs without di rect vi sual contact. . Diffe-entiate be:ween public and pri vate parki ng spaces. · sa: hours of use to refl ect those of loeal bus nesses, wi th secure d os ng duri ng non-use hours. The openings cut into this wall aI/ow views of the parking area, increase natural light and aI/ow sound to trave!. 18 CPTED Stratooies- PrinceWilliam County. Virqinia PARKS, TRAILSand OPEN SPACES Parks, trai I s and OpEn spaces provi de a number of desi gn challEnges for perSJnal safety, as they are typi call y large and usa:! by a variety of people. D i roct obsa-vati on is not al ways pasS bl e or even desi red in natural 93l:ti ngs. OftEn, there is a oonfl i ct between S3fety pri no pi es and presa-vi ng the natural ness of the r89Jurce. Designing for S3fety in the::eareas should be forusa:l on pathways, parki ng areas and other areas of oonC61trated acti vi ty. Placing children's activities in a highly visible location provides s(?le play areas and limits unwanted activities. NATURAL SURVEI l lANCE · locate parki ng lots, pi cni c areas and facilities usEri at night near streets and other acti vi ty centers SJ they are easi Iy observable by pol i ce patrol s and other park users. CI uster oompati ble activities to avoid oonflict and to increase SJci al observati on. 19 · Locate children's areas and public rest rooms near staffed areas to make observati on of these areas easi er. · Tot lots shouldn't be place::! near streets, roadways, pedestrian trails or SEd uded areas. The tot lot should be fence::! using tubular steel fenci ng. · Pasi ti oni ng SJrne bi ke trai I s and wal ki ng paths near areas of park activity or at places where parks meet commerci al or resi denti al uses, or pairing them with active streets can make users more observabl e by others. . Rocogni ze that SJrne natural park areas cannot be observed or made safe duri ng night hours. · Provi de good Ii ghti ng f or areas that can be safely usEri at night. NATURAL ACCESS CONTROL . Provide dearly visible entries to park buildings. Light them if usEri at ni ght. . Provi de a dear di stance of at I east 10 fret between the trails and wood-I ines to offer decent sight lines and distance from potential attacks. . Provide a dear separation between regional trails and private property. The separation should permit leaving the trail in an emergency. · If a particularly attractive portion of the trail is iSJlated, making its users vul nerabl e, create and cI earl y mark an al ternate, observabl e path that gives users a choice for safer mobility. · CI earl y mark the areas to be used only during the day with entrance signs or gates to oontrol accessi bi I i ty . CPT ED Stratooies- PrinceWilliam Countv. Virqinia TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT . When poople soo CErtain fadlities they ra::e ve caiai n cues as to whi ch ures are appropri ate. Providi ng children's play arEl'3s encourages fami I y u~ of a park. . CI earl y dEfi ne paths between parki ng lots and other fad I i ti es. · Erect maps to provi de a ~s:l of where one is and where one can go. Th~ maps shoul d d earl y i denti fy trai I names, di stances to fOO I i ti es, energency phones, and the charact eri sti cs of trai I s, e. g., "thi s is an i 9J1 atOO wal ki ng trai I." · Post park rul es at access or gatheri ng poi nts in the park. Rul es gi ve the abi I i ty to desi gnate accE?tabl e ures and di scourage unaccE?tabl e uses of the park. . T rai I s shoul d al9J have si gns wi th trai I names, di rECti onal si gns to arffiS of publ i cacti vi ty and even mi I e markers to he p ori ent users. T rai I s need to be markro for u~, such as bi ki ng or walking. MAINTENANCE · Locate and tri m trees and bushes to keep paths open and to e i mi nate the potenti al for arffiS of entrapment and conC631 ment. · Design parks to make mai ntenance El'3si er by I ocati ng an adequate number of trash r€C€ptad es in areas where poopl e congregate and by usi ng durabl e, vandal-resi stant materi aI s. · Provide prompt trash and graffiti renoval. . I f park benches are pi annro, choo~ benches that have SEEt dividers to discourage long-term usage, such as 51 eepi ng. .,... .1 ':'$;'.. d. . l,. ~.. .',''' . ..\'~\:; :." .' :.1 ~if:" ," ,..... . I \ '~. " '. ~'\.r .m ,; rr" ..~ .:: ":~I~I" I; . ~~\':'4~ .....?,I.i.:~.~. i -,", N- ~. ,"" ~ I. .~,. . . .~. ~ .',<., 'I~, ~,~\ ~~ ~ <to .... '\....:~. I . ~ ,-". ..,.." " . - f "~"'-".;;~ . .~Ft,.I!*'" ~.f r..I,l."'........ 1, _.......~., .~:i...,j~.i;.:. le.~,~.~ .ri ~'. . .;, '1',1' ___ _ ___'.~~:"., I ,~. i . "'1"('~'; " __~.-!-. l\J ----~-;~>l/ l It 20 CPT ED Stratooi es - Pri nce Wi II i am County. Vi rqi ni a IV. TARGET- HARDENING TIPSAND TECHNIQUES Traditional sacurity m63SUres, such as good locks and alarms, are important tool sin the preJenti on of cri me. Gena-all y they work i n harmony wi th CPTED concepts and re:x:>mmendati ons. HOW8Va-, ins:aIlation of such thingsas sa::uri ty gates, barbed or razor -wi re fences and barred wi ndows can crEEte an impresSon of high crime and danga-. Thi s deta-s those wi th I egi ti mate busi n8$ from comi ng to an arEE and making it safa- by ther presence. Such e anents aI SJ i ndi cate to cri mi nal s that criminal behavior is expected or at lEES: anticipated. Regard I 8$ of how wel designed a structure i S, it shoul d sti II be locked when unattended. The Pol i ce D~artment can hep with the seection of sa::urity devices to protect property, often at more rEBSJnabl e costs than SJ- called high-security m63SUres. If hEEVY forti fi cati on is deaT1ed nocessary, CPTED pri nci pi es can s:i II be used to I essen the vi sual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. For exampl e, decorati ve metal fences may be used ratha- than chain link fences. RESIDENCES . Install doubl e-cyl i nder dEEd bol t locks to i nta-i or doors that connect a garage to the i nta-i or living quarta-s. K~ keys handy, but oonCEEI ed, for anergenci es. . Locate door locks a minimum of 40 inches away from adj acent wi ndows or glass if possible. . Use si ngl e-cyl i nda- dea:l-bol t locks wi th a mi ni mum 1- inch throw on doors used as pri mary ground floor exits and install 3 inch SJelVS into the stri ke pi ates. · R~laceany Jalousie (glass louva-ed) windows with more sa::ure wi ndows. · Use two locking deJiceson all wi ndows. . Install gl ass sI i di ng doors wi th the fixed position door on the outside and equip the interior sliding panel with a locking pin and one or two more locks. . Equip all SJlid exterior doors wi th 1SG-degree door vi elVers. . Pa-i ad i call y change the code to garage door opena-s and oombination, or keyed, locking and aI arm deJi ces. · Store ladders, ocaffolds and other d i mbabl e equi pment when not in use. ~ r ~ 1 ~I 1 E Coodworking locks and lights inC(11)Orated with the CPTED concepts will make it more d(fficult/or criminal act ivities to occur. 21 CPTED Stratff)ies- PrinceWilliam County. Virqinia INSTITUTIONS · Mini mi ze entrances and pasi ti on work-stations withi n vieN of the entrance. . Lock up and identify with engravi ngs expensi ve musi caI instruments, audi o-vi SJal and oompute- equi pment. These are oommonl y targeta:l duri ng burgl ari es. . Light all exte-i or grounds, particularly if nighttime activities are s:;hOOul 00. . I nsta! I magneti c senrors in library mate-i a! s if theft is a problem. . Usa socuri ty came-as to moni tor I ow- vi si bi I i ty arEES. Note: If came-as are install a:l, they must be monitora:l. · Usa baffle-type restroom entrances - no doors, wi th motion senror lights. · I n extreme or speci a! si tuati ons meta! detectors, or trai nOO dogs, may be employa:l. Decorative security bars help prevent entry on belowground andfirst.floor windows at this University residential building. COMMERCIAL STOREFRONTS . Usa cash drop safesduring low traffi c hours. . Avoid having a single employee maki ng afte--hours bank dElJOsits. . I nstall and moni tor vi deo came-as, but hi de or socure VCRs (SJppl Y a dax>y). . Provi de employees wi th safety training (pe-rona! safety, robbery prev'enti on, how to r~ort a crime, etc.). · Socurely lock rEEr-door entrances. · Put 18Q-degree door vi eNe-s in rEEr socuri ty doors. MALLS . Install moni to roo vi deo came-as. OFFICE BUILDINGS . Have SECUrity pe-ronnel vary patrol schOOul es and routes. . Take mEESJres to k~ unmonitorOO exits from being proppOO open. INDUSTRIES · Changelocksfrequentlyand Ii mit the numbe- of keys avai I abl e. . Do not IEEveopen padlocks hangi ng in gates. Thi eves may have keys made or r~1 ace locks wi th si mi I ar locks for whi ch they have keys. 22 CPTED StratB:Jies- PrinceWilliam Countv. Virqinia PARKING GARAGES . Provide 6Tle-gency teephones with lightsthat flash upon acti vati on on 63Ch I eve. . U 93 bri ght 001 ors and large numbe-s to i denti fy I eve s to ra:Juce U93r di rori e1tation and oonf us on. . U93flashing lightsto ide1tify oourtesy patrol s. PARKS, TRAILS and OPEN SPACES . Provide emergency telephone call boxes. ~. "~' ~" ~.-'. ~~ -- -~ 23 CPTED Stratooies- PrinceWilliam County. Virqinia V. LI GHTI NG and LANDSCAPI NG LIGHTING Lighting isan important element in any site design. Whether a si ngle house or an industrial complex. appropriate lighting techniques should be~. Proper lighting will help people feel morecomfortoolewith their surroundings. It should provide clear paths for rmvanent and highlight entryways without creati ng ha-sh effects or shadowy hidi ng places. L I GHTI NG CONSI DERA TI ONS . Provide lighting systems, which can make pedestrians more visible to motori sts and can ill umi nate oUla" vehicles and objects that should be avoided. . Design lighting systems for homes and busi~ loccted along wal kways to permit pedestrians to ooe risks involved with walking at night. . Provide lighting systems thci will enhance the ability to observe surroundi ngs. . A-ovide lighting systems thct minimize glare, shadow, light pollution and light trespass. We recommend at least a 2.0 foot candles minimum maintaned lighting IENeI. while we would prefer a 3-5 foot ccndles mi ni mum ma nta ned I ENeI. These I eve! s should apply to all parking and pedestrian areas. We would also recommend the use of cut off fixtures with diffusers to focus the lighting where needed to minimizeor eliminate light trespass. StreEt lighting shoul d I1100t a .5 foot candl e mi ni mum maintained lighting leve!. The lighting I eve! s can be reduced after busi ness hoursclosing to.5 foot candles minimum maintained for burglary and vandalism resi stance. Shrubs and trres shaul d not interfere with security lighting or common observati on f rom the streEts or bui I di ngs. LANDSCAPING . PI anti ng and 9:!l octi on of lands:;ape materials Slould be such that si ght lines remai n open and cI ear and pi aces of <x>nCEEI ment are not fostered. . Keep shrubs tri mmEd to 3 feet, or at IESst be ow wi ndowsi II S, when S3fEty is an issue. · Prune the lower branches of trees to at IESsI: 6 - 8 feet off the ground. . If graffiti isa known problem in the arES, sp€dfy thorny land&:ape plants as a natural barri er to deter unwanted entry. . Sp€dfy vinesor planted wall <x>veri ngs to deter graffi ti. A voi d bl ank spaces, whi ch may be an i nvi tati on to graffi ti vandal s. · Provide landscape and fendng that do not crEEte hi di ng pi aces for cri mi nal s. . Provi de attracti ve and durabl e (mas:>nry) fend ng whenENer possible. Consider crEEtive SJI uti ons to fend ng schemes that work aesthEti call y, as we I as f uncti onall y. . Usa lighting in the landscaping, both for security and aesthetics. Alternate landscape and light islands within parking areas to prevent treesfi'om growing lip into the light fixtures. 24 CPTED Strateqies- PrineeWilliam County. Virqinia Neighborhood Watch Program The Neighborhood Watch program is desi gned to reduce cri me and enhance the qual i ty of Ii f e for resi dents of Pri nce Wi II i am County. The ooncept is si mpl e, it involves oooperation between the Police Department and the oommuni ty where the resi dents become the" eyes & ears" of the Pol i ce Department. The program has many benefi ts: . Creates a greater awareness of crime . I ncreasa::l support f rom Pol i ce Department . Greater oommuni ty pri de . Brings neighbors doser together · Potential increased property val ue · Cri me Preventi on trai ni ng · Increases reporti ng of cri me and suspicious activities · Sign serves as a warni ng to cri mi nal s · Provides residents with access to cri me pattern and trends that may affect them . Home security inspections . Gi ves resi dents a contact wi thi n the Pol i ce Department . Resul ts in a better and safer communi ty Business Watch Busi ness Watch is one of the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent crime and reduce fear. BusinessWatch fi ghts the i sol ati on that cri me creates and feeds upon. I t creates bonds among area busi nesses and he! ps reduce burgl ari es, robberi es and vandal isms. It al so increases the knowl edge of frauds and scams whi ch improves the relationshi p between the pol i ce and the busi ness oommuni ty. Benefits of Busi ness Watch: . Creates a greater awareness of crime · Greater community pride · Bri ngs bus nesses together . Cri me Preventi on trai ni ng . Si gn saves as a warni ng to cri mi nal s · Provi des bus ness owners wi th access to cri me patterns and trends that may threaten them . Bus ness S€OJri ty i nspecti ons · Results in a better and safer communi ty Worship Watch The purpose of the Worshi p Watch program is to i nvol ve members of a church, synagogue, mOs:Jue, or tempi e, wi th the Pol i ee Department and the surrounding community in working together to create and mai ntai n a saf e envi ronment by uti I i zi ng acceptEd cri me prevention practices. Fleet Watch Thi s is a program whi ch uses bus nesses wi th mobile communi cati on capabi I i ti es. The employees have been trai nEd by the Pol i ee Department to report suspi ci ous or dangerous acti vi ty. Thi s program enhances the safety of the communi ty by putti ng hundreds of extra" eyES' on the streets of Pri nee Wi II i am County. For more information on these programs or to start a Watch program in your area, you may contact the Prince William County Police Department Crime Prevention Unit at 703-792-7270 or web site www.pwcgov.org/police. 25 CPTED Strategi es - Pri nce Wi II iam County, Vi rgi ni a VI. CONCLUSION Cri me Prevention Through Environmental DeSgn guidelines can go a long way in making a oommunity safe. It is not oonsi dered passi bl e to make a bui I di ng or arEE ai me-proof. The rex::ommendati ons i ncl uda::l in assessments should, however, reduce the probabi I i ty of cri me if the CPT ED strategi es and ooncepts are properl y appl i a::l and mai ntai ned. There may be instances where i nformati on in thi s documerlt oonfli cts with local buildi ng and fi re codes. Consul t a ai me- preverlti on-trai ned pal i ce offi cer or security professional for suitable al ternati ves. CPT ED can eI i mi nate probl ern areas: the poorl y lighted parki ng lot, the bl i nd al ley, and the publ i c tel €phone stuff ed in the dark oorner. Hopefully, along with thefooing of safay and security that CPTED bri ngs, wi II oome a feel i ng of i ncrEESa::l oocj al responsi bi I i ty. That is the grEEtest cri me-preverlti on techni que of al I. "ePTED is not the total answer to community problems, but it does provide the community with the means to eliminate or reduce environmental obstacles to social, cultural or managerial control." - Ti mothy 0 I Crowe, Criminologist and CPTED Practi ti oner. For more information or for a free CPTED Security Assessmerlt or to revieN sitedevelopmerlt plans, oontact: Pri nce Wi II i am County Pol iceD €partment Spe:;i al Operati ons B urEEU Cri me Preventi on U ni t 8900 Frea:lom Center Boul evard Manassas, VA 20110-2220 (703) 792-7270 A NATIONALLY ACCREDITED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ~ K. ~ 26 c. os, E. s n'" If.1€- ?'6 , ..J ) Hf...t. DLu.l ~I"'G. ft;.J,JWf,J ,,.J /-A/I..,.,I- e....rc.. ,..,~ S - lo/cla8 Item Num Qty I Unit Price I Item Units Total 1 DRINIKING FOUNTAIN - MOST DEPENDABLE EA 1 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 MODEL 440 DB 2 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EA 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 3 1" CORP STOP EA 1 $ 125.00 $ 125.00 '-, " CURB STOP AND BOX EA 2 $ 175.00 $ 350.00 ~1" TYPE "K" COPPER WATER SERVICE LF 100 S 22.00 $ 2,200.00 S 8.675.00 Msv,..,/1Jw s PLIcf.J I/tSfI> 0t0I H,ooE#J s~.. a..tt.. 4/05 + ~f&NnMoJ 1),....,".101'- ~WtN;f4 ft.S. P. US'7OU r ,(>>J USl S~ &1N1>/ ,.....61.. . Pol"'" ~s f:t.4..J WI&..t. ~'L.l rl.. TIIJ.F · N. "'..1l)I. ~.....".n.S toIUblb . ,..s~ M1ba. "-'''fflL \J'T,'" .11.6 . c..e~'7S "'t) HO'T" ,tlCA.IIA l\tJy ~,,.aW,~t; ~b,~"'''''~''' ..~c...,.,.N Page 1 of 1 Kim Stephan From: pbranch [pbranch@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, October 30,20088:45 AM To: 'Barb Leininger' Cc: 'Kevin Amundsen'; Kim Stephan Subject: RE: MORA Annual Ad Copy Attachments: MORA ad _ Festival of the Lakes 8K.pdf Barb, Thanks for the reminder. Please find attached PDF file for the ad copy for the City of Centerville sponsored 8K run. Send the invoice for this ad to the City of Centerville 1880 Main Street, Centerville, MN 55038. Send it to the attention of Kim Stephan. Kim's e-mail address is on the Cc line. If you have any questions call me at either 703-323-0927 or 703-501-6815. I am in Virginia this week. Pat Branch -----Original Message----- From: Barb Leininger [mailto:barb@runningventures.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:06 AM To: Bob Gustafson; Marilyn Franzen; Kristy Mach; Peter Spencer; pbranch; Margaret Murphy; Nick Carstens - River Falls Chamber of Commerce; Mary Anderson; Mark Knutson SUbject: MORA Annual Ad Copy Please remember that ad copy for the 2009 MDRA Annual is due Thursday, Oct. 30. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. Barb Leininger barb@runningventures.com This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 10/30/2008 1st ANNUAL 81 LAIE RUN The City of Centerville, Minnesota Welcomes all runners to our first "Festival of the Lakes 8K Run/Walk" The run takes you through beautiful Rice Creek Regional Park. Food and Beverages are available for spectators near finish-line. Stay for our city parade starting at 10:30 am. Benellts [entervllle's Parks and Trails Registration Fee: $20.00 (Includes: IrUlugura1 T-shirt & warer bottle). Register online at: www.midwestevents.com AUGUST 6, 2009 - 8am Start HALF PAGE ad (5"w X 3.75"h) BLACK & WHITE (no color) COST: $300.00 Placed in the MORA's Annual Running Calendar for 2009. Reserve Ad Space before October 1 st, 2008 Acceptable formats: Illustrator, PDF, EPS or Quark before October 30th To: barb@runningventures.com. Questions contact: Barb Leininger at 612-644-8185.