PKC - Item 3A - Attachment La County Parks Needs Assessment ReportLOS ANGELES COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS & RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
MAY 9, 2016
Los Angeles County
Department of Parks & Recreation
LOS ANGELES COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS & RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
MAY 9, 2016
This document was prepared by:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
»Javier Aguilar
»Lee Butterfield
»Nick Franchino
»Mark Greninger
»Su Jin Lee
»Weimin Li
»Douglas Morales
»Viktor Patiño
»Patricia Pendleton
INCORPORATED CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
»Over 175 staff members in 86 cities
RESIDENTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
»Thousands of County residents shared
their thoughts about parks in Los
Angeles County
CONSULTANT TEAM
»
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many individuals and organizations contributed to the successful completion of the Los Angeles Countywide Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. The efforts of those noted below are
especially appreciated; please refer to the main report for more detailed acknowledgments.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
»Hilda L. Solis, 1st District
»Mark Ridley-Thomas, 2nd District
»Sheila Kuehl, 3rd District
»Don Knabe, 4th District
»Michael D. Antonovich, 5th District
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT STAFF
»Javier Hernandez, 1st District
»Teresa Villegas, 1st District
»Lacey Johnson, 2nd District
»Karly Katona, 2nd District
»Maria Chong-Castillo, 3rd District
»Erin Stibal, 4th District
»Sussy Nemer, 5th District
»David Perry, 5th District
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
»Ed P. Reyes, 1st District
»Mayisha Akbar, 2nd District
»Bettina Duval, 3rd District
»John Hsu, 4th District
»William J. Korek, 5th District
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF
»John Wicker, Director of Parks and Recreation
»Norma E. Garcia, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Agency
»Rita Robinson, Project Director
»Clement Lau, Departmental Facilities Planner ll
»Sheela Kleinknecht, Park Planner
»Over 100 staff members
LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
»Jane Beesley, District Administrator
»Warren Ontiveros, Administration Section Manager
STEERING COMMITTEE
In memoriam: Steering Committee member
Mary Kaufman, avid trail supporter and
enthusiast.
»Greg Alaniz
»Jane I. Beesley
»Alina Bokde
»Brad Bolger
»William Warren Brien
»John Bwarie
»Scott Chan
»Maria Chong-Castillo
»Kimel Conway
»Cheryl Davis
»Reyna Diaz
»Bettina Duval
»Belinda V. Faustinos
»Norma E. Garcia
»Phil Hester
»Michael Hughes
»Lacey Johnson
»John Jones
»Amy Lethbridge
»James Lott
»Linda Lowry
»Michael McCaa
»Sandra McNeill
»Martha Molina-Aviles
»Veronica Padilla
»Ronda Perez
»David Perry
»Adriana Pinedo
»Jennifer Pippard
»Ed P. Reyes
»Barbara Romero
»Jeff Rubin
»Bruce Saito
»Harry Saltzgaver
»Dr. Paul Simon, MD
»Keri Smith
»Christopher Solek
»Erin Stibal
»Teresa Villegas
»GreenInfo Network
»DakeLuna Consultants
»David Taussig & Associates
»MIG
»Prevention Institute
iii Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
ivCountywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................I-X
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose of the Parks Needs Assessment ...................................................................2
1.2 Who Was Involved ......................................................................................................4
1.3 Process of Completing the Parks Needs Assessment ................................................8
2.0 EXISTING ASSETS/CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ..........................................................37
2.1 Data Analysis & Inventory Summary ..........................................................................38
2.2 Population ...................................................................................................................44
2.3 Park Metrics Summary Countywide ...........................................................................45
2.4 Park Metrics - Regional Recreation Parks ..................................................................51
2.5 Community Profile Summary ......................................................................................54
2.6 Potential Park Land Opportunities ..............................................................................61
3.0 PARK NEEDS FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................63
3.1 Countywide Assessment of Park Need ......................................................................64
4.0 POTENTIAL PARK PROJECTS & COST ESTIMATES ..............................................73
4.1 Potential Park Projects ................................................................................................74
4.2 Cost Estimates: Countywide Trends ...........................................................................80
5.0 NEXT STEPS.................................................................................................................. 83
5.1 Where Do We Go From Here? ....................................................................................84
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .....................................................................................................86
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Components of the Parks Needs Assessment.................................................... 3
Figure 2. Organizational Chart ...........................................................................................4
Figure 3. Steering Committee Meetings Summary ...........................................................5
Figure 4. Parks Needs Assessment Milestones ................................................................8
Figure 5. Study Area Development Process .....................................................................11
Figure 6. Study Area Map: Los Angeles County, North .....................................................12
Figure 7. Study Area Map: Los Angels County, South ......................................................13
Figure 8. Sample Condition Definitions .............................................................................22
Figure 9. Education and Awareness Reach .......................................................................23
Figure 10. LA Times Advertisement .................................................................................23
Figure 11. Sample Facebook Advertisement ....................................................................24
Figure 12. Homepage for Project Website........................................................................ 25
Figure 13. Interactive Map for Locating Workshops ........................................................25
Figure 14. Location of High Priority Areas ........................................................................26
Figure 15. Tweets for Community Workshops ..................................................................27
Figure 16. Customized Flyer, Unincorporated Sunrise Village - South San Gabriel -
Whittier Narrows ..............................................................................................................28
Figure 17. Customized Flyer, City of El Monte ..................................................................28
Figure 18. English Language Flyer, City of Bell Gardens ..................................................29
Figure 19. Eventbrite Invitation, Boyle Heights ................................................................29
Figure 20. Countywide Workshop Locations ....................................................................30
Figure 21. Sample Facilitator Toolkit ................................................................................32
Figure 22. Number of Study Areas Meeting Criteria for Translation Recommendation ..33
Figure 23. Fact Sheet, Spanish and Chinese ....................................................................33
v Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Figure 24. Sample Survey Results ....................................................................................35
Figure 25. Los Angeles County Parks and Open Space Inventory ....................................39
Figure 26. Existing Parks and Open Space in Los Angeles County, North .......................40
Figure 27. Existing Parks and Open Space in Los Angeles County, South .......................41
Figure 28. Summary of Inventoried Amenities .................................................................43
Figure 29. Population Distribution Examples ....................................................................44
Figure 30. Park Land Countywide .....................................................................................45
Figure 31. Park Access Countywide ..................................................................................45
Figure 32. Areas of Los Angeles County Within 1/2 Mile of a Park ................................46
Figure 34. Sample Parkshed Map .....................................................................................47
Figure 33. Park Pressure Countywide ...............................................................................47
Figure 35. Where Are Parks Most Needed? .....................................................................48
Figure 36. Park Amenities (per 1,000 persons) .................................................................49
Figure 37. Park Conditions ................................................................................................50
Figure 38. Regional Recreation Park Access: Areas within 25 Miles of a Regional
Recreation Park .................................................................................................................52
Figure 39. Conditions at Regional Recreation Parks ........................................................53
Figure 40. Population Distribution by Age ........................................................................54
Figure 41. Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity .......................................................54
Figure 42. Populations at or below 200% Poverty Level ..................................................54
Figure 43. Populations without Vehicle Access ................................................................54
Figure 44. Populations in Linguistic Isolation ...................................................................54
Figure 45. Countywide Bike/Pedestrian Collisions Map ..................................................55
Figure 46. Obesity Among 5th Graders .............................................................................56
Figure 47. Asthma .............................................................................................................57
Figure 48. Ozone Concentration ........................................................................................58
Figure 49. PM 2.5 ..............................................................................................................59
Figure 50. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions ...............................................................60
Figure 51. Sample Map of Park Land Opportunities .........................................................61
Figure 52. Comparison of “Where are Parks Most Needed” map from East Los Angeles
Northwest Study Area and Summarized Map of Need for Entire Study Area .................64
Figure 53. Comparison of “Where Are Parks Most Needed” map (top) from
Unincorporated Willowbrook Study Area and Summarized Map of Need for Entire
Unincorporated Willowbrook Study Area (bottom) ..........................................................65
Figure 54. Percentage of Countywide Population in Each Park Need Category ..............66
Figure 55. Average Acres Per 1,000 in Each Park Need Category.................................... 66
Figure 56. Additional Acres Needed .................................................................................66
Figure 57. Park Need by Study Area Los Angeles County, North .....................................67
Figure 58. Park Need by Study Area Los Angeles County, South .....................................68
Figure 59. Point-Based Project Criteria .............................................................................754
Figure 60. Community Workshop Flowchart .....................................................................75
Figure 61. Sample Project Prioritization Forms .................................................................76
Figure 62. Most Frequently Prioritized Park Projects, by Project Type .............................77
Figure 63. Study Areas Prioritizing a New Park ................................................................77
Figure 64. Regional Recreation Park Projects by Type...................................................... 78
Figure 65. Sample Regional Recreation Park Projects .....................................................78
Figure 66. Specialized Facility Projects by Type ...............................................................79
Figure 67. Sample Specialized Facility Projects ...............................................................79
Figure 68. Deferred Maintenance Costs at All Inventoried Local Parks, Regional
Recreation Parks, and Regional Open Spaces ..................................................................81
Figure 69. Countywide Cost Estimates .............................................................................82
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Study Area Map Key ...........................................................................................14
Table 2. Newspaper Publications .....................................................................................24
Table 3. Regional Recreation Parks - Park Pressure......................................................... 53
Table 4. Park Need By Study Area.................................................................................... 69
Table 5. Potential Park Project Submittal Criteria ............................................................74
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Study Area Profiles
Each Study Area Profile contains a base map, park metrics, map of where parks are most
needed, amenity quantities and conditions, park need framework, project cost estimates,
submitted project reporting forms and community engagement form.
Appendix B – Regional Recreation Park Projects
Project lists and cost estimates submitted by the managing agency of each regional
recreation park.
Appendix C – Specialized Facilities Projects
Project lists and cost estimates as submitted by the managing agencies of specialized
facilities such as open space, beaches, hiking trails, arboreta, amphitheaters, golf
courses, and equestrian facilities.
Appendix D – Resources Provided to Partners
»Web Portal User Guide and Amenity Condition Definitions
»Sample Toolkit (includes facilitator training manual)
»Survey Results
Appendix E – Technical Resources
»Data Sources
»Mapping and Analysis Information
»Cost Estimate Assumptions
viCountywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.
vii Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In March 2015, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a
motion to initiate the Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs
Assessment. This represents an unprecedented effort to document existing
parks and recreation facilities in cities and unincorporated communities and to
use these data to determine the scope, scale, and location of park need in Los
Angeles County.
The Parks Needs Assessment will help local officials, park agencies, and
residents understand the future steps that need to be taken to ensure all
communities have adequate access to thriving parks.
Park projects in Los Angeles County are currently funded in part by Proposition
A, the Safe Neighborhoods Park Tax that is set to expire in 2019. Once this
tax sunsets, funding for park projects will be greatly reduced. The results of
the Parks Needs Assessment will help inform planning and decision-making
regarding future funding.
In initiating the Parks Needs Assessment, the Board of Supervisors has
affirmed the importance of parks as essential infrastructure in the County.
Healthy, safe communities have thriving parks that contribute to public health
and well-being, create a sense of place, increase community cohesion,
improve the environment, and boost the economy.
A NEW PARADIGM
The Parks Needs Assessment proposes a new way to understand
and think about parks, recreation, and open space by:
Considering parks as key infrastructure needed to maintain and
improve the quality of life for all County residents
Using a new series of metrics to determine park need
Supporting a need-based allocation of funding for parks and
recreation
Emphasizing both community priorities and deferred
maintenance projects PUBLIC HEA L T H & WELL-BEINGCOMM U N I TY COHE
S
I
ONECONOM IC DEVELOP
MENTSEN S E OF PLAC
E
PARKS
EN V IR ONMENT
II
INITIATION
The Board of Supervisors launched the Parks Needs Assessment in March 2015, giving the County Department of
Parks and Recreation 16 months to complete the task. The work was guided by both a Steering Committee and a
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The Steering Committee’s 40 members were appointed by the Board offices
and included representatives from cities, advocacy groups, and community-based organizations; subject matter
experts; and community members at large. The Steering Committee provided insight on key issues, including
dividing the County into Study Areas, and the 188 approved Study Areas were used for many of the analyses. The
TAC provided review of GIS and mapping methodology at key points of the project.
INVENTORY
Accurate data about the size and location of all existing parks in the county were
critical to completing the Parks Needs Assessment. These data were not available in
a single database; therefore, the Department of Parks and Recreation collaborated
with 86 cities to complete the first ever Countywide inventory of existing parks.
3,023
PARKS INVENTORIED
9,472
AMENITIES INVENTORIED
III
PARKS & OPEN SPACE INVENTORY
Four types of parks and open spaces were identified as means to categorize the facilities inventoried during the Parks
Needs Assessment. This uniform categorization system ensured an “apples to apples” comparison among facilities
and Study Areas. The four categories are specific to the Parks Needs Assessment, and differ from the categories
used in cities and by other agencies in the County. For the inventory, specialized facilities serving the entire County
or specific sub-regions, such as arboreta, amphitheaters, and wilderness parks were included in the category that
covered their specific characteristics, and only if they were part of a park or open space area.
LOCAL PARKS are under 100 acres and contain active amenities such as athletic courts and fields,
playgrounds, and swimming pools. Local parks identified in the inventory are sometimes called
community parks or regional parks by the agencies that operate them. These parks are included in the
analysis of all park metrics. 1,602 INVENTORIED
REGIONAL RECREATION PARKS are over 100 acres and contain active amenities such as athletic courts
and fields, playgrounds, and swimming pools. Locally administered “regional parks” under 100 acres in
size are not included in this category, and are included as local parks in the inventory instead. Regional
Recreation Parks are included in the analysis of all park metrics, and were subject to a separate facility
review process due to their large size and regional importance. 17 INVENTORIED
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE includes facilities that are more than 5 acres and generally contain only
passive amenities such as visitor centers, trails, picnic shelters, or restrooms. These facilities are not
included in the analysis of any individual park metric, but are included in the analysis of park need.
329 INVENTORIED
NATURAL AREAS are generally larger than 100 acres and contain no reported amenities. These facilities
are not included in any of the needs analyses of the Parks Needs Assessment. 1,075 INVENTORIED
367
Unique
Amenities*
* Unique amenities include equestrian
arenas, volleyball courts, amphitheaters,
community gardens, concession stands,
gazebos, etc.
940
Basketball Courts
1,022
Tennis Courts
1,068
Baseball Fields
424
Soccer Fields
510
Multipurpose Fields
1,251
Picnic Shelters
1,190
Restrooms
187
Gymnasiums
373
Fitness Zones
96
Skate Parks
1,452
Playgrounds
218
Swimming Pools
90
Community Rec
Centers
518
Senior Centers
51
Dog Parks
82
Splash Pads
LOCAL PARKS
15,723 acres
REGIONAL RECREATION PARKS
18,248 acres
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
98,977 acres
NATURAL AREAS
768,699 acres
IV
PARK METRICS
Park need is traditionally measured with a single metric, such as the number of acres of park land available to residents, or the
percentage of residents living within walking distance of a park. Measuring only a single aspect of need provides a one-dimensional
understanding of park need. The Steering Committee recognized that park need is affected by many variables and approved a suite
of five metrics that produce a robust understanding of physical park needs in each Study Area and in the County:
3.3 acres
Local & Regional Recreation Park per 1,000 people
of population Countywidelives within 1/2 mile of a park of population Countywidelives beyond 1/2 mile of a park 49%51%
Tennis Courts
11 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 46 per 100,000
Basketball Courts
10 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 63.1 per 100,000
Baseball Fields
11 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 14.6 per 100,000
Soccer Fields
4 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 16.7 per 100,000
Multipurpose Fields
5 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 50 per 100,000
Restrooms
13 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 64.5 per 100,000
Picnic Shelters
15 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 100 per 100,000
Gymnasiums
2 per 100,000 residents
National Average: no data
Senior Centers
15 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 10.3 per 100,000
Community Rec Centers
5 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 10.3 per 100,000
Fitness Zones
4 per 100,000 residents
National Average: no data
Skate Parks
1 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 1.9 per 100,000
Playgrounds
15 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 45 per 100,000
Dog Parks
1 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 3.6 per 100,000
Splash Pads
1 per 100,000 residents
National Average: no data
Swimming Pools
2 per 100,000 residents
National Average: 5.6 per 100,000
15.1%
28.6%
42.7%51.1%
42.2%
18.1%
2.2% not reported
GO
O
D
FAIR POORPARK INFRASTRUCTUREGOOD FAIR PO O R
PARKAMENITIES
Low park pressure at
20% of parks in the County
High park pressure at 80% of parks in the CountyMore than 3.3
Less than 3.3ACRES PER 1,000
ParkLand ParkPressure
ParkCondition ParkAccess ParkAmenities
� How much of the population has access to parks?
� What is the condition of the parks in the County?
� How much park land is in the County?� What park amenities are available in the County?� How much land is available to residents in the area around each park?
V
PARK NEED
The results of the analysis of the park metrics
were combined to determine an overall park need
level for each Study Area. This approach creates
a framework for assessing park need from a
Countywide perspective.
Very High
3.3County Average
0.7
High
1.6
Moderate
11.5
Low
12.5
Very Low
52.0
� Population in Each Need Category*
� Average Acres per 1,000 Residents in Each Need Category
26.2%Moderate
4.6%Very Low
20.4%High
16.5%Low
32.2%Very High
*0.1% Not Participating
POPULATION
VI
COMMUNITY PROFILE
A community profile summarizing demographic, health, and environmental information was completed in each Study Area to supplement park metrics.
*Data sources for demographic information: 2014 Los Angles County Age/Race/Gender Population Estimates; US EPA Smart Location Database; Los Angeles County Poverty Estimates, 2013; and the US Census American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, 2013
48%Latino14%Asian
9%
African-
American
28%Caucasian
0.2%
Native American0.2%Pacific Islander
POPULATION
� Population by Race/Ethnicity*
*Total is less than 100% due to rounding
� Population Distribution by Age
� Population at or below 200% Poverty Level
4%81%
40% COUNTYWIDE AVERAGE
Lowest percentage reported
in a single Study Area
Highest percentage reported
in a single Study Area
0–9 yrs 10–17 yrs 18–24 yrs 25–54 yrs 55–65 yrs 65+ yrs
13%10%
8%41%16%12%
0%87%
10% COUNTYWIDE AVERAGE
� Population without Vehicle Access
1%56%
26% COUNTYWIDE AVERAGE
� Population in Linguistic Isolation
VII
OZONE
Varying levels of ozone concentration
throughout the County.
*Data source: CalEnviroScreen 2.0, 2013.
PM 2.5
Concentration of particulate matter 2.5
micrometers or less in diameter (PM 2.5)
throughout the County.
*Data source: CalEnviroScreen 2.0, 2013.
OBESITY
Percentage of obese fifth graders
throughout the County.
*Data source: Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health, 2015.
ASTHMA
Number of emergency room visits for
asthma treatments per 10,000 people per
year.
*Data source: CalEnviroScreen 2.0, 2013.
DIESEL EMISSIONS
Rates of diesel particulate matter emissions
in Los Angeles County.
*Data source: CalEnviroScreen 2.0, 2013.
DIABETES
Diabetes death rate per 100,000 residents
in the County.
*Data source: CalEnviroScreen 2.0, 2013.
POLLUTION BURDEN
Pollution scores, based on 12 pollution
burden indicators.
*Data source: CalEnviroScreen 2.0, 2013.
BICYCLE/PED. COLLISIONS
All collisions between automobiles/bicycles
and automobiles/pedestrians.
*Data source: Transportation Injury Mapping System SWITRS
Collision Raw Data, 2003–2012
VIII
30K+ viewsProject Website
1.1 million+ Social Media2.5 million+ Traditional Media
23 de enero, 2016
2:00 PM
La Ciudad de El Monte Departamento de Parques, Recreación y Servicios Comunitarios
Este taller es patrocinado por la Evaluación Integral de las Necesidades de Parques y El Condado de Los Angeles.
Centro Comunitario de El Monte3130 Tyler Avenue, El Monte
Asista a nuestra reunión en El Monte. Juntos crearemos una lista de prioridades para guiar los fondos del Condado destinados a parques durante la próxima década.
Para mayor informes:El Departamento de Parques y Recreación(626)580-2261 o (626) 580-2200
Serviremos almuerzo entre la1:00 PM - 1:45 PM
UNASE a nosotros y
participe en la CREACION
del FUTURO deNUESTROS PARQUES!!COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
A Countywide education and awareness effort informed residents about the Parks Needs Assessment and
encouraged them to attend a community workshop in their Study Area. The effort included a robust media
component, informational meetings, and a dedicated online presence.
The lead agency in each Study Area was responsible for advertising its local workshop and was eligible
for a $2,500 stipend to cover workshop costs. Each lead agency submitted a community engagement plan
describing the efforts they would make to attract participants to its workshop and was given resources such
as flyers, logos, and social media hashtags to assist.
Translations of workshop and outreach materials were available in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Armenian
and were strongly recommended for use in all Study Areas where 15% or more of the population is
linguistically isolated. These four languages were selected because they are the dominant languages spoken
by the linguistically isolated populations within the Study Areas meeting that criteria.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
Workshop facilitators attended an intensive
training session and received a 50-page
Facilitator Toolkit with Study Area-specific
results of the analysis of the five park metrics,
community profile information, templates, and
other resources needed to host a successful
workshop.
Community Engagement Workshops were held
for 178 Study Areas between December 2015 and
February 2016.* At each workshop, participants
reviewed their Study Area’s specific park metrics,
generated a list of potential park projects, and
prioritized those projects.
*Ten cities, comprising ten Study Areas, elected not to hold
a workshop.
� Population reached via media � Number of Study Areas meeting criteria for translation recommendation
78
12
2
1
Study Areas in Spanish
Study Areas in Chinese
Study Areas in Armenian
Study Area in Korean
IX
Review existing parks and metrics.
Develop comprehensive list of potential projects.
Prioritize top ten park projects.
PRIORITIZED PROJECTS
Community members at all workshops identified
the top ten local park projects in their Study
Area. Prioritized projects included repairing or
replacing amenities in existing parks, adding new
amenities to existing parks, and constructing new
parks. Additional projects were prioritized by the
managing agencies of regional recreation parks,
and specialized facilities such as regional specialty
facilities, and open space/nature centers.
COST ESTIMATE
Cost estimates were developed for the prioritized projects from
each community workshop and for all deferred maintenance projects
using a standardized set of costs developed with input from several
agencies and cost estimators with extensive experience throughout
Los Angeles County. Costs for deferred maintenance projects
prioritized by local communities are included in the cost of prioritized
projects, and not in the costs for deferred maintenance. Cost
estimates for prioritized projects in regional recreation parks (included
in the prioritized projects cost) and specialized facilities were
furnished by each managing agency. All cost estimates were summed
to provide a rough order-of-magnitude estimate of the cost needed to
implement prioritized projects and catch up on deferred maintenance.
� Community Workshops Flow Chart
$21.5 billion
$8.8
billion $0.7
billion
Specialized Facilities
$12
billion
Deferred MaintenancePrioritized
Projects
X
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The Parks Needs Assessment lays the groundwork for making important planning and funding
decisions in Los Angeles County. Most importantly, it provides the County, its jurisdictions, and all
residents of Los Angeles County with a wealth of parks-related information and opportunities.
VALUABLE DATA
The data in the Parks Needs Assessment provide a clear picture of the current scope, scale, and
location of park need in Los Angeles County. For the first time, a single source provides information
regarding parks and park infrastructure across the entire County. This information helps us to
understand the challenges facing our communities and may be used to seek funding and support
for parks, inform staffing and programming decisions, and focus outreach efforts.
ONGOING UPDATES
The County will seek to keep data in the Parks Needs Assessment up to date, in order to continue
identifying new needs and to track progress toward addressing already-identified needs.
FUNDING DECISIONS
With comprehensive information regarding existing parks and the need for new parks, amenities,
and repairs, the County is well prepared to develop a funding measure for park and open space
projects that will provide funding streams for improvements in the short, medium, and long term.
Local, state, and federal funds can also be leveraged to enhance park and open space funding.
EQUITABLE ALLOCATION
The comprehensive data in the Parks Needs Assessment can be used to allocate funds to meet
identified needs in ways that emphasize areas with high to very high park need while also
addressing the specific needs of every jurisdiction and community in the County.
A NATIONAL MODEL
The Parks Needs Assessment serves as a model for a clear, replicable process that other
jurisdictions across the country can use when they assess their regionwide park facilities and
needs..
NEW SOLUTIONS TO PROVIDE NEEDED PARKS
The Parks Needs Assessment shows that there are many areas in the County with high park need
and a lack of vacant land for new traditional parks. Local agencies will need to find innovative
solutions to provide essential park infrastructure by using underutilized land, utility corridors,
alleys, and other public lands. Additionally, creative partnerships, such as joint use and reuse
with schools, hospitals, libraries, and other facilities, should be considered in order to expand park
opportunities and meet recreational needs.
1.0 Introduction 11.1 Purpose of the Parks Needs Assessment 21.2 Who Was Involved 4
1.3 Process of Completing the Parks Needs Assessment 8
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis 37
2.1 Data Analysis & Inventory Summary 38
2.2 Population 44
2.3 Park Metrics Summary Countywide 45
2.4 Park Metrics - Regional Recreation Parks 51
2.5 Community Profile Summary 54
2.6 Potential Park Land Opportunities 61
3.0 Park Needs Framework 63
3.1 Countywide Assessment of Park Need 64
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates 73
4.1 Potential Park Projects 74
4.2 Cost Estimates: Countywide Trends 80
5.0 Next Steps 83
5.1 Where Do We Go From Here? 84
Acknowledgments 86
1.0 Introduction
1-2 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Unprecedented in scope and scale, the Countywide
Parks Needs Assessment (Parks Needs Assessment) was
designed to quantify the need for parks and recreational
resources and the potential costs of meeting that need.
To achieve this goal, the Parks Needs Assessment
incorporated the following objectives:
»Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the
park, infrastructure, and recreational needs and
opportunities in Los Angeles County
»Establish a list of priority projects for each study area
»Outline costs for future project opportunities
»Establish a transparent and best-practices approach
»Engage the County, cities, and communities in a
collaborative and shared process
»Build support and understanding of the park,
infrastructure, and recreational needs and
opportunities
»Inform future decision-making regarding funding for
parks and recreation in the County
1.1.1 HISTORY OF PARKS AND RECREATION FUNDING IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Parks and recreational facilities in Los Angeles County
are supported in part by funds generated from the
Safe Neighborhood Parks Tax Measure (Proposition
A), which was initially approved by voters in 1992 and
provided a total of $540 million in grant funds for the
acquisition, restoration, and rehabilitation of property for
parks, recreation, and natural lands. An additional $319
million in funding was obtained after voters approved a
second measure in 1996. The 1992 tax expired in 2015,
and the 1996 tax will end in 2019. Since its passage,
Proposition A has granted more than $1 billion to cities,
County departments, state and local agencies, and non-
profit organizations for the development, acquisition,
improvement, restoration, and rehabilitation of parks,
recreational, cultural, and community facilities, as well as
open space lands throughout Los Angeles County.
Anticipating the loss in 2019 of this critical source of
funding, the County Board of Supervisors placed Proposition
P Safe Neighborhood Parks Tax Measure, on the ballot for
the November 2014 general election. Although a majority
of voters supported the measure (62 percent), Proposition
P required two-thirds (66.6 percent) approval, and did not
pass. The process that led to the placement of Measure P
on the ballot had several shortcomings, including: a short
time frame for the Board of Supervisors’ (Board) approval
of the ballot measure for education of and consideration by
the voters; and the absence of a substantial analysis of the
needs that the additional revenue would address.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PARKS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Robert E. Lundigan Park, City of Burbank
1-3Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
1.1.2 MOTION FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Understanding the critical importance of park and
recreation funding in the County, the Board of Supervisors
passed a motion in November 2014 directing the Chief
Executive Office and Department of Parks and Recreation to
report back to the Board in 30 days with a plan to produce
a Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Parks
Needs Assessment. The subsequent plan was approved by
the Board in February 2015, with a 16-month time frame for
completion and a $3.5 million budget. The schedule was
later compressed to 14-months.
As outlined in the approved motion, the Parks Needs
Assessment includes the following components:
»Establishment of 188 Study Areas within the County
»An inventory of existing park and recreation assets
in the County, in all unincorporated and incorporated
communities
»GIS-based spatial analysis of existing park and
recreation assets
»Community-led outreach process of sharing inventory
and analysis results to help identify and prioritize
needed improvements
»Cost estimates for priority park projects developed in
community workshops
La Puente Park, City of La Puente
Figure 1. Components of the Parks Needs Assessment
$
PROJECT
INITIATION
INVENTORY ANALYSIS COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
PARK NEEDS
FRAMEWORK
COST
ESTIMATES
FINAL
REPORT
The information in the Parks Needs Assessment
summarizes a data-driven analysis of the existing
recreational assets and park need in the County. This
information can be used by cities and unincorporated
communities to inform future park planning and funding
efforts, as well as to leverage federal, state, and private
resources.
1.0 Introduction
1-4 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
The scope, scale, and timeline of the Parks Needs
Assessment required collaboration among many different
agencies Countywide and included input from experts
in fields ranging from data management to community
engagement.
1.2.1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
The Board’s recognition of the importance of parks and
recreation in Los Angeles County led to their unanimous
approval of the development of the Parks Needs
Assessment. This unprecedented effort would not have
been possible without the full support of the Board
and their desire to expand the rich legacy of park and
recreational resources established over the past few
decades. The Board and their staff have provided support
and guidance throughout the duration of the project.
District 1, Hilda L. Solis
District 2, Mark Ridley-Thomas
District 3, Sheila Kuehl
District 4, Don Knabe
District 5, Michael D. Antonovich
1.2 WHO WAS INVOLVED
Figure 2. Organizational Chart
COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE
PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Technical Advisory
Committee
PlaceWorks
Key Facilitators/Project Management
Parks Needs Assessment
GIS/Mapping
DakeLuna Consultants
Outreach, Engagement
and Training
David Taussig & Associates
Economics, Real Estate
Acquistion
Green Info Network
Online GIS Mapping
Steering
Committee
Board of
Supervisors County of Los Angeles
Department of Parks and
RecreationOutreach
Partners
1-5Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
1.2.2 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) provided
consistent project leadership while coordinating their
own participation in the Parks Needs Assessment. Led
first by former Director, Russ Guiney and then by current
Director John Wicker, DPR staff worked closely with the
project consultants for the duration of the Assessment,
ensuring adherence to the Assessment’s objectives, the
department’s standards, and the stringent 16-month
timeline. DPR staff also participated in the inventory of all
County parks, the community engagement process, and the
development of a prioritized project list in each of the 47
unincorporated Study Areas.
1.2.3 STEERING COMMITTEE
Acting independently of the Board and DPR, the Steering
Committee oversaw the project approach and provided
insight and direction based on experience as members of
the community-at-large and various formal and informal
organizations. Steering Committee members were tasked
with three main functions:
»To provide feedback and direction to DPR staff and
the project consultants during the preparation of the
Parks Needs Assessment, with the goal of creating
a document that is responsive to neighborhood and
community goals, conditions, and aspirations.
»To make recommendations to the DPR and project
consultants at key project milestones.
»To communicate information about the Parks Needs
Assessment to Los Angeles County residents and to
encourage their colleagues, friends, and neighbors to
participate in the process.
The Steering Committee included 40 members and offered
a diversity of viewpoints that were broadly representative
of Los Angeles County. Steering Committee members were
selected as follows:
»From each Supervisorial District:
–One staff representative
–Two representatives from community-based
organizations working on park and recreation
issues in the District
–Two community-at-large representatives
–A representative from each Council of Government
(COG), including Los Angeles, Lancaster, and
Palmdale
»Representatives from the following County
Departments: Department of Parks and Recreation,
Department of Public Health, the Chief Executive
Office (CEO), and Department of Community & Senior
Services
»A representative from the Regional Park and Open
Space District
»A representative from First 5 LA
»A representative from the Youth Conservation Corps
Members of the Steering Committee attended six meetings
over the course of the Parks Needs Assessment and
provided invaluable input at each meeting. Their careful
consideration of the issues brought forth by the Parks
Needs Assessment greatly improved the final product.
Their dedication is deeply appreciated.
MEETING 1 April 30, 2015
• Reviewed potential park metrics• Reviewed potential Study Area boundaries• Suggested need for community profile
MEETING 2 June 4, 2015
• Approved five park metrics• Approved Study Area boundaries• Approved content of community profile• Suggested need for regional approach
MEETING 3 July 9, 2015
• Requested greater awareness & education effort countywide• Reviewed inventory items• Refined data to be used in park metrics and community profile
MEETING 4 September 9, 2015
• Reviewed comprehensive plan for countywide education and awareness• Reviewed draft Study Area facilitator toolkit• Reviewed facilitator training materials
MEETING 5 October 29, 2015
• Reviewed regional approach• Reviewed preliminary analysis of existing conditions
MEETING 6 March 24, 2016
• Reviewed results of Community Engagement Workshops, including preliminary project lists• Reviewed parks needs framework
Figure 3. Steering Committee Meetings Summary
1.0 Introduction
1-6 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.2.4 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provided expert
guidance on technical aspects of the project at key phases,
including the inventory of Countywide recreational assets,
existing conditions analysis and baseline establishment,
and land inventory and opportunity analysis. Specifically,
the TAC was charged with providing review of GIS and
mapping methodology. Three TAC meetings were held
with County staff and project consultants to review key
milestones, particularly during the inventory and analysis
phases of the project.
1.2.5 CITIES
Participation of the incorporated cities within Los Angeles
County was a critical component of the Parks Needs
Assessment. Recognizing the significance of the Parks
Needs Assessment, 86 of the 88 incorporated cities
committed to collaborating on the project. These cities
dedicated considerable staff time and resources to
verifying and updating existing conditions of their parks
and amenities during the inventory phase of the project;
organizing, advertising, and facilitating community
engagement workshops; and reviewing and submitting
community feedback to the Parks Needs Assessment team.
Steering Committee Meeting, Exposition Park
The detailed and highly accurate data contributed by each
city were critical to the accurate analysis of park need and
the representation of community needs throughout the
County. Participating cities are listed alphabetically.
»Agoura Hills
»Alhambra
»Arcadia
»Artesia
»Avalon
»Azusa
»Baldwin Park
»Bell
»Bell Gardens
»Bellflower
»Beverly Hills
»Bradbury
»Burbank
»Calabasas
»Carson
»Cerritos
»Claremont
»Commerce
»Compton
»Covina
»Cudahy
»Culver City
1-7Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
»Diamond Bar
»Downey
»Duarte
»El Monte
»El Segundo
»Gardena
»Glendale
»Glendora
»Hawaiian Gardens
»Hawthorne
»Hermosa Beach
»Huntington Park
»Industry
»Inglewood
»Irwindale
»La Cañada Flintridge
»La Habra Heights
»La Mirada
»La Puente
»La Verne
»Lakewood
»Lancaster
»Lawndale
»Lomita
»Long Beach
»Los Angeles
»Lynwood
»Malibu
»Manhattan Beach
»Maywood
»Monrovia
»Montebello
»Monterey Park
»Norwalk
»Palmdale
»Palos Verdes Estates
»Paramount
»Pasadena
»Pico Rivera
»Pomona
»Rancho Palos Verdes
»Redondo Beach
»Rolling Hills Estates
»Rosemead
»San Dimas
»San Fernando
»San Gabriel
»San Marino
»Santa Clarita
»Santa Fe Springs
»Santa Monica
»Sierra Madre
»Signal Hill
»South El Monte
»South Gate
»South Pasadena
»Temple City
»Torrance
»Vernon
»Walnut
»West Covina
»West Hollywood
»Westlake Village
»Whittier
1.2.6 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
A strategic network of over 30 allied non-profit
organizations was formed to educate and engage residents
throughout the County to create understanding and
transparency regarding the Parks Needs Assessment.
These partners contributed to general Countywide
education and awareness efforts. A smaller subset of
these partner organizations provided targeted outreach
in High-Priority Areas (HPAs) and facilitated community
engagement workshops hosted by cities throughout the
County. These separate roles are further detailed in Section
1.3.4, Community Engagement.
1.2.7 CONSULTANT TEAM
Covina Park Bandshell, City of Covina
1.0 Introduction
1-8 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.3 PROCESS OF COMPLETING THE PARKS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 4. Parks Needs Assessment Milestones
PROJECT
INITIATION
APRIL 2015
INVENTORY ANALYSIS
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
• 40 member Steering Committee formed• 9 member Technical Advisory Committee formed
• Demographic, health, safety and environment data gathered for community profiles
• 90 park agencies participated in park inventory• Over 3,000 parks inventoried• Over 9,000 amenities documented
• 750 potential park opportunity sites verified by park agencies
• Park metrics analyzed in 186 Study Areas • 300 facilitators
attended engagement
workshop trainings
The Parks Needs Assessment was completed over the
course of 14 months, from March 2015 to May 2016. The
work of the Parks Needs Assessment consisted of several
distinct, yet overlapping phases, as illustrated in Figure 4.
During project initiation, the Steering Committee and TAC
were formed, baseline data were gathered, a Countywide
base map was produced, and the Study Areas and park
metrics were developed. Data were gathered during the
inventory phase, followed by analysis of the gathered data.
Once data analysis was complete, the information was
shared with community members, who worked to prioritize
park projects within their communities. Cost estimates
were completed for the prioritized projects, and the park
needs framework was developed.
1-9Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
FINAL
REPORT
• Health Equity Workshops attended by over 200 people
• Facilitator toolkits with customized data created for 186 Study Areas
• Facebook ads had over 1 million views• Print media ads and articles reached over 2.5 million readers• Project website received over 30,000 page views
• Community Engagement Workshops conducted for 178 Study Areas• Attended by over 5,000 people• Over 1,700 projects prioritized
• Cost estimates developed for over 1,700 projects• Cost estimates developed for Countywide deferred maintenance needs
• Los Angeles County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Parks Needs Assessment presented to the County Board of Supervisors
• Park Needs
Framework
developed
MAY 2016
$
COST
ESTIMATES
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
(cont’d)
PARK NEEDS
FRAMEWORK
1.0 Introduction
1-10 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
»City of Santa Clarita: 2 Study Areas
»City of Lancaster: 2 Study Areas
»City of Palmdale: 2 Study Areas
»City of Pomona: 2 Study Areas
»City of Torrance: 2 Study Areas
»City of Pasadena: 2 Study Areas
For each of these cities, project consultants suggested
internal Study Area boundaries based on input from city
staff, geographic barriers such as major roadways, City-
developed boundaries such as council districts or planning
areas, and population distribution. Final determination
of the internal boundaries of the Study Areas was at the
discretion of city staff.
Unincorporated communities in the County were evaluated
based on population size and geographic location. Each
of the 187 incorporated communities was addressed as
follows:
»Geographically isolated communities with small
populations were added to the Study Area of the
adjacent, like-named city. A total of 18 cities agreed to
include an adjacent unincorporated community within
their Study Area boundaries.
»Distinct and/or geographically isolated communities
with larger populations each became an individual
Study Area. Any of these communities with more than
150,000 people was split into two Study Areas, similar
to what was done for large cities.
»Geographically adjacent communities with small
populations were grouped according to community
name and geography, population distribution, and
statistical areas.
»Each Study Area was assigned a unique identification
number, illustrated in Figure 6, Figure 7, and Table 1.
Salt Lake Park, City of Huntington Park
1.3.1 STUDY AREAS
Los Angeles County includes 88 incorporated cities
and over 2,600 square miles of unincorporated area.
The majority of the County’s 10 million residents live in
incorporated cities, and about 1 million residents live in
unincorporated areas. To ensure that communities across
the County received equal representation in the Parks
Needs Assessment, the County was divided into individual
Study Areas. These geographic boundaries were developed
using a GIS-based process that considered existing
jurisdictional boundaries such as supervisorial districts, city
borders, and County planning areas alongside information
about population.
The initial Study Area boundaries were reviewed by
the Steering Committee at their first meeting. Revised
Study Area boundaries incorporated Steering Committee
comments and resulted in a total of 189 Study Areas.
However, due to its annexation into the City of Santa
Clarita, one unincorporated community was later
eliminated, bringing the final total number of Study Areas
to 188. The process of establishing Study Area boundaries
is illustrated in Figure 5.
Each incorporated city was initially assigned a single
Study Area. Cities with population over 150,000 were
split into two or more Study Areas, to create a more even
distribution of population among Study Areas. Each of
these larger cities was allocated a number of Study Areas
based on their total population:
»City of Los Angeles: 43 Study Areas
»City of Long Beach: 5 Study Areas
»City of Glendale: 2 Study Areas
1-11Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
Figure 5. Study Area Development Process
Total
Study Areas
87 OTHER CITIES
35 PLANNING AREAS
City of Los Angeles
98 STUDY AREAS
Other Cities
47 STUDY AREAS
Unincorporated Communities
8 LARGER CITIES
~150k population
79 SMALLER CITIES
<150k population
21 COMMUNITIES
Geographically isolated with small
populations
Note: These 21 communities are
subsumed into other study areas above.
19 COMMUNITIES
Distinct and/or geographically isolated
147 COMMUNITIES
Geographically adjacent with small
populations
27 STUDY AREAS
Grouped according to community name and
geography, County’s board-approved statistical
areas, and population distribution
20 STUDY AREAS
One Study Area per community except for 1
large community of >150K that is subdivided
to create 2 Study Areas.
79 STUDY AREAS
One Study Area per Smaller City
19 STUDY AREAS
Larger cities are subdivided by park planning
areas, City Council Districts, major roads/
freeways, and natural features (rivers)
43 STUDY AREAS
City of Los Angeles
35 PLANNING AREAS
LAX and Port of LA are combined with
neighboring Planning Areas
43 STUDY AREAS
8 large Planning Areas of >150K are
subdivided to create 16 Study Areas
187
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
(6)
(2)
(13)
188
+
+
1.0 Introduction
1-12 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Figure 6. Study Area Map: Los Angeles County, North
1-13Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
Figure 7. Study Area Map: Los Angels County, South
1.0 Introduction
1-14 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Table 1. Study Area Map Key
ID # STUDY AREA NAME
1 City of Hidden Hills
2 City of Rolling Hills
3 City of Vernon/ Unincorporated Vernon
4 Unincorporated Covina-San Dimas
5 Unincorporated Covina Islands
6 Unincorporated Leona Valley/ Unincorporated
Lake Hughes
7 City of Bradbury/ Unincorporated Bradbury
8 City of San Marino
9 Unincorporated Acton/ Unincorporated South
Antelope Valley
10 Unincorporated Agua Dulce-Angeles National
Forest-Canyon Country
11 Unincorporated Charter Oak Islands
12 Unincorporated Compton
13 Unincorporated Del Aire
14 Unincorporated La Crescenta - Montrose
15 Unincorporated Lennox
16 Unincorporated Malibu
17 Unincorporated Northeast Antelope Valley
18 Unincorporated Northwest Antelope Valley
19 Unincorporated Quartz Hill-Lancaster
20 Unincorporated San Jose Hills
21 Unincorporated Walnut Park
22 Unincorporated West Athens-Westmont
ID # STUDY AREA NAME
23 Unincorporated West Carson
24 Unincorporated West Rancho Dominguez
25 City of Industry
26 City of LA - Bel Air - Beverly Crest/
Unincorporated Hollywood Hills
27 City of La Puente
28 City of Temple City
29 Unincorporated Angeles National Forest
30 Unincorporated East Los Angeles - Southeast
31 Unincorporated East Rancho Dominguez
32 Unincorporated East San Gabriel/
Unincorporated Arcadia
33 Unincorporated Monrovia
34 Unincorporated Hawthorne/ Unincorporated
Alondra Park
35 Unincorporated Lake Los Angeles/ Uninc
Pearblossom/ Uninc Liano/ Uninc Valyermo
36 Unincorporated Littlerock
37 Unincorporated San Pasqual/ Unincorporated
East Pasadena
38 Unincorporated Santa Monica Mountains/
Unincorporated Triunfo Canyon
39 Unincorporated Valinda
40 City of Artesia
41 City of Hawaiian Gardens
42 City of La Habra Heights
43 City of LA - Harbor Gateway
ID # STUDY AREA NAME
44 City of LA - Van Nuys - North Sherman Oaks
45 City of LA - Westwood/ Unincorporated
Sawtelle VA Center
46 City of Palos Verdes Estates
47 Unincorporated Altadena
48 Unincorporated Ladera Heights/ View Park -
Windsor Hills
49 Unincorporated Stevenson/Newhall Ranch
50 Unincorporated Bassett-West Puente Valley
51 Unincorporated Pellissier Village-Avocado
Heights
52 Unincorporated Sunrise Village-South San
Gabriel-Whittier Narrows
53 City of Avalon/ Unincorporated Channel
Islands North
54 City of Baldwin Park
55 City of Commerce
56 City of Cudahy
57 City of Irwindale
58 City of LA - Canoga Park - Winnetka
59 City of LA - Central City North
60 City of LA - Northridge
61 City of LA - Valley Glen - North Sherman Oaks
62 City of Lomita
63 Unincorporated Marina del Rey
64 Unincorporated Topanga Canyon/ Topanga
1-15Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
ID # STUDY AREA NAME
65 Unincorporated West Whittier - Los Nietos
66 City of La Canada Flintridge
67 City of LA - Westchester - Playa del Rey/ City
of LA Los Angeles International Airport
68 City of LA - Wilshire - Koreatown
69 City of Lancaster - Eastside
70 Unincorporated East Los Angeles - Northwest
71 City of Bell
72 City of Huntington Park
73 City of LA - Granada Hills - Knollwood
74 City of Lawndale
75 City of Malibu
76 City of Maywood
77 City of Monrovia
78 City of South El Monte/ Unincorporated El
Monte/ Unincorporated Whittier Narrows
79 City of Westlake Village
80 Unincorporated Florence-Firestone
81 City of Agoura Hills
82 City of Alhambra
83 City of LA - Baldwin Hills - Leimert - Hyde Park
84 City of LA - Sherman Oaks - Studio City -
Toluca Lake - Cahuenga Pass/ Uninc Universal
City
85 City of LA - West Los Angeles
86 City of Rolling Hills Estates/ Unincorporated
Westfield
ID # STUDY AREA NAME
87 City of San Fernando
88 City of South Gate
89 City of South Pasadena
90 City of West Hollywood
91 Unincorporated Castaic
92 Unincorporated Rowland Heights
93 City of Covina
94 City of LA - North Hollywood - Valley Village
95 City of LA - Reseda - West Van Nuys
96 City of LA - Sylmar
97 City of Long Beach Central
98 City of Rosemead
99 Unincorporated Hacienda Heights-Whittier
100 City of Bellflower
101 City of Calabasas
102 City of Gardena
103 City of LA - Hollywood - North
104 City of LA - Hollywood - South
105 City of LA - Palms - Mar Vista - Del Rey
106 City of LA - Venice
107 City of LA - West Adams
108 City of LA - Wilshire - West
109 City of Lynwood/ Unincorporated Lynwood
110 City of Pico Rivera
ID # STUDY AREA NAME
111 City of San Gabriel
112 City of Sierra Madre
113 Unincorporated Willowbrook
114 City of Bell Gardens
115 City of El Monte
116 City of Inglewood
117 City of LA - Arleta - Pacoima
118 City of LA - Central City
119 City of LA - South Los Angeles
120 City of LA - Sun Valley - La Tuna Canyon
121 City of LA - Wilmington - Harbor City/ City of
LA Port of Los Angeles
122 City of Lancaster - Westside
123 City of Long Beach North
124 City of Palmdale - Eastside/ Unincorporated
South Antelope Valley
125 City of Palmdale - Westside
126 City of Santa Fe Springs
127 Unincorporated Azusa
128 City of Hermosa Beach
129 City of LA - Brentwood - Pacific Palisades
130 City of LA - Mission Hills - Panorama City -
North Hills
131 City of Montebello
132 City of Pasadena - Eastside/ Unincorporated
Kinneloa Mesa
1.0 Introduction
1-16 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
ID # STUDY AREA NAME
133 City of Walnut
134 Unincorporated South Whittier/
Unincorporated East La Mirada
135 City of LA - Boyle Heights
136 City of LA - Encino - Tarzana
137 City of La Mirada
138 City of LA - Silver Lake - Echo Park - Elysian
Valley
139 City of LA - Sunland - Tujunga - Lake View
Terrace - Shadow Hills
140 City of Paramount
141 City of Signal Hill
142 City of Compton
143 City of Duarte
144 City of Glendora/ Unincorporated Glendora
145 City of Hawthorne
146 City of LA - West Hills - Woodland Hills/
Uninc Conoga Park - West Hills
147 City of LA - Westlake
148 City of Monterey Park
149 City of Norwalk
150 City of Pomona - Southside
151 Santa Clarita - South
152 City of LA - Chatsworth - Porter Ranch/ Uninc
Chatsworth/ Uninc Northridge/ Uninc Conoga
Park/ Uninc Porter Ranch-Oat Mountain
153 City of Lakewood/ Unincorporated Lakewood
ID # STUDY AREA NAME
154 City of Long Beach West
155 City of Pomona - Northside
156 City of San Dimas/ Unincorporated San Dimas
157 City of Diamond Bar
158 City of El Segundo
159 City of La Verne/ Unincorporated La Verne/
Unincorporated Claremont
160 City of West Covina
161 City of Carson
162 City of Downey
163 City of LA - Southeast Los Angeles
164 City of LA - Exposition Park - University Park -
Vermont Square
165 City of Long Beach East/ Unincorporated Long
Beach
166 City of Arcadia
167 City of Beverly Hills
168 City of Glendale - Southside
169 City of LA - Southeast Los Angeles - North
170 City of Rancho Palos Verdes
171 City of Claremont/ Unincorporated Claremont
172 City of Culver City
173 City of Pasadena - Westside
174 City of Torrance - North
175 City of Azusa
176 City of Burbank
ID # STUDY AREA NAME
177 City of LA - Northeast Los Angeles - South
178 City of Manhattan Beach
179 Santa Clarita - North
180 City of Glendale - Northside
181 City of Torrance - South
182 City of Santa Monica
183 City of LA - Northeast Los Angeles - North
184 City of Cerritos/ Unincorporated Cerritos
185 City of LA - San Pedro/ City of LA Port of Los
Angeles/ Unincorporated La Rambla
186 City of Redondo Beach
187 City of Whittier
188 City of Long Beach South
Big Dalton Wilderness Park, City of GlendoraVerdugo Park Aquatic Center, City of Burbank
1-17Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
1.3.2 PARK METRICS
Park need is affected by a variety of factors, from historical
development patterns to population density, and thus can
be measured in a variety of ways. Traditionally, measures
such as the number of acres of park land available to
residents or the percentage of residents living within
walking distance of a park have been used to understand
park need within an area. However, using a single indicator,
which provides information on just one aspect of park need,
does not lead to a complete understanding of the level and
variety of park need. For example, an evaluation of park
need based on the number of acres of park land available
per 1,000 residents may show that an area is providing an
adequate amount of park land. However, if the majority of
the population cannot access that park land because it is
too far away, park need likely still exists.
Recognizing that park need is affected by more than just
park availability and accessibility, the Steering Committee
approved a suite of five park metrics for analysis in the
Parks Needs Assessment. Taken together, these five
metrics produce a robust understanding of physical park
needs in each Study Area in the County.
The five park metrics ensure that the need measured in
one Study Area is comparable to the need measured in
any other Study Area across the County. Additionally, with
the exception of “Park Condition,” the metrics are based
on quantitative features of parks and the neighborhoods
surrounding them. As such, they can be easily re-evaluated
in the future as a way of gauging progress toward the goal
of meeting park need in Los Angeles County.
i. The Five Park Metrics
Park Land: How many acres of park are
there per 1,000 people in the Study Area?
Because this metric accounts for population size, it can
be used across diverse geographic areas to give an
understanding of how much park land is available to
residents in any given area.
A single standard for what is considered sufficient park
land does not exist. However, the County’s recently
approved General Plan establishes a goal of 4 acres of local
parkland per 1,000 residents. Within Los Angeles County,
many incorporated cities have set their own standards for
this metric. For cities with a documented standard for this
metric, it ranges from less than 1 acre per 1,000 to over 8
acres per 1,000.
Park Access: What percentage of the
population lives within a half mile of a
park?
This metric evaluates the distribution of park land within
each Study Area and whether residents can easily access
it. The closer someone lives to a park, the more likely they
will visit it regularly.1 Research from several studies, as
summarized by the Trust for Public Land,2 notes that most
pedestrians are willing to walk a half mile or approximately
ten minutes, to a access a destination, including parks and
recreation facilities.
1 NRPA. (2014). Safe Routes to Parks: Improving access to Parks through
Walkability.
2 The Trust for Public Land. (2015). ParkScore 2015. Close-to-Home Parks: A
Half-Mile or Less. Veterans Park, City of Bell
1.0 Introduction
1-18 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
This distance has been widely adopted as a standard for
providing nearby access to parks and open space. Of the
100 largest cities in the United States that have explicit
park distance goals, over 60 percent use a half mile.
Park Pressure: How much park land is
available to residents in the area around
each park?
Park pressure examines how population density affects
parks by capturing the potential demand if each resident of
the County were to use the park closest to them. Various
studies report that people are more likely to visit the
park closest to them than any other park, and that they
will visit that park repeatedly rather than exploring other
parks, located further from their homes.3 If the majority of
people in a Study Area live within a half-mile of a park,
but the population density surrounding that park is high or
the number of acres of the park are low, there is likely to
be park need that would escape detection using only the
park land and park access metrics. Park pressure assesses
the potential number of nearby users for each park in the
County by analyzing population density in conjunction
with park size. Parks with a small number of acres per
1,000 nearby residents are likely to be more heavily used
than parks with a larger number of acres per 1,000 nearby
residents.
3 Sister, C., Wolch, J., & Wilson, J. (June 01, 2010). Got green? addressing
environmental justice in park provision. Geojournal: Spatially Integrated
Social Sciences and Humanities, 75, 3, 229-248.
Park Amenities: What amenities are
available in each park in the Study Area?
The types of amenities available in a park can also affect
park need. If parks do not offer a variety of amenities to
meet the needs of all residents of the Study Area, the
quality of individuals’ park experience may be diminished.
By collecting information on the quantity and type of
amenities available in each park in the County, this metric
provides information on the type of park experience that
may be lacking in a given Study Area.
Amenity data presented for each Study Area was captured
during the inventory web portal phase of the Parks Needs
Assessment. Each of the participating cities; the County
of Los Angeles; and other state, regional, and local
agencies reviewed their parks and reported their amenity
information. Park amenities were reported by park staff
during the inventory phase of the Parks Needs Assessment.
Specifically, respondents were asked to report the number
of each of 16 common amenities in each of their parks.
These 16 amenities were agreed upon by the Steering
Committee:
»Baseball Fields
»Basketball Courts
»Community/Rec Centers
»Dog Parks
»Fitness Zones
»Gymnasiums
»Multipurpose Fields
»Picnic Shelters
»Playgrounds
»Restrooms
»Senior Centers
»Skate Parks
»Soccer Fields
»Splash Pads
»Swimming Pools
»Tennis Courts
In addition to these 16 amenities, data were collected
on trails, open space/turf areas, and general park
infrastructure (defined as signage, parking lots, walkways,
security lighting, park furniture, irrigation, vegetation/
landscaping, and fencing). Users of the Web Portal also
had the opportunity to enter any specialty amenities in
their parks, such as volleyball courts, equestrian centers,
amphitheaters, etc.
Park Condition: Is the park in good, fair, or
poor condition?
A park visitor’s experience is also affected by the condition
of the park and the amenities within it. Regardless of the
quantity and variety of amenities available, community
members may be less likely to visit parks with amenities
or general park infrastructure in poor condition. This could
result in underutilized parks as well as overcrowding in
parks with better conditioned amenities and infrastructure.
Park condition was assessed as part of the Park Assets
Inventory Web Portal, by each agency reporting the
condition of their amenities and general park infrastructure.
Agencies could choose between three conditions for each
1-19Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
use and to inform park staff, who could in turn use the
information as part of community meetings. The following
data were provided for each Study Area:
»Demographics: population distribution by age and
race/ethnicity
»Socioeconomics: poverty level, access to a vehicle,
linguistic isolation
»Public Safety: bike/pedestrian collisions, violent crime
»Health: obesity, asthma, diabetes rates
»Environment: ozone concentration, fine particulate
matter (PM 2.5) concentration, diesel emissions
Additional data requested by the Steering Committee,
but not available for the entire County or in a quantifiable
dataset include sidewalk and crosswalk locations and
conditions, prevalence of gang violence, and perceived
safety associated with homelessness.
amenity: good, fair, or poor. The Steering Committee
raised concerns over the accuracy of self-reporting, as park
agencies could easily overstate or understate the condition
of their amenities. To improve accuracy and consistency as
much as possible within the time constraints of the Parks
Needs Assessment, the consultant team developed the
“Park Amenity Condition Visual Manual and Operational
Definitions” to ensure mutual understanding of each
condition for every amenity type. For additional information
on the assessment of amenity conditions see Section 1.3.3,
Park Assets Inventory Web Portal.
ii. Community Profiles
The Steering Committee noted that a number of factors
beyond the five park metrics can affect park need and may
include variables such as public safety; gang activity; the
condition of sidewalks and crosswalks leading to parks;
pollution burdens; and demographic factors such as race,
ethnicity, poverty, and obesity rates. However, because
the scope of the Parks Needs Assessment is focused on
the physical needs of existing parks (including deferred
maintenance) and any need for new parks, these additional
factors are not included in the park metrics used to
determine need. Instead, this information, where available,
was included in a community profile for each Study Area.
The community profile provides information about factors
that affect park need and that are beyond the scope of
the Parks Needs Assessment. For example, park access
is affected not only by the distance a household is from a
park, but by access to a vehicle. Community profile data
were provided directly to each Study Area for its internal
Orizaba Skate Park, City of Long Beach
1.0 Introduction
1-20 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
iii. Multi-Benefit Parks
The Steering Committee also noted that all parks built
or renovated in Los Angles County in the future should
be multi-benefit parks. As outlined in the motion from
the Board, the Parks Needs Assessment focuses on
individual Study Areas and local park need within each of
those Study Areas. Because of this local focus, the Parks
Needs Assessment does not address regional issues such
as water conservation, green infrastructure, or climate
adaptation. However, as Los Angeles County moves to
address park need, there is an opportunity to address
these regional issues at the same time. By designing
multi-benefit parks that contribute to stormwater capture,
provide ecosystem services, use water responsibly, and
enhance regional sustainability, local parks can contribute
positively to the entire region.
1-21Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
1.3.3 PARK ASSETS INVENTORY WEB PORTAL
An accurate and reliable source of baseline data on the
existing parks and recreation amenities in Los Angeles
County is the foundation of the Parks Needs Assessment.
Prior to the Parks Needs Assessment, this data did not
exist in a single database. Instead, each jurisdiction
maintained its own records in its own system. Gathering
this dispersed information into a single GIS-based database
was accomplished via an interactive online web portal that
greatly expedited the collection of accurate and complete
data from over 90 park and open space-owning agencies
in the County. Each of these agencies was invited to
contribute data to the Park Assets Inventory Web Portal.
Building on data from the California Protected Areas
Database (CPAD) developed by GreenInfo Network, the
interactive Web Portal allowed participating agencies to:
»Verify and refine existing parks and open space data
–Each agency reviewed the CPAD data displayed
as a base layer in the Web Portal and was able to
update and edit this information as needed
»Add missing parks and open space facilities
–Each agency was able to upload GIS shapefiles
to the Web Portal or locate the missing facility
on the interactive map and manually outline the
boundaries, name the facility, and indicate the
owner/operating agency
»Add amenity information to each park and open space
facility
–Each agency recorded the quantity and condition
of each amenity type in every facility in their
Study Area. A standardized system of ranking
amenity condition as “good,” fair,” or “poor” was
employed.
»Place general notes
–Agencies could record additional information
about each facility in this section of the Web
Portal
»Upload photos of existing conditions
–Agencies could share pictures to show the
condition of facilities in the Study Area
i. Training
To ensure the accuracy of the data inputs, the project
consultants conducted extensive training sessions with
users. Over 30 on-site trainings were held with city staff
at their offices, and a technical assistance workshop was
held during the Quarterly Parks Summit on August 6, 2015,
at the Hacienda Heights Community Center. The workshop
was attended by nearly 80 City and County staff members
and included an extensive demonstration of the Web
Portal’s functionality, in-depth explanation of tools available
to users, and a question-and-answer session.
Training materials developed by the project consultants
were provided digitally to all participating cities, and
phone-based training was available to those who could
not attend the technical assistance workshop or on-site
training. The project consultants also provided ongoing
technical assistance to all agencies using the Web Portal
during the seven weeks it was open.
The training materials provided to Web Portal users
included a Quick Start Guide, an index of frequently asked
questions, and the “Park Amenity Condition Visual Manual
and Operational Definitions” booklet (See Appendix D),
which provided visual guides and operational definitions.
Gallant Park, City of Bell Gardens
park agencies
participated in
the inventory
90
1.0 Introduction
1-22 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
ii. Amenity Condition Definitions
The rating of amenity conditions was the responsibility of
each park-owning agency. To increase the consistency of
these self-reported ratings, all users were instructed to
adhere to the definitions in the “Park Amenity Condition
Visual Manual and Operational Definitions” guide that
was provided to all users. This guide included a written
description and sample photo of each condition (good, fair,
and poor) for each amenity type.
In general, amenities in “good” condition offer full
functionality and do not need repairs. “Good” condition
amenities have playable sports surfaces and equipment,
working fixtures, and fully intact safety features such as
railings and fences. “Good” amenities may have minor
cosmetic defects that can be repaired as part of a regular
maintenance regime. “Good” amenities encourage area
residents to use the park.
In general, amenities in “fair” condition are functional but
need minor or moderate repairs. “Fair” amenities have play
surfaces, equipment, fixtures, and safety features that are
operational and allow play, but have deficiencies or time
periods where they are unusable. “Fair” amenities remain
important amenities for the neighborhood but may slightly
discourage use of the park by residents.
In general, amenities in “poor” condition are largely
or completely unusable. They need major repairs to
be functional or cannot be repaired. “Poor” amenities
discourage residents from using the park.
Figure 8. Sample Condition Definitions
Play Equipment is fully intact and generally compliant with safety
standards. Equipment may have minor cosmetic flaws that do
not affect use. Safety Surfacing is installed where recommended
and well maintained. Surfacing meets safety standards. Edging
and borders successfully contain sand, wood chips, or other loose
material. Drainage is functional and the playground is generally
usable the day after rain.
Play Equipment is damaged in parts or missing minor pieces, but
the majority of the equipment is usable and compliant with safety
standards. Safety Surfacing is installed where recommended but
may need repair or replenishment to meet safety standards. Edging
and borders only partially contain loose materials. Drainage issues
create muddy areas or pooled water after a rain, but use is rarely
affected.
Play Equipment needs major repairs or replacement to be
compliant with safety standards. Damaged or missing components
limit play opportunities. Safety Surfacing is absent or damaged
beyond repair in multiple areas. Loose material is not contained and
requires frequent replenishment. Drainage is poor and regularly
affects use. Rain and/or irrigation create large areas of pooled water
or mud that limits use and damages safety surfacing.
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
PLAYGROUNDS
Los Angeles County | Park Amenity Rating System
The Web Portal opened on July 16, 2015, and closed on
September 4, 2015, allowing agencies seven weeks to
enter data. Of the 88 incorporated cities in the County,
86 provided data for the Web Portal. The Web Portal was
also used by DPR staff, state and federal agencies, and
other park and open space-owning agencies. The lead
agency in each Study Area had the opportunity to review
their submitted inventory data in mid November, 2015,
after receiving the information at the facilitator training
sessions.
1-23Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
1.3.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The motion passed by the Board of Supervisors to launch
the Parks Needs Assessment emphasized the importance
of a community-led engagement process to share analysis
results and gather community input on park needs. The
sharing of analysis data and gathering of input occurred in
a series of community workshops that were held in nearly
every Study Area between December 2015 and February
2016.
To ensure that community members were aware of the
opportunity to learn about the parks in their community
and share their input on park need, the Parks Needs
Assessment launched a significant community engagement
effort two months before the first community workshop.
Engagement efforts occurred at two levels: a Countywide
education and awareness campaign, and efforts within
each Study Area to draw residents to the community
workshop for that Study Area.
i. Countywide Education and Awareness
The goal of the Countywide education and awareness
effort was to inform County residents of the Parks
Needs Assessment and encourage them to attend a
community workshop in their Study Area. During the
outreach portion of the project, the DPR collaborated with
project consultants PlaceWorks and MIG to develop a
comprehensive outreach strategy. The strategy included a
robust media component, public meetings and workshops,
extra efforts in high priority areas, and a dedicated online
presence. The goal of the education and awareness
effort was to promote the Parks Needs Assessment on
a Countywide scale and to encourage attendance at
community workshops, where stakeholder feedback would
help to inform future priorities for parks and recreation
throughout the County.
Media Component
Social Media. In keeping with the current popularity
of online communities and their influence over local-
level engagement, DPR developed an active social
media strategy aimed at reaching stakeholders across
all geographic regions of the County. The primary
purpose of this effort was to drive people to the Parks
Needs Assessment website, where viewers could use
the interactive map to find workshops in their local
communities.
Figure 9. Education and Awareness Reach Figure 10. LA Times Advertisement
30K+ viewsProject Website
1.1 million+ Social Media2.5 million+ Traditional Media
1.0 Introduction
1-24 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Social media posts began in mid-November and ran until
the end of January. The effort utilized sophisticated online
marketing tactics to target advertisements toward those
who have high-level interest in parks and recreation, such
as families, dog-lovers, and those interested in sports
and outdoor activities. Nine Facebook advertisements,
led nearly 20,000 people to the Parks Needs Assessment
website and generated nearly 4,000 clicks on the
interactive map. The effort also benefited from existing
online networks, which shared the advertisements 450
times and generated nearly 4,000 “likes,” effectively
expanding the reached audience to over 1.1 million people
(see Figure 9).
Table 2. Newspaper Publications
PUBLICATION CIRCULATION
Long Beach Post 25,000
Bell Gardens Sun 7,000
Commerce Comet 6,500
Eastside Sun 24,000
Montebello Comet 17,000
Vernon Sun 2,500
LA Daily News 385,602
Long Beach Press Telegram 77,334
Daily Breeze 79,327
Pasadena Star-News 24,880
San Gabriel Valley Tribune 56,513
Whittier Daily News 14,367
Monrovia Weekly 4,000
Hometown News 15,000
Los Angeles Wave 198,108
El Monte Examiner 10,000
Sierra Madre Weekly 2,000
Santa Clarita Valley Signal 19,400
The Downey Patriot 25,000
The Argonaut 30,000
South Pasadena Review 4,000
Glendale News-Press 20,000
SCV News 3,000
Total 1,160,531
January: County to Host 12 Public Meetings on ‘Park Needs’
By EGP Staff Report
http://egpnews.com/2015/12/january-county-to-host-12-public-meetings-on-park-needs/
Does your family play basketball or soccer? Tennis or swim? Are there enough parks and recreation
facilities in your neighborhood? Do they need repairs? Do we need more park facilities or more open
space?
These are just a few of the questions the Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Park & Recreation
Needs Assessment study hopes to answer with input from residents in local cities and unincorporated
areas.
To that end, the county is conducting 200 public meetings to gather information on where park facilities can be improved.
The County began its assessment of “189 Study Areas” countywide in March 2015, with meetings
continuing through June 2016.
During January 2016 alone, more than a dozen meetings will be held in east, northeast and southeast
Los Angeles cities and neighborhoods. All will be conducted at area parks and recreation facilities.
Why is the County conducting the meetings?
Because, according to a County news release, “Parks provide countless health, social, environmental and
economic benefits to communities.” Study leaders say adults and children are more likely to increase
physical activity and teens are 30% more likely to get recommended exercise if they have access to well-
maintained parks.
“Physical activity improves general health, prevents obesity and diabetes, reduces the risk of
hypertension, reduces the levels of attention deficit in children, improves cognitive ability and reduces
aggressive behavior,” according to the County.
Therefore, the goal of the extensive, 15 months-long assessment study is to better understand what
residents think can be done to “improve, expand and make parks more accessible” to all area of the county.
The following are some of the meetings taking place in January. For a complete list of dates, times and
locations, call (213) 202-2681 or visit lacountyparkneeds.org.
Traditional Media. To complement the online social
media efforts, DPR worked to raise awareness about the
Parks Needs Assessment among consumers of traditional
media. Over 60 journalists throughout the County were
contacted, and over 20 articles were published.
Based on the circulation numbers of all participating media
outlets, the print media effort reached over 1.2 million
people, as shown in Table 2.
Print and digital ads for the project and community
workshops ran multiple times in the Los Angeles Times,
La Opinión, and San Gabriel Valley Tribune. The daily
readership rates for these publications is over 1.3 million,
which results in total of over 2.5 million people reached
through traditional media sources (Figure 10 and Figure 11).
Figure 11. Sample Facebook Advertisement
1-25Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
In addition to local newspaper publications, project
director Rita Robinson was interviewed by KPCC/Southern
California Public Radio and the Los Angeles Times.
Web-Based Component: LAcountyparkneeds.org
The social media, traditional media, and additional efforts
in high priority areas directed interested residents to the
Parks Needs Assessment website, a vibrant and user-
friendly resource designed to connect the general public
with information about the Parks Needs Assessment.
With 186 Study Areas participating in the Parks Needs
Assessment, the website required a user-interface design
that was functional, graphically engaging, and logically
organized so that users could easily obtain and/or provide
information without visiting numerous pages or lists.
During the community engagement phase of the Parks
Needs Assessment, the website’s primary function was
to assist users in finding the location and date of the
community workshop in their Study Area. An interactive
map allowed users to pinpoint their location; a single click
on the map then activated a pop-up window that provided
workshop information and links for downloading maps and
data for each Study Area. The workshop information and
Study Area-specific downloads were also available on the
website in a chart format for those who preferred to search
by Study Area name.
In addition to allowing users to quickly and easily find
information about their Study Area, the website included
a complete chronology of the Parks Needs Assessment;
information about the Steering Committee meetings,
including presentations and summary meeting notes;
a listing of the TAC members; project fact sheets and
Figure 12. Homepage for Project Website
Figure 13. Interactive Map for Locating Workshopsbackground information in seven languages, contact
information for reach County staff involved in the Parks
Needs Assessment; and a platform for providing feedback.
This brief survey was designed to engage stakeholders who
were unable to attend a workshop in person.
The website also included a sign-up list for users to submit
their email address and receive updates and news as the
project moved forward. More than 250 people signed up for
the project mailing list.
1.0 Introduction
1-26 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
High Priority Areas
In an effort to reach communities that are typically
underrepresented in civic engagement initiatives and
planning processes, the County identified areas of high
need that could benefit from additional approaches to
outreach. Nine High-Priority Areas (HPAs), consisting of 35
study areas, were established and are shown on Figure 14.
The County recognized that community-based organizations
(CBOs) with an established rapport with community
members are often more successful in engaging them than
public agencies. Taking that into consideration, seven CBOs
were contracted to provide increased local outreach in the
HPAs. Collaborating with CBOs that are well known and
respected provided the opportunity to connect with other
community organizations, schools, local businesses, and
political leaders.
Health Equity Workshops
To invite these community leaders to collaborate, the
County conducted three “Health Equity” workshops,
which provided a space for community leaders to network
and unify efforts. The workshops were also dedicated
to explaining the positive impacts parks and recreation
services can have on public health. Lastly, the workshops
called on the organizations in attendance to help spread
the word of the Parks Needs Assessment and to actively
engage community members and encourage them to attend
their local workshop, aimed at prioritizing park needs.
The seven contracted CBOs organized outreach efforts to
complement the Countywide efforts. By reaching out to
their existing mailing list of subscribers, CBOs were able
to reach over 6,500 people, and another 34,708 people
through their social media networks.
19
2
5
6
8
4
7
3
1. City of LA/Unincorporated LA Southeast LA – 04310; South LA – 04373;
Uninc. West Athens/Westmont – 03279
2. City of LA Sun Valley – 01354; Van Nuys – 04315; Valley Glen – 04379
3. City of LA Westlake – 01348; Hollywood –
04376; Wilshire East – 04371
4. Unincorporated East LA Northwest – 06167;
Southwest – 06380; Boyle Heights – 01366
5. San Gabriel Valley South El Monte – 11161; El Monte – 02136; Baldwin Park – 02124
6. San Gabriel Valley La Puente – 02171; Uninc.
West La Puente – 07178; Uninc. Hacienda Heights – 07215; Uninc. Valinda – 07169; Uninc. Avocado
Heights/Bassett – 07183
7. Southeast Cities Maywood – 02255; Bell
– 02254; Huntington Park – 02206; South Gate – 02276; Cudahy – 02275
8. Southeast Cities Paramount – 02297;
Compton – 02237; Uninc. Compton – 03258; Uninc. E.R.D. – 07242; Lynwood – 11226;
Bellflower – 02300; North Long Beach – 05366
9. Southwest Cities Inglewood – 02265;
Hawthorne – 03266; Uninc. Lennox - 02229; Lawndale – 02248
Figure 14. Location of High Priority Areas
1-27Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
In order to reach community members who might not be
active on web-based platforms, the CBOs distributed flyers
and other print materials to various points of interest in
the community, including: churches, parks, residences,
businesses, and community meetings. Through their
collaboration efforts, several council members, assembly
members, and even senators used their public voice to
share the news of the Parks Needs Assessment and
upcoming workshops with their constituents. By engaging
the HPAs at a local level, the CBOs were able reach a wider
audience and noticeably improve workshop attendance.
ii. Study Area-Specific Outreach
In contrast to the Countywide education and awareness
campaign, which delivered general information about the
Parks Needs Assessment, Study Area specific-outreach
focused on advertising individual community workshops.
The lead agency in each Study Area was responsible for
Figure 15. Tweets for Community Workshops
advertising the workshop it would host, and was given
resources such as flyers, logos, and social media hashtags
to assist in the effort. Each agency crafted and executed its
own outreach plan for advertising its workshop, using the
provided resources or developing materials tailored to the
Study Area’s population.
Unincorporated Study Areas
Nearly 100 DPR employees and several community-based
organizations worked together to inform community
members in unincorporated Los Angeles County about
opportunities to participate in the Parks Needs Assessment
in each of the 47 unincorporated Study Areas.
The DPR and its collaborators operated an active social
media campaign, published print and digital ads in local
newspapers, distributed flyers through schools and
other organizations, posted signs in parks, and made
announcements at community events in order to attract
participants to each of the workshops held by the DPR.
Facebook posts and Twitter “tweets” promoted the Parks
Needs Assessment and provided specific meeting dates,
times, and locations. To reach those who follow park-
related news through social media outlets, DPR used
popular hashtags (#weallneedparks and #boostmyparks)
in all of their related posts. To encourage organic leads
and shares, Facebook posts were further amplified by
using the service’s “boost” function, an advertising feature
that allowed the DPR to target posts to key demographics
based on user location, age, interests, and other metrics.
Facebook “boosts” were a key part of the outreach effort,
and targeted posts reached an average audience of
Health Equity
Workshops
held
3
between 3,000 and 4,000 people per meeting. In total,
DPR’s Facebook and Twitter efforts received more than
120,000 views.
1.0 Introduction
1-28 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
To further increase attendance at workshops, the County
aimed to make it easier for working families to attend
their local workshops by providing dinner or refreshments
for evening meetings, childcare, and give-aways such as
umbrellas and gift cards.
23 de enero, 2016
2:00 PM
La Ciudad de El Monte Departamento de Parques, Recreación y Servicios Comunitarios
Este taller es patrocinado por la Evaluación Integral de las Necesidades de Parques y El Condado de Los Angeles.
Centro Comunitario de El Monte
3130 Tyler Avenue, El Monte
Asista a nuestra reunión en El Monte. Juntos crearemos una lista de prioridades para guiar los fondos del
Condado destinados a parques durante la próxima década.
Para mayor informes:El Departamento de Parques y Recreación(626)580-2261 o (626) 580-2200
Serviremos almuerzo entre la
1:00 PM - 1:45 PM
UNASE a nosotros y
participe en la CREACION
del FUTURO de
NUESTROS PARQUES!!Figure 16. Customized Flyer, Unincorporated Sunrise
Village - South San Gabriel - Whittier Narrows
City Study Areas
Each city was responsible for advertising its own
community workshop. Although resources such as flyer
templates and logos were provided by the Parks Needs
Assessment, staff in each City was encouraged to use their
prior experience to develop and implement outreach tactics
known to work best in their communities. Cities posted
workshop information on their websites, engaged with
social media, distributed flyers, partnered with schools
and local organizations, and made announcements at local
events. Highlighted below are summaries of the efforts
made by several cities to attract participants to their
meetings.
Workshop Banner Advertisement, City of La Puente
The City of El Monte displayed large signage at the
local aquatic center, senior center, city council meetings,
and other special events. In addition to signage, banners
were hung in local parks, flyers were posted on the city
webpage, and an article was blasted to all residents
and subscribers of the city e-Newsletter. The City also
collaborated with local school districts, the Chamber of
Commerce, and organizations like Meals on Wheels, to
distribute customized flyers to their respective members
and subscribers. Over 150 people attended the workshop.
Figure 17. Customized Flyer, City of El Monte
1-29Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
The City of Los Angeles collaborated with Los Angeles
Neighborhood Land Trust to conduct outreach in the Boyle
Heights study area. Organizers held in-person meetings
with community groups and partnered with local churches
and council members to have announcements placed
in their respective newsletters. Organizers also held
advocacy training sessions to inform the community of the
importance of the Parks Needs Assessment for park-poor
communities such as Boyle Heights. The Boyle Heights
workshop attracted the largest number of participants,
approximately 350 people.
Figure 19. Eventbrite Invitation, Boyle HeightsFigure 18. English Language Flyer, City of Bell Gardens
The City of Bell Gardens attracted approximately 65
people to their workshop by announcing the event on
the city website, utilizing social media platforms, and
distributing flyers in multiple languages. In addition,
workshop facilitators partnered with city recreation
supervisors and program coordinators to reach out to
participants of all city programs; the majority of their
turnout was in response to this effort.
1.0 Introduction
1-30 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.3.5 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The primary method of collecting community input for the
Parks Needs Assessment was the series of community
workshops held throughout the County between December
2015 and February 2016 (see Figure 20). As a result of the
extensive Countywide and study area-specific outreach
efforts, community workshops were attended by over 5,100
participants across the County. Attendance at individual
workshops varied widely, with low attendance attributed to
the busy, end-of-the-year holiday season; tight time frame
for completing outreach for meetings; and varied levels
of effort to advertise the workshops. In a few instances,
workshops with exceptionally low attendance were
supplemented by an additional workshop in an attempt to
collect accurate community input.
Figure 20. Countywide Workshop Locations
Workshop in Unincorporated Charter Oaks
1-31Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
Community workshops were facilitated by the lead agency
in each Study Area, either the County or an individual city.
Every community workshop had three goals:
»Share the results of the analysis of existing park
assets and needs within the Study Area with
workshop participants.
»Develop a list of potential park projects, guided by
the results of the analysis and workshop participants’
insights.
»Prioritize the top ten park projects for the Study Area.
Facilitators were provided with many resources for
accomplishing these goals and had broad leeway to
conduct the workshop in a manner they thought would
be most effective within their community. The resources
provided to every Study Area included a group training
session, print and digital Facilitator Toolkit, and a $2,500
stipend to cover workshop expenses.
i. Facilitator Training
Facilitator trainings took place in mid-November 2015 and
were held at three different locations to accommodate
attendees. In addition, an online training was held for
anyone unable to attend in person. At least one facilitator
from every Study Area was required to attend one of the
training sessions. In total, the training sessions were
attended by over 300 people. Each two-hour training
session covered the following topics:
»Goals of the community workshop
»Tips for marketing and outreach
»Guidance on preparing and customizing a workshop
using the provided standard templates and Study
Area-specific data
»Direction for interpreting, presenting, and explaining
analysis data
Facilitator Training Session, San Fernando Regional Park Pool
Review existing parks and metrics.
Develop comprehensive list of potential projects.
Prioritize top ten park projects.
»Recommendations for identifying and presenting
potential projects
»Suggestions for incorporating community feedback
into prioritization exercise
»Guidance on conducting participatory prioritization
exercise
»Instructions for preparing and submitting prioritized
project lists
»Facilitation tools to improve participation during the
meeting and effectively meet challenges
Over
facilitators
trained
300
1.0 Introduction
1-32 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
ii. Facilitator Toolkit
The Facilitator Toolkit contained a number of resources
designed to assist facilitators in all aspects of preparing
for and completing the community workshop. The toolkits
were customized for each of the 188 Study Areas with
information specific to each. All elements of the toolkit
were available digitally, and a printed sample toolkit was
supplied for reference during the training session. Refer to
Appendix D for a sample toolkit.
Project Overview
A written description of the Parks Needs Assessment
provided facilitators with a thorough understanding of the
goals of the Parks Needs Assessment and the process
of achieving them. Ensuring that facilitators clearly
understood the purpose of the Parks Needs Assessment
allowed them to confidently address questions from
meeting participants.
Frequently Asked Questions
This portion of the toolkit
provided answers to commonly
asked questions about the Parks
Needs Assessment. It served
both to answer the facilitators’
own questions and to anticipate
any questions they might hear
from meeting participants.
Study Area Base Map
A map of the Study Area boundaries and existing parks
within the Study Area.
Community Profile Snapshot
A Study Area-specific collection of data about the
community. For additional information the contents of the
Community Profile Snapshot, please refer to Section 2.5,
Community Profile.
Park Metrics
Study Area-specific results of the analysis of the five park
metrics. For additional information on the park metrics,
please refer to Section 2.3, Park Metrics Summary
Countywide.
Figure 21. Sample Facilitator Toolkit
toolkits
distributed
178
Potential New Park Sites
Study Area-specific map of vacant land within the Study
Area that could potentially inform siting of new parks.
Initial Potential Projects
Study Area-specific list of potential park projects, based on
the results of the park metrics analysis.
Facilitator Manual
A step-by-step set of instructions for
facilitating the community workshop, for
use during and after the facilitator training
session.
Glossary
A comprehensive listing of data sources and
explanation of the terms, maps, and statistics
used throughout the Facilitator Toolkit.
Templates
All templates were provided digitally, so facilitators could
customize the materials for their Study Area.
»PowerPoint presentation
»Sign-in sheets
»Workshop agenda
»Workshop flyers, available in seven languages
»Parks Needs Assessment fact sheets, available in
seven languages
»Potential Project Form, to be used in project
prioritization exercise.
»Project reporting forms
1-33Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
Large Format Prints
Poster size prints (24” x 36”) of the Study Area base
map and park metrics were available for each Study
Area. Workshop facilitators were given printed proofs
of these posters at the training session and asked to
provide corrections. Once the base map and list of parks
in the Study Area were corrected to the lead agency’s
satisfaction, the prints were delivered to facilitators prior
to their workshop. This process allowed every agency to
review the information that had been documented during
the inventory phase of the project and resulted in several
corrections to that database.
Translations
Translations of workshop and outreach materials were
available in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Armenian and
were strongly recommended for use in all Study Areas
where 15% or more of the population is linguistically
isolated. These four languages were selected because they
are the dominant languages spoken by the linguistically
isolated populations within the Study Areas meeting that
criteria.
Although Vietnamese and Japanese did not meet the
criteria for translation recommendations, translations were
available in these languages as well. Translated versions
of the larger format prints were also available, although
each Study Area could only receive one set of large format
prints. Facilitators were urged to use some of their stipend
funds to print copies in additional languages as needed.
Figure 22. Number of Study Areas Meeting Criteria for Translation Recommendation
Workshop Facilitator Explaining Large Format Prints,
Unincorporated Topanga Canyon
Figure 23. Fact Sheet, Spanish and Chinese
78 12
2 1
Study Areas in Spanish Study Areas in Chinese
Study Areas in Armenian Study Area in Korean
1.0 Introduction
1-34 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
iii. Stipends
Each participating study area was eligible to receive a
$2,500 stipend to cover costs associated with the planning
and facilitation of community engagement workshops.
Suggested uses of the stipend included:
»Printing flyers and posters, including translated
materials
»Simultaneous interpretation
»Advertising to promote the workshop
»Workshop supplies such as easel pads and markers
»Refreshments at workshops
»Childcare at workshops
»Transportation to workshops
»Partnering with a community-based organization
iv. Additional Resources
At the conclusion of the training sessions, facilitators were
prepared to share and explain Study Area-specific park
metrics, identify and present potential park projects, and
conduct an inclusive exercise to prioritize potential park
projects. Facilitators were provided contact information
for ongoing phone-based support if any questions came up
during the preparation for their workshop.
The City of Compton used stipend funds to partner with
William C. Velasquez Institute and to hire a professional
translator. Workshop participants had access to 50 personal
headsets with simultaneous interpretation, and received
additional workshop materials in both Spanish and English.
Simultaneous interpretation, City of Compton
Workshop Facilitator, City of Compton Raffle Ticket Distribution, City of Pico Riveria
1-35Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The City of Pico Rivera and City of Bell Gardens both
held raffles at their workshops. Prizes included gift cards
to grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, toy stores, and
more.
Workshop facilitators worked hard to plan and implement
all workshop logistics by arranging venue reservations and
set-up; preparing all workshop materials; presenting park
metrics; moderating community discussions; explaining
and assisting with the voting process; and processing
voting results to develop and submit the prioritized project
reporting form.
Facilitation
In some instances, the lead agency in a Study Area
chose to work with a community-based organization
(CBO) rather than facilitate the workshop themselves. In
these cases, the agency selected a CBO of their choice
and worked with the CBO to host the workshop. By
facilitating these workshops, the CBOs provided great
assistance in approximately 40 Study Areas and supported
the community with expertise and commitment to the
engagement process
Online Survey Results
Interested community members who were not able to
attend a workshop in person were invited to participate
in a survey available at www.lacountyparkneeds.org. The
survey asked respondents to identify the types of park
improvement projects that should be prioritized in their
community and continued with open-ended questions that
sought to identify which specific parks should be improved
and how they should be improved. Nearly 1,600 people
Figure 24. Sample Survey Results
Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Facilitating the Boyle Heights Workshop
Local Law Enforcement Welcoming Participants, Uninc Bassett
Q2 WHAT PARK IMPROVEMENTS DO YOU
THINK SHOULD BE A PRIORITY IN YOUR
COMMUNITY?
Answered: 1,552 Skipped: 12
Build new parks
Improve existing parks
1.0 Introduction
1-36 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
responded to the survey. Survey responses were distributed
to workshop facilitators prior to their workshop to be
incorporated into the overall discussion of park conditions
and needs during the workshop. All survey responses are
available in Appendix D.
In Unincorporated Bassett/West Puente Valley,
childcare was provided during the workshop. As adults
listened to the presentation and discussed projects,
children were instructed to draw what they would like to
see in a park. Just prior to prioritizing projects, the children
presented their ideas to everyone at the workshop.
The workshop in the City of Huntington Park was
attended by over 80 residents. Children at this workshop
also shared ideas of what amenities they would like to see
in their parks.
Thanks to a community-minded teacher, the City of
Bellflower’s workshop was well attended by high schools
students, a demographic that can be hard to attract to
community meetings. The City provided water bottles to
workshop attendees to thank them for their participation.
The City of Bell Gardens supported local economic
development by collaborating with a neighborhood
restaurant to provide a full course dinner to workshop
participants.
Youth Engagement, Uninc Bassett/West Puente Valley
Prioritization Exercise, City of Bellflower
Youth Participants, City of Bellflower
Rocio’s Mexican Kitchen Serving Dinner, City of Bell Gardens
Workshop Participants Enjoying Dinner, City of Bell Gardens
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-38 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Local Park. Parks in this category include all parks under 5 acres; all parks under 100 acres that
contain active amenities such as athletic courts and fields, playgrounds, and swimming pools; and
schools with joint-use agreements (as reported through the Web Portal). Local parks identified in the
inventory are sometimes called community parks or regional parks by the agencies that operate them.
These parks are included in the analysis of all park metrics. County and City-owned tot lots, pocket
parks, neighborhood parks, and community parks, as well as special-use facilities such as aquatic
centers and community recreation centers, are included in this category. 1,602 inventoried.
Regional Recreation Park. These parks are over 100 acres and contain at least three active
amenity types such as athletic courts and fields, playgrounds, and swimming pools. Locally administered
“regional parks” under 100 acres in size are not included in this category, and are included as local
parks in the inventory instead. Regional recreation parks are included in the analysis of all park metrics,
and were subject to a separate facility review process due to their large size and regional importance.
17 inventoried.
Regional Open Space. Parks in this inventory category include facilities that are more than 5
acres and generally contain only passive amenities such as visitor centers, trails, picnic shelters, or
restrooms. These facilities are not included in the analysis of any individual park metric, but are included
in the analysis of park need. Facilities in this category include, but are not limited to, State Parks, State
Recreation Areas, Habitat Conservation Lands, State Ecological Reserves, and National Park Service
Land. 329 inventoried.
Natural Areas. These areas are generally larger than 100 acres and contain no reported amenities.
These facilities are not included in any of the needs analyses of the Parks Needs Assessment. Types
of open space in this category include, but are not limited to, agricultural land, habitat conservation
lands, ecological reserves, military lands, flood control channels, tribal lands, and BLM public land. This
category also includes open space types that were excluded from analysis at the outset: cemeteries,
golf courses, and beaches. 1,075 inventoried.
The Parks Needs Assessment is a data-driven analysis
of park need in Los Angeles County. Therefore, it was
paramount that the data used in every analysis be the most
accurate and up-to-date available. Data were sourced with
the input of the TAC, who provided access to a range of
current datasets.
Data were analyzed using both descriptive and exploratory
methods to quantify population, health and safety, parks
and open space, and potential future park opportunities.
The majority of the analyses were spatial in nature and
examined the relationships between parks, people, and the
built environment. Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
software was the main tool used to analyze, summarize,
and display these spatial relationships and patterns
between the various data types. All procedures and
analysis methods were presented to and vetted by the TAC
in three separate meetings.
The results of various analyses were displayed in the maps,
infographics, charts, and graphs in the Facilitator Toolkit for
each Study Area (see Section 1.3.5, Community Workshops,
and Appendix D). These data-based graphics created a
detailed snapshot of the existing conditions with regard to
parks, people, and the built environment in each of the 186
participating Study Areas.
All data relating to existing parks and open space were
gathered through the online Park Assets Inventory Web
Portal (see Section 1.3.3, Park Assets Inventory Web Portal
for additional detail). Source information for additional
data used in the Parks Needs Assessment is available in
Appendix E. The data verified and documented in the Web
Portal are summarized below.
2.1 DATA ANALYSIS & INVENTORY SUMMARY
2-39Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2.1.1 PARK AND OPEN SPACE FACILITIES INVENTORY
Over 3,000 park and open space facilities were inventoried
through the Web Portal. Each facility was reviewed in
detail and reconciled against aerial and GIS data for
location and acreage.
Four types of parks and open spaces were identified as a
means to categorize the facilities inventoried during the
Parks Needs Assessment: local parks, regional recreation
parks, regional open space, and natural areas (refer to
definitions on page 2-38). This uniform categorization
system ensured an “apples to apples” comparison among
facilities and Study Areas. The four categories are specific
Figure 25. Los Angeles County Park and Open Space Inventory
Regional Recreation Park: Whittier Narrows
Regional Open Space: Arroyo Woodland and Nature Park
Local Park: Chaparral Park in the City of Claremont
to the Parks Needs Assessment, and differ from categories
used in cities and by other agencies in the County. For the
inventory, specialized facilities serving the entire County
or specific sub-regions, such as arboreta, amphitheaters,
and wilderness parks were included in the category that
covered their specific characteristics, and only if they were
part of a park or open space facility.
As seen in Figure 25, the inventory of park assets in the
County shows that local parks account for the less than
two percent of the park land available. Regional recreation
parks account for two percent of park land; 11 percent of
park land is classified as regional open space. Natural
areas account for the remaining 85 percent of the park land
in the County.
LOCAL PARK
15,723 acres
REGIONAL RECREATION PARK
18,248 acres
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
98,977 acres
NATURAL AREAS
768,699 acres
1,602 local parks
17 regional recreation parks 1,075 natural areas
329 regional open spaces
1.7%2.0%
11.0%85.3%
901,647
ACRES
INVENTORIED
3,023 FACILITIES INVENTORIED:
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-40 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Figure 26. Existing Parks and Open Space in Los Angeles County, North
2-41Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
Figure 27. Existing Parks and Open Space in Los Angeles County, South
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-42 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.1.2 AMENITY INVENTORY
The Park Needs Assessment included an unprecedented
effort to create a comprehensive database of park
amenities in every park in the County. It is snapshot in
time of the quantity and condition of the amenities in each
park in the summer of 2015. The 16 amenities, plus trails
and infrastructure data, cataloged in the Web Portal were
determined in collaboration with the Steering Committee
and TAC. Each park agency also had the opportunity to
document unique amenities in their parks beyond the
standard 16. Over 9,000 amenities were cataloged in
the Web Portal. The amenity data received during the
inventory is summarized in Figure 28. Participating
agencies were given the opportunity to review these data
for accuracy upon receipt of the Study Area’s Facilitator
Toolkit. Accuracy of data for trails may be affected by
lack of participation from agencies owning these types of
amenities.
2-43Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
Figure 28. Summary of Inventoried Amenities 9,472
Total Number of Amenities Inventoried
1,022
Tennis Courts
940
Basketball Courts
1,068
Baseball Fields
424
Soccer Fields
510
Multipurpose Fields
373
Fitness Zones
96
Skate Parks
1,251
Picnic Shelters
1,452
Playgrounds
218
Swimming Pools
82
Splash Pads
51
Dog Parks
1,190
Restrooms
187
Gymnasiums
367
Unique Amenities
518
Senior Centers
90
Community Rec Centers
Note: Unique amenities include
equestrian arenas, volleyball courts,
amphitheaters, community gardens,
concession stands, gazebos, etc.
Countywide Trails948 miles
Trails Within Parks 287 miles Trails Outside Parks 661 miles
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-44 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.2 POPULATION
Accurately documenting the number of residents and the
location of households in Los Angeles County was critical
for many of the spatial analyses completed as part of the
Needs Assessment. The most accurate population data
available at the time of the Needs Assessment were the
2014 Los Angeles County Age/Race/Gender Population
Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. These estimates
are adjusted annually by both the County and the California
State Department of Finance to improve accuracy. These
data are provided at a census tract level.
To improve the accuracy of the spatial analyses completed
for the Needs Assessment, a probable distribution of
population within each census tract was developed. This
was accomplished by dividing the entire County into one-
acre hexagons. Population was distributed among the grid
cells within each census tract based on the underlying
Los Angeles County Assessor’s parcel land use type. This
technique pushed the population to the areas where people
are most likely to live in an attempt to more accurately
summarize the spatial location of the population within
specific analysis areas. For example, in a census tract with
a golf course, the total population of the census tract was
distributed only among hexagons that are not on the golf
Figure 29. Population Distribution Examples
course. Likewise, if a census tract has undeveloped land
or industrial parcels, the population was not distributed to
hexagons in those areas.
Once the population was distributed, the data were used
in all subsequent analyses involving population, including
density and park access and park pressure, among
others. The accuracy of each of these spatial analyses
was improved by the use of these finely detailed data on
the location of population. However, it should be noted
that a known weakness of Census-based population
data is the potential of an undercount. In Los Angeles
County, undercounts are most likely in low-income and
predominantly minority neighborhoods. Nevertheless, in
consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee, it
was decided that the 2014 Los Angeles County Age/Race/
Gender Population Estimates should be used, as these
were the most accurate data available.
10,069,397
LA COUNTY POPULATION
Golf Course Non-Residential Land Use Non-Residential Land Use
2-45Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2.3 PARK METRICS SUMMARY COUNTYWIDE
Each of the five park metrics was determined in
collaboration with the Steering Committee, as summarized
in Section 1.3.2, Park Metrics. Each metric was analyzed
and reported for each Study Area in the County, using
park and amenity data submitted through the Web Portal.
Several metrics were also analyzed at a Countywide scale.
The results of the Countywide analysis are presented
below; refer to Appendix A for the results of the park
metrics analyses for each individual Study Area. For
additional information about the technical aspects of the
analyses, refer to Appendix E.
2.3.1 PARK LAND
How many acres of park are there per 1,000 people?
Within each Study Area, the number of local park acres per
1,000 is reported separately from the number of regional
recreation parks acres per 1,000. Additionally, in Study
Areas with adjacent regional open space, the number of
acres of this type of park per 1,000 is reported.
Open space and natural area acreages are addressed using
an approach guided by input from cities, organizations
working on open space issues, and the project Steering
Committee. This approach recognizes that: 1) open space
and natural areas are regional resources that serve the
recreation needs of the entire County; 2) the distribution
of these areas throughout the County is uneven due to a
variety of factors; and 3) it is not feasible to create open
space and natural areas across the County, especially
in built-out urban areas. Thus, in an effort to facilitate
Figure 30. Park Land Countywide
Figure 31. Park Access Countywide
of population Countywide
lives within 1/2 mile of a park
of population Countywide
lives beyond 1/2 mile of a park 49%51%
countywide comparison, the calculation of park acres per
1,000 people in each Study Area only included acreages in
local parks and regional recreation parks. Including regional
open space and natural area acreages in this calculation
would have greatly impacted the assessment of park need
in those Study Areas adjacent to large open spaces and
natural areas by inflating the amount of parkland in these
Study Areas and failing to highlight their need for local
parks and regional recreation parks.
Countywide, there are 3.3 acres of local and regional
recreation park per 1,000 residents, which is less than
the 4.0 acres per 1,000 goal included in the Los Angeles
County General Plan (Figure 30). This ratio was determined
by totaling the acres of local and regional parks, dividing
this the total by the County’s total population, and then
multiplying that value by 1,000. Among individual Study
Areas, this value ranges from a low of 0 acres per 1,000
residents to a high of 1,295 acres per 1,000 residents.
3.3 ACRES Local Parks & Regional Recreation Parks
per 1,000 people
86.2 ACRES
Regional Open Space &
Natural Areas
per 1,000 people
Los Angeles County General Plan standard is 6.0 acres per 1,000
Los Angeles County General Plan standard is 4.0 acres per 1,000
Countywide, there are 86.2 acres of regional open space &
natural areas per 1,000 people. This amount highly exceeds
the standard of 6 acres per 1,000 documented in the Los
Angeles County General Plan.
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-46 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Figure 32. Areas of Los Angeles County Within 1/2 Mile of a Park2.3.2 PARK ACCESS
What percent of the population lives within ½ mile of
a park?
All local parks, regional recreation parks, and regional
open spaces were included in the analysis of park access
in each Study Area and Countywide. The distance from
each household in a Study Area to the access points of all
adjacent parks was calculated along the walkable road/
pedestrian network rather than “as the crow flies.” Since
pedestrians cannot safely or legally walk on highways
or freeways, this method takes these barriers into
consideration and results in a more accurate assessment
of the distance a pedestrian would need to cover to reach
a park.
Countywide, 49 percent of the population lives within 1/2
mile of a local park, regional recreation park or regional
open space (Figure 31). In individual Study Areas, park
access ranges from a low of 0 percent of the population
living within 1/2 mile of a park, to a high of 100 percent of
the population living within 1/2 mile of a park. Figure 32
maps areas of the County located within 1/2 mile of a park.
2-47Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
polygon defines the boundary of each park’s parkshed.
The population within the parkshed is assumed to be the
population most likely to use that park. The population
within each parkshed was calculated to estimate the
number of potential park users within each parkshed.
The acreage of the park was then used to calculate the
number of park acres available per 1,000 people within the
parkshed.
Parks with fewer park acres available per 1,000 people
within the parkshed are more likely to experience heavy
use, while those with more park acres available per 1,000
residents may be used less heavily. Population density can
greatly affect park pressure; for example, if a 1 acre park
has 10,000 people in its parkshed, it is likely to be more
heavily used than a 1 acre park with 1,000 people in its
parkshed.
Low Park
Pressure at 20%
of parks in the
County
High Park Pressure at80% of parks in the County More than 3.3 Less than 3.3ACRES PER 1,000
PEOPLE
Figure 33. Park Pressure Countywide
2.3.3 PARK PRESSURE
How much park land is available to residents in the
area around each park?
Park pressure examines park size in relation to population
density and quantifies how population density affects
parks by capturing the potential demand if each resident
of the County were to use the park closest to them. Park
pressure was calculated by defining a “parkshed” around
every local park and regional recreation park in the
County. The parkshed is defined by a polygon containing
all the households for whom a given park is their closest
park, as shown in Figure 34. In this figure, each colored
Figure 34. Sample Parkshed Map
Countywide, 80 percent of parks have less than 3.3 acres
of land available to residents in the surrounding parkshed.
These parks have high park pressure, as they offer less
park land per 1,000 residents than the County average of
3.3 acres per 1,000. Twenty percent of parks have low park
pressure, offering more than 3.3 acres per 1,000 residents
in the surrounding parkshed.
At individual parks, park pressure ranges from a low
pressure of 16,851 acres per 1,000 residents to a high
pressure of 0.004 acres per 1,000 residents.
2.3.4 PARK NEED
Where are parks most needed?
The three metrics analyzing park land, park access, and
park pressure have spatial components and were mapped
in every Study Area as park acre need, distance from a
park, and population density.
Combining the information from these three maps creates
a new map that identifies geographic locations within each
Study Area where parks are most needed. Locations with
a combination of few available park acres, far from existing
parks, and a high population density have a greater need
for parks than areas with many available park acres, close
to existing parks, and with low population density.
Park Acre Need. The spatial analysis of park land
included all local parks, regional recreation parks, and
regional open space. Need was calculated by assigning a
park service area to each existing park, based on the acres
of the park and using the DPR’s service area standards
as a guide. Populations in the service area of a park are
considered to have all those park acres available to them.
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-48 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
The park service areas used were quarter-mile service area
for 3 acre or smaller park, half mile service area for 3 to 10
acre parks, two-mile service area for parks with more than
10 acres or specialized facilities. Populated areas located
two or more miles from a park are deemed to have zero
park acres available to them.
For example, if a household is within a quarter mile of
Park A (5 acres) and a half mile of Park B (2.4 acres), it
is considered to have access to 7.4 acres of park land.
This analysis is not confined to political or Study Area
boundaries, so park acreage in adjacent Study Areas can
be considered available to any population within the park’s
service area. Populations with the fewest available acres
of park have the highest park acre need; conversely, those
populations with the most available acres of park have the
lowest park acre need.
Distance From a Park. The spatial analysis of park
access included local parks, regional recreation parks,
and regional open space and is mapped in each Study
Area as distance from a park. Data were classified into six
categories based on the following distance thresholds: ¼
mile, ½ mile, 1 mile, 1½ miles, 2 miles, and more than 2
miles. Households the greatest distance from a park have
the least park access, and those closest to a park have the
most park access.
Population Density. The spatial analysis of park pressure
focused on the population density component of this
metric, since park acres and distance from a park (both
components of park pressure) were already accounted for
in the mapping of park acre need and distance from a park.
Population density was measured as people per acre, and
ranges from very low to very high.
Weighted overlay
To create the map of where parks are most needed, the
three layers of spatial information were weighted and
overlaid, with population density assigned the most weight
(60 percent). Population density greatly affects the number
of acres of park available per 1,000 people in any given
area and is unaffected by the creation of new parks. New
parks can be built to decrease park acre need and the
distance people live from parks, thus these two layers of
information were given less weight. This weighting of
layers was reviewed by the Steering Committee.
Using the weighted overlay method, a map of where parks
are most needed was generated for each Study Area and
is presented in Appendix A. These maps provide a highly
detailed analysis of the geographical variation of park need
within each Study Area and are useful on a local level
for understanding how park need varies within a single
community.
Figure 35. Where Are Parks Most Needed?
Park Acre Need (20%)
Distance From a Park (20%)
Population Density (60%)
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
No Population
Area within 1/2 mile walk of a park
PARK NEED
CATEGORY
2-49Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
Figure 36. Park Amenities (per 1,000 persons)
Tennis Courts Basketball Courts
Baseball Fields Soccer Fields
Multipurpose Fields
Fitness Zones Skate Parks
Picnic Shelters
Playgrounds
Swimming PoolsSplash Pads
County Average State Top Cities Average Nation Top Cities Average
Dog Parks
Restrooms
Gymnasiums
Senior Centers Community Rec Centers
11 10
4
13
2
5
1
1
21
15
4
1
15
5
11
13 19
13
29
4
1
5
1
19
4
1
5
13
46 63.1
16.7
64.5
10.3
1.9
3.6
5.6
45
10.3
100
50
14.6
2.3.5 PARK AMENITIES
What amenities are available in each park in the
Study Area?
For each Study Area, the quantity and type of amenities
were reported for each local and regional recreation
park in the Study Area. Additionally, the number of each
amenity available per 100,000 people was calculated for
comparison with countywide, State Top Cities Average, and
National Top Cities Average.
The amenity data used for the State and National Top
Cities averages are from the Trust for Public Land’s Center
for City Park Excellence “2015 City Park Facts” report. The
data in this report come from surveys completed by parks
departments in the nation’s 100 most populous cities.1,2
No data were reported for fitness zones, gymnasiums, or
splash pads at the State or National level. The results of
the park amenities analysis were presented in two ways:
a matrix of amenity quantities and types in each park, and
a series of bar graphs comparing amenity provisioning for
each amenity type.
Of the 13 amenities with data at the State and National
level, the Countywide provisioning of amenities was lower
than the national top cities average for all 13 amenities and
lower than the state average for 8 amenities.
1 The data reported in the State Top Cities Average category are from 16
California cities in the 2015 City Facts report: Anaheim, Bakersfield, Chula
Vista, Fremont, Fresno, Irvine, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana, and Stockton.
2 The National Top Cities reports the average of the 10 cities with the
greatest quantity per 100,000 people of the given amenity. Thus, the cities
in the National Top Cities average vary by amenity type.
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-50 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs AssessmentGOOD FAIR POO R GOO
D
FAIR POOR2.3.6 PARK CONDITION
Is the park in good, fair, or poor condition?
The condition of every amenity in each local park and
regional recreation park was reported in a matrix for each
Study Area. The percentage of amenities in each category
was calculated for each park, providing a sense of the
overall condition of each park. Of the 9,472 amenities
reported, a majority of the amenities were reported
in “good” and “fair” condition. Amenities in “good”
condition made up about 42 percent of all amenities, and
amenities in “fair” condition made up about 43 percent of
all amenities—both led by playgrounds in good and fair
condition. The remaining 15 percent of amenities were
reported in “poor” condition, which was led by restrooms in
poor condition.
A majority of parks have general park infrastructure3 that
was reported to be in “fair” condition. About 51 percent
of the total park acreage has general park infrastructure
reported to be in “fair” condition, 29 percent of park
acreage has infrastructure in “poor” condition, and only
18 percent of park acres have infrastructure reported to
be in “good” condition. The condition of the general park
infrastructure of the remaining 2 percent of park acres
was unreported. These data only include the general park
infrastructure conditions of local and regional parks. A
majority of infrastructure conditions were not reported
for open space, therefore these data only include the park
conditions of local and regional parks to minimize the
percentage of conditions not reported.
3 General park infrastructure includes: restrooms, signage, parking lot,
walkways, security lighting, park furniture, irrigation, vegetation/
landscaping, and fencing.
Figure 37. Park Conditions
15.1%
28.6%
42.7%51.1%
42.2%
18.1%
2.2% unreported
PARK INFRASTRUCTUREPARK AMENITIES
2-51Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
Seventeen regional recreation parks were identified during
the inventory of the Parks Needs Assessment. These 17
parks are each over 100 acres and contain at least three
active amenity types such as athletic courts and fields,
playgrounds, and swimming pools.
Regional recreation parks draw users from an area much
larger than a single Study Area, due to their large size
and the types of recreation they offer. These parks are
destinations for a regional population, drawing people from
as far as 25 or more miles away. Residents living near a
regional recreation park may use the park for their daily
recreation needs, while park users from farther away may
visit the park to meet more specialized recreation needs.
Because of their size, use levels, and variety of amenities,
maintenance and operation demands at these parks can
differ significantly from those at local parks. The managing
agencies responsible for operation of regional recreation
parks are usually different than agencies managing
adjacent local parks, and the users of regional recreation
parks include many more people than those in the adjacent
Study Area(s). Given these distinctions in scale, use,
and management, the Parks Needs Assessment team,
with the support of the Steering Committee, developed
a separate methodology for assessing the need of the 17
regional recreational parks identified in the Parks Needs
Assessment and listed below.
Need in regional recreation parks was assessed by
analyzing the five park metrics in all regional recreation
parks, and in consultation with the managing agency
of each park, based on their knowledge of local usage
patterns and trends.
2.4 PARK METRICS - REGIONAL RECREATION PARKS
Regional Recreation Parks
»Castaic Lake State Recreation Area, County of Los
Angeles
»Central Park, City of Santa Clarita
»El Dorado Regional Park (East and West), Long Beach
»Elysian Park, City of Los Angeles
»Ernest E. Debs Regional Park, City of Los Angeles
»Frank Bonelli Regional Park, County of Los Angeles
»Griffith Park, City of Los Angeles
»Hahamonga Watershed Park, City of Pasadena
»Hansen Dam Park, City of Los Angeles
»Heartwell Park, City of Long Beach
»Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park, City of Los Angeles
»Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area, County of Los
Angeles
»Peter F. Schabarum Regional County Park, County of
Los Angeles
»San Dimas Canyon Community Regional Park, County
of Los Angeles
»Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area, County of Los Angeles
»Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area (incl. Woodley Ave.
Park and Lake Balboa Park), City of Los Angeles
»Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, County of Los
Angeles
2.4.1 PARK LAND - REGIONAL RECREATION PARKS
Regional recreation parks occupy a total of 18,248 acres of
land and provide 1.81 acres of park land per 1,000 people
Countywide.
2.4.2 PARK ACCESS - REGIONAL RECREATION PARKS
Due to their large size, regional recreation parks have a
large service radius, drawing users from as far away as
25 miles. In Los Angeles County, nearly 9.7 million people
(96.2 percent of the total population) live within the service
area of a regional recreational park.
1.8 acres
Regional Recreation Park per 1,000 people
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-52 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Figure 38. Regional Recreation Park Access: Areas within 25 Miles of a Regional Recreation Park2.4.3 PARK PRESSURE - REGIONAL RECREATION PARKS
Park pressure for each regional recreation park was
evaluated in the same manner as for local parks (refer to
Section 2.3.3, Park Pressure). Park pressure at the regional
recreation parks varies from a high of 0.11 acres per 1,000
people to a low of 166.87 acres per 1,000 people. Park
pressure is high at 13 regional recreation parks, as they
offer fewer than 3.3 acres per 1,000 people. See Table 3.
Griffith Park
Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area
2-53Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
F
AI
R POORFigure 39. Conditions at Regional Recreation Parks
Park Conditions
33.7%
42.8%
23.5%
47.7%
47.1%
GOOD 5.2%
Table 3. Regional Recreation Parks - Park Pressure
PARK NAME ACRES/1,000
Heartwell Park 0.11
Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area 0.22
Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park 0.37
Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area 0.47
Ernest E Debs Regional Park 0.65
Elysian Park 0.75
Hansen Dam Park 0.85
Central Park 0.90
San Dimas Canyon Community Regional Park 1.08
Hahamongna Watershed Park 1.14
Peter F Schabarum Regional County Park 1.48
Whittier Narrows Recreation Area 1.90
El Dorado Park West 3.11
Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area 4.36
Frank G Bonelli Regional Park 4.42
Griffith Park 6.91
Castaic Lake State Recreation Area 166.87
2.4.4 PARK AMENITIES - REGIONAL RECREATION PARKS
Amenities in the regional recreation parks were inventoried
by the managing agency. The 17 regional recreational parks
feature over 700 individual amenities, with an average of
over 40 individual amenities available to users at each park.
2.4.5 PARK CONDITION - REGIONAL RECREATION PARKS
Within the regional recreation parks, the majority of
amenities are reported to be in fair condition. General park
infrastructure was reported to be in good condition for only
five percent of the regional recreation park acres, with the
remaining acres almost equally split between poor and fair
condition.
PARK INFRASTRUCTURE
G
OOD FAIR POORPARK AMENITIES
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-54 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
The data in the Community Profile provide information
about factors that affect park need, beyond the scope
of the Parks Needs Assessment. This information was
requested by the Steering Committee to supplement the
park metrics data. Demographic, socioeconomic, public
safety, health, and environmental data were gathered and
compiled. No analysis was done on these data because
the Parks Needs Assessment is focused on the physical
needs of existing parks and the need for new parks. Rather,
this information was presented as a collection of data that
could be used in each Study Area to supplement knowledge
of park need.
Data used in the Community Profile for each Study Area
came from a variety of sources, and all were vetted by the
Technical Advisory Committee. Countywide summaries of
these data are presented below.
2.5 COMMUNITY PROFILE SUMMARY
Figure 40. Population Distribution by Age
Figure 41. Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity
Figure 43. Populations without Vehicle Access
Figure 42. Populations at or below 200% Poverty Level
Figure 44. Populations in Linguistic Isolation
4%81%
40%
Lowest percentage
reported in a single Study Area
Lowest percentage reported in a single
Study Area
Lowest percentage reported in a single
Study Area
Highest percentage reported in a single
Study Area
Highest percentage
reported in a single Study Area
Highest percentage
reported in a single Study Area
0%87%
10%
26%
1%56%
48%Latino14%Asian
9%African-American
28%
Caucasian
0.2%Native American0.2%
Pacific Islander
POPULATION
Note: Total is less than 100% due to rounding
0–9 yrs 10–17 yrs 18–24 yrs 25–54 yrs 55–65 yrs 65+ yrs
13%10%
8%41%16%12%
COUNTYWIDE AVERAGE
COUNTYWIDE AVERAGE
COUNTYWIDE AVERAGE
2-55Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
Figure 45. Countywide Bike/Pedestrian Collisions Map2.5.1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
This map summarizes all collisions between automobiles
and bicycles or pedestrians. The data was collected
between 2003 and 2012. During this time, there were
approximately 55,000 bicycle/pedestrian collisions in Los
Angeles County.
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-56 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Figure 46. Obesity Among 5th Graders2.5.2 OBESITY
This map shows the percentage of obese fifth graders
throughout the County. In areas with only one school, the
data may not accurately reflect childhood obesity rates for
the entire area. In areas without any schools, no obesity
data are included.
2-57Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
Figure 47. Asthma2.5.3 ASTHMA
This map shows the number of emergency room visits for
asthma treatments, per 10,000 people per year. Outdoor
air pollution, such as diesel particulate matter and ozone,
is a well-known trigger of asthma attacks. Emergency
room visits do not capture the full burden of asthma in a
community, but are used as an indicator of overall disease
burden for lack of better data.
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-58 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Figure 48. Ozone Concentration2.5.4 OZONE CONCENTRATION
This map shows the varying levels of ozone concentration
throughout the County. In general, ozone concentrations
are lowest in the southern portion of the County, with
increased concentrations in the central part of the County.
Ozone is an extremely reactive form of oxygen that
provides protections from the sun’s ultraviolet rays when
it occurs in the upper atmosphere. When ozone is present
at ground level, however, it is the primary component
of smog. Ground level ozone can cause lung irritation,
lung inflammation, and lung disease, and it can worsen
existing chronic health conditions. High levels of ozone are
also associated with increased rates of asthma-related
hospitalization for children, higher mortality rates, and
increased cardiovascular and respiratory emergency room
visits.
2-59Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
Figure 49. PM 2.52.5.5 PARTICULATE MATTER 2.5
This map shows the concentration of particulate matter
(PM) 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter throughout the
County. PM 2.5 concentrations are lowest in the northern
part of the County and higher in the southern third of
the County. PM 2.5 is generally a complex mixture of
solid and liquid particles, including organic chemicals,
dust, allergens, and metals. Also known as fine particle
pollution, PM 2.5 enters the lungs and causes adverse
health effects in respiratory and cardiovascular systems.
PM 2.5 has been associated with adverse effects on lung
development in children, increased hospital admissions
for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, increased
mortality, low birth weight, and premature birth.
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-60 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Figure 50. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions2.5.6 DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS
This map shows rates of diesel particulate matter (PM)
emissions in Los Angeles County. Diesel PM consists of
particles emitted from diesel engines in cars, trucks, buses,
trains, and heavy-duty equipment. Diesel PM contains
carcinogens and ultrafine particles that may contribute
more to adverse health effects than larger particles.
Adverse health effects from diesel PM include eye,
throat, and nose irritation; cardiovascular and pulmonary
disease; and lung cancer. Children and those with existing
respiratory diseases are especially susceptible to the
harmful effects of diesel PM.
2-61Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
Densely populated and built-out urban areas are typically
the most park poor and have very limited land available
for development. Under these constrained conditions, it
is important to look at all the land resources available for
development. The first step to doing this is to analyze the
data developed and managed by the Los Angeles County
Assessor.
All City-owned, County-owned, and other publicly owned
vacant parcels throughout the County were selected from
the Assessor’s data and overlaid on the final park need
map. The map was provided as part of the Facilitator
Toolkit, affording each Study Area the opportunity to verify
existing potential park sites and note other potential future
opportunity sites in their Study Area.
Using an interactive online mapping tool, participating
agencies verified that 725 of these vacant parcels were
potential future park opportunity sites.
2.6 POTENTIAL PARK LAND OPPORTUNITIES
Figure 51. Sample Map of Park Land Opportunities
East Los Angeles Northwest Study Area
2.0 Existing Assets/Conditions Analysis
2-62 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.
3.0 Park Needs Framework
3-64 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
The analysis of the five park metrics in each Study Area
produced highly detailed information about park need in
each Study Area. In particular, the “Where Are Parks Most
Needed?” map illustrated the location and magnitude of
need in each Study Area.
Many Study Areas have three or more levels of park need.
A multi-colored map that reflects that complexity is useful
at the local level to help agencies understand need within
their jurisdiction. However, because individual jurisdictions
and unincorporated communities are often treated as single
entities for large-scale planning and funding efforts, it was
also important to assign a single need category to each
Study Area in the County.
Building on the analysis completed for each Study Area, the
Parks Needs Framework uses the park metrics to determine
a single level of park need for each Study Area (see figure
52).
3.1.1 METHODOLOGY
Four steps were used to calculate a single level of park
need for each Study Area.
First, the percentages of the population in “high” and “very
high” need areas were added. Each Study Area was then
classified into one of five initial park need categories,
based on the total percentage of population in “high” and
“very high” need areas in that Study Area.
After this initial sorting, a layer of information about
amenities, park access, and population was added and
used to modify the initial park need level.
3.1 COUNTYWIDE ASSESSMENT OF PARK NEED
Figure 52. Comparison of “Where are Parks Most Needed” map from East Los Angeles Northwest Study Area
and Summarized Map of Need for Entire Study Area
3-65Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
3.0 Park Needs Framework
Second, the condition of amenities in the parks of each
Study Area was analyzed, since the quality of existing
amenities can affect park usability. Any Study Area with
more than 50 percent of its amenities in poor condition was
moved to the next highest need category. Twelve Study
Areas were reclassified based on this criteria.
Third, park access was revisited by identifying all Study
Areas without a park within its boundary and were moved
to the next highest need category. Nine Study Areas were
reclassified based on this information.
Finally, the population of each Study Area was considered
in light of the countywide population and relative to
other Study Areas. Reasoning that Study Areas with
smaller populations have inherently less need than highly
populated Study Areas, the following population thresholds
were applied:
»A Study Area with fewer than 1,000 people could not
be classified above “very low” need. Two Study Area
was reclassified based on this criteria
»A Study Area with more than 1,000 residents but
fewer than 5,000 could not be classified higher
than the “low” need category. No Study Areas were
reclassified based on this criteria, since all Study
Areas with this population range were already
classified as “low” or “very low” need.
Figure 53. Comparison of “Where Are Parks Most
Needed” map (top) from Unincorporated Willowbrook
Study Area and Summarized Map of Need for Entire
Unincorporated Willowbrook Study Area (bottom)
»A Study Area with more than 5,000 but fewer than
10,000 residents could not be classified higher than
the “moderate” need category. No Study Areas were
reclassified based on this criteria, since all Study
Areas within this population range were already
classified as having “moderate,” “low,” or “very low”
need.
Magic Johnson Recreation Center - Unincorporated Willowbrook
3.0 Park Needs Framework
3-66 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
3.1.2 RESULTS
The Park Need Framework analysis shows that more than
50 percent of the County’s population lives in areas of high
or very high park need (see Figure 54). Study Areas with
high park need have an average of 1.6 acres of park land,
while Study Areas with very high need have less than an
acre of park land per 1,000 (see Figure 55).
Study Areas in high park need would have to add a
combined total of more than 3,250 acres of new park land
in order to provide the County average of 3.3 acres per
1,000 residents. Study Areas with very high need would
need to add a combined total of more than 8,600 acres
of new park land in order to provide 3.3 acres per 1,000
residents, as shown in Figure 56.
The maps in Figure 57 and 58, along with the information
in Table 4, show how park need varies in magnitude across
the County.
Very High Need (43 Study Areas)
County
Average: 3.3acres per 1,000
0.7
High Need (29 Study Areas)
1.6
Moderate Need (44 Study Areas)
11.5
Low Need (37 Study Areas)
12.5
Very Low Need (33 Study Areas)
52.0
Figure 54. Percentage of Countywide Population in
Each Park Need Category
Figure 56. Additional Acres Needed
Figure 55. Average Acres Per 1,000 in Each Park Need Category
26.2%Moderate Need
4.6%Very Low Need
20.4%High Need
16.5%Low Need
32.2%Very High Need
Note: 0.1% Not Participating
POPULATION
Very High Need (43 Study Areas)
County
Average: 3.3acres per 1,000
0.7acres per 1,000
1.6acres per 1,000
High Need (29 Study Areas)
2,058 acres existing park
3,521 acres existing park
8,600 acres
additional
park land needed
to provide
3.3 acres per 1,000
3,250 acres additional park land needed to provide 3.3 acres per 1,000
3-67Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
3.0 Park Needs Framework
Figure 57. Park Need by Study Area Los Angeles County, North
3.0 Park Needs Framework
3-68 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Figure 58. Park Need by Study Area Los Angeles County, South
3-69Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
3.0 Park Needs Framework
Table 4. Park Need By Study Area
ID #STUDY AREA NAME PARK NEED
CATEGORY
1 City of Hidden Hills Not Participating
2 City of Rolling Hills Not Participating
3 City of Vernon / Uninc. Vernon Very Low
4 Unincorporated Covina - San Dimas Low
5 Unincorporated Covina Islands Moderate
6 Unincorporated Leona Valley-Lake Hughes Low
7 City of Bradbury / Uninc. Bradbury Very Low
8 City of San Marino Very Low
9 Unincorporated Acton/ Uninc. South Antelope Valley Very Low
10 Unincorporated Agua Dulce - Angeles National Forest- Canyon Country Low
11 Unincorporated Charter Oak Islands High
12 Unincorporated Compton Low
13 Unincorporated Del Aire High
14 Unincorporated La Crescenta - Montrose Very Low
15 Unincorporated Lennox Very High
16 Unincorporated Malibu Low
17 Unincorporated Northeast Antelope Valley Very Low
18 Unincorporated Northwest Antelope Valley Low
19 Unincorporated Quartz Hill -Lancaster Moderate
20 Unincorporated San Jose Hills Moderate
21 Unincorporated Walnut Park Very High
22 Unincorporated West Athens-Westmont Very High
23 Unincorporated West Carson High
ID #STUDY AREA NAME PARK NEED
CATEGORY
24 Unincorporated West Rancho Dominguez Very Low
25 City of Industry Very Low
26 City of LA - Bel Air - Beverly Crest/ Uninc. Hollywood Hills Very Low
27 City of La Puente High
28 City of Temple City High
29 Unincorporated Angeles National Forest Low
30 Unincorporated East Los Angeles - Southeast Very High
31 Unincorporated East Rancho Dominguez Very High
32 Unincorporated East San Gabriel - Arcadia Very High
33 Unincorporated Monrovia Low
34 Unincorporated Hawthorne - Alondra Park Very High
35 Unincorporated Lake Los Angeles - Pearblossom - Liano - Valyermo Very Low
36 Unincorporated Littlerock Very Low
37 Unincorporated San Pasqual - East Pasadena Very Low
38 Unincorporated Santa Monica Mountains - Triunfo Canyon Very Low
39 Unincorporated Valinda Moderate
40 City of Artesia High
41 City of Hawaiian Gardens Moderate
42 City of La Habra Heights Very Low
43 City of LA - Harbor Gateway High
44 City of LA - Van Nuys - North Sherman Oaks Very High
45 City of LA - Westwood / Unincorporated Sawtelle VA Center Very High
46 City of Palos Verdes Estates Very Low
3.0 Park Needs Framework
3-70 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
ID #STUDY AREA NAME PARK NEED
CATEGORY
47 Unincorporated Altadena Low
48 Unincorporated Ladera Heights / View Park - Windsor Hills Very Low
49 Unincorporated Stevenson - Newhall Ranch Very Low
50 Unincorporated Bassett - West Puente Valley Very High
51 Unincorporated Pellissier Village - Avocado Heights Very Low
52 Unincorporated Sunrise Village - South San Gabriel - Whittier Narrows Low
53 City of Avalon - Channel Islands North Very Low
54 City of Baldwin Park Very High
55 City of Commerce Moderate
56 City of Cudahy Very High
57 City of Irwindale Very Low
58 City of LA - Canoga Park - Winnetka Very High
59 City of LA - Central City North High
60 City of LA - Northridge High
61 City of LA - Valley Glen - North Sherman Oaks High
62 City of Lomita Moderate
63 Unincorporated Marina del Rey Moderate
64 Unincorporated Topanga Canyon - Topanga Very Low
65 Unincorporated West Whittier - Los Nietos Low
66 City of La Canada Flintridge Very Low
67 City of LA - Westchester - Playa del Rey - Los Angeles International
Airport
High
68 City of LA - Wilshire - Koreatown Very High
69 City of Lancaster - Eastside Moderate
70 Unincorporated East Los Angeles - Northwest Very High
ID #STUDY AREA NAME PARK NEED
CATEGORY
71 City of Bell Very High
72 City of Huntington Park Very High
73 City of LA - Granada Hills - Knollwood Moderate
74 City of Lawndale Very High
75 City of Malibu Very Low
76 City of Maywood Very High
77 City of Monrovia Low
78 City of South El Monte/ Uninc. El Monte - Whittier Narrows Low
79 City of Westlake Village Very Low
80 Unincorporated Florence-Firestone Very High
81 City of Agoura Hills Very Low
82 City of Alhambra High
83 City of LA - Baldwin Hills - Leimert - Hyde Park High
84 City of LA - Sherman Oaks - Studio City - Toluca Lake - Cahuenga Pass
/ Uninc. Universal City
Low
85 City of LA - West Los Angeles High
86 City of Rolling Hills Estates / Unincorporated Westfield Very Low
87 City of San Fernando High
88 City of South Gate Very High
89 City of South Pasadena Low
90 City of West Hollywood Very High
91 Unincorporated Castaic Moderate
92 Unincorporated Rowland Heights Moderate
93 City of Covina Moderate
94 City of LA - North Hollywood - Valley Village Very High
3-71Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
3.0 Park Needs Framework
ID #STUDY AREA NAME PARK NEED
CATEGORY
95 City of LA - Reseda - West Van Nuys High
96 City of LA - Sylmar Moderate
97 City of Long Beach Central Low
98 City of Rosemead Moderate
99 Unincorporated - Hacienda Heights - Whittier Low
100 City of Bellflower Very High
101 City of Calabasas Very Low
102 City of Gardena High
103 City of LA - Hollywood - North Moderate
104 City of LA - Hollywood - South Very High
105 City of LA - Palms - Mar Vista - Del Rey Very High
106 City of LA - Venice Very High
107 City of LA - West Adams Very High
108 City of LA - Wilshire - West High
109 City of Lynwood - Uninc. Lynwood High
110 City of Pico Rivera Low
111 City of San Gabriel Moderate
112 City of Sierra Madre Very Low
113 Unincorporated Willowbrook High
114 City of Bell Gardens Very High
115 City of El Monte Very High
116 City of Inglewood Very High
117 City of LA - Arleta - Pacoima High
118 City of LA - Central City Very High
ID #STUDY AREA NAME PARK NEED
CATEGORY
119 City of LA - South Los Angeles Very High
120 City of LA - Sun Valley - La Tuna Canyon High
121 City of LA - Wilmington - Harbor City / City of LA Port of Los Angeles Moderate
122 City of Lancaster - Westside Moderate
123 City of Long Beach North High
124 City of Palmdale - Eastside / Uninc. South Antelope Valley Low
125 City of Palmdale - Westside Low
126 City of Santa Fe Springs Low
127 Unincorporated Azusa Moderate
128 City of Hermosa Beach Moderate
129 City of LA - Brentwood - Pacific Palisades Moderate
130 City of LA - Mission Hills - Panorama City - North Hills Very High
131 City of Montebello Moderate
132 City of Pasadena - Eastside / Uninc. Kinneloa Mesa Moderate
133 City of Walnut Very Low
134 Unincorporated South Whittier - East La Mirada Moderate
135 City of LA - Boyle Heights Very High
136 City of LA - Encino - Tarzana Moderate
137 City of La Mirada Moderate
138 City of LA - Silver Lake - Echo Park - Elysian Valley Moderate
139 City of LA - Sunland - Tujunga - Lake View Terrace - Shadow Hills Low
140 City of Paramount Very High
141 City of Signal Hill Very Low
142 City of Compton High
3.0 Park Needs Framework
3-72 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
ID #STUDY AREA NAME PARK NEED
CATEGORY
143 City of Duarte Low
144 City of Glendora / Unincorporated Glendora Low
145 City of Hawthorne Very High
146 City of LA - West Hills - Woodland Hills \ Uninc. Canoga Park - West
Hills
Moderate
147 City of LA - Westlake Very High
148 City of Monterey Park Moderate
149 City of Norwalk High
150 City of Pomona - Southside Moderate
151 Santa Clarita - South Moderate
152 City of LA - Chatsworth - Porter Ranch / Uninc. Northridge - Canoga
Park - Oat Mtn.
Low
153 City of Lakewood / Unincorporated Lakewood Low
154 City of Long Beach West Very High
155 City of Pomona - Northside Moderate
156 City of San Dimas / Unincorporated San Dimas Very Low
157 City of Diamond Bar Low
158 City of El Segundo Low
159 City of La Verne / Unincorporated La Verne - Claremont Very Low
160 City of West Covina Moderate
161 City of Carson High
162 City of Downey High
163 City of LA - Southeast Los Angeles Very High
164 City of LA - Exposition Park - University Park - Vermont Square Very High
165 City of Long Beach East / Unincorporated Long Beach Low
ID #STUDY AREA NAME PARK NEED
CATEGORY
166 City of Arcadia Low
167 City of Beverly Hills Moderate
168 City of Glendale - Southside Very High
169 City of LA - Southeast Los Angeles - North Very High
170 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Very Low
171 City of Claremont / Unincorporated Claremont Low
172 City of Culver City Moderate
173 City of Pasadena - Westside Moderate
174 City of Torrance - North High
175 City of Azusa Moderate
176 City of Burbank Low
177 City of LA - Northeast Los Angeles - South Moderate
178 City of Manhattan Beach Low
179 Santa Clarita - North Moderate
180 City of Glendale - Northside Low
181 City of Torrance - South Low
182 City of Santa Monica Moderate
183 City of LA - Northeast Los Angeles - North Moderate
184 City of Cerritos \ Unincorporated Cerritos Low
185 City of LA - San Pedro - LA Port of Los Angeles - Uninc. La Rambla Moderate
186 City of Redondo Beach Moderate
187 City of Whittier Low
188 City of Long Beach South High
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates
4-74 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
The Parks Needs Assessment invited input from all
communities in the County regarding desired park projects,
and reports potential park projects from three sources:
projects prioritized at community workshops in each Study
Area; projects submitted by the managing agency of a
regional recreation park; and projects submitted by the
managing agencies of specialized facilities. As outlined
in Table 5, the locations of projects, engagement process,
and number of projects submitted varied by project source.
These criteria were reviewed by the Steering Committee.
These potential park project lists are not intended to
supersede or replace any planning documents, nor to
obligate any agency to implement the included projects.
Project lists simply provide a snapshot in time of potential
projects agreed upon by workshop participants or agency
staff to best meet park and recreational needs at the time
of the Parks Needs Assessment
4.1.1 PRIORITIZED PARK PROJECTS
i. Project Definition
The Parks Needs Assessment developed a narrow
definition of a potential park project. Limiting the scope of
what could be considered a single project helped ensure
that prioritized projects were of a similar magnitude across
all Study Areas, assisted communities in clarifying their
project priorities, and increased the consistency of cost
estimates.
To qualify as a project within the Parks Needs Assessment,
two criteria had to be met for any potential project:
4.1 POTENTIAL PARK PROJECTS
»Site Specific - each project had to be located at
a single physical location within the Study Area
boundary. The location could be an existing local
park, regional recreation park, regional open space, or
natural area; or it could be an unspecified location if
the project was the construction of a new park.
»Amenity Specific - each project could only address a
single amenity type. Multiple installations of the given
amenity were considered a single project.
PROJECT SOURCE PROJECT LOCATIONS ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS NUMBER OF PROJECTS
Community Workshops conducted by
Lead Agency of each Study Area
Local Parks
Regional Recreation Parks
Regional Open Space Facilities
Natural Areas
New Park Locations
Workshops in
Participating Study Areas
Up to 10 per Study Area
Regional Recreation Park Agencies Regional Recreation Parks
Regional Open Space Facilities
Optional Park User
Meeting
Up to 5 per park
Specialized Facilities:
Agencies Operating Open Space &
Nature Centers
Note: Only local public agencies were
eligible to submit projects
Local Parks (if Nature Center)
Regional Recreation Parks (if
Nature Center)
Regional Open Space Facilities
Natural Areas
Self Assessment of Need
Completed by Agency
Maximum of 3 per facility,
5 per Agency per Study Area.
Total max. of 20 per Agency
Specialized Facilities:
Agencies Operating Regional Specialty
Facilities
Note: Only local public agencies were
eligible to submit projects
Local Parks
Regional Recreation Parks
Regional Open Space Facilities
Natural Areas
Self Assessment of Need
Completed by Agency
Maximum of 3 per facility,
5 per Agency per Study Area.
Total max. of 20 per Agency
For those projects focused solely on infrastructure
(restrooms, signage, parking lots, walkways, security
lighting, park furniture, irrigation, vegetation/landscaping
and fencing) these two criteria were interpreted as follows:
»Site Specific - all infrastructure systems in a single
physical location could be addressed as a single
project.
»Amenity Specific - a single type of infrastructure could
be addressed at all parks within the Study Area.
Table 5. Potential Park Project Submittal Criteria
4-75Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates
Because the purpose of the Parks Needs Assessment was
to gain an understanding of the physical needs of parks
and recreational facilities, projects involving improvements
to programming, traffic signals, crosswalks, ongoing
maintenance, and public safety—although important and
often needed—were determined to be outside of the scope
of the Parks Needs Assessment and were not included in
the final project lists.
In addition to a strict definition of what constituted a
project, the Parks Needs Assessment also established a
point-based structure and assigned points based on the
specific type of improvement to further ensure consistency
in project magnitude from Study Area to Study Area. For
example, a project consisting of the replacement of all
tennis courts at a park was assigned a single point, while
a project consisting of constructing an entire new park
was assigned three points. For further explanation of the
point-based criteria, please refer to Figure 59. Project lists
for each Study Area could not exceed ten points, regardless
of how many individual projects were submitted. For
this reason, some project lists contained fewer than ten
projects but in fact total ten points.
Every project was classified into one of the following
categories: add or replace an amenity type at an existing
park; repair an existing amenity type at an existing park; or
construct a new park or specialty facility.
ii. Project Lists
The map and overview of existing parks and the results of
the park metrics analysis were shared with participants
at each Study Area’s community workshop (Figure 60).
Workshop facilitators were trained to use the data to guide
a participatory discussion about park need in the Study
Area and to identify park projects that could potentially
meet the documented park need. Facilitators were
encouraged to acknowledge and discuss any suggestions
for projects that did not meet the Parks Needs Assessment
project criteria (such as requests for crosswalks), and to
share such feedback with the agencies and departments
responsible for those types of improvements.
At each workshop, the result of this discussion was a
comprehensive list of potential park projects for the Study
Area, including projects in local parks, regional recreation
parks, regional open space, and natural areas.
Figure 59. Point-Based Project Criteria
Review existing parks and metrics.
Develop comprehensive list of potential projects.
Prioritize list of top ten park projects.
1-Point Project Examples
+ Repair or replace a single amenity type at one existing
park
+ Add a single amenity type at an existing park
+ Add a single amenity type at a proposed/new park
+ Repair, replace, or add a single type of general
infrastructure at all parks within the study area
+ Repair or replace all general infrastructure at one
existing park
+ Add or repair multi-purpose recreational trails within
one existing park
+ Construct a new multi-purpose recreational trail outside
of an existing park (where no land acquisition, general
infrastructure, or amenities are required)
2-Point Project Examples
+ Construct a new park or specialty facility—including all
general infrastructure and 2 amenity types (where no
land acquisition is required);
+ Construct a new multi-purpose recreational trail outside
of an existing park—where either (but not both) land
acquisition or general infrastructure is needed
3-Point Project Examples
+ Construct a new park, specialty facility, or multi-purpose
recreational trail outside of an existing park—including
land acquisition, all general infrastructure, and 2
amenity types
1-Point Project Examples
2-Point Project Examples
3-Point Project Examples
Figure 60. Community Workshops Flowchart
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates
4-76 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
After the list of all potential projects was complete,
workshop participants engaged in a participatory
prioritization exercise to identify the top ten projects in
their Study Area (Figure 61). In most cases, this list of
ten prioritized projects was reviewed internally by each
lead agency prior to being submitted to the Parks Needs
Assessment team. Facilitators were trained to inform
workshop participants about any review or adjustment
processes that the list of priority projects would undergo.
Figure 61. Sample Project Prioritization FormsIn some cases, the projects were reviewed by lead agency
staff to ensure that they were feasible in light of site
and other constraints and that they did not conflict with
local policies. Additionally, smaller-scale projects with
existing plans and established funding streams may have
been removed from the list of prioritized projects in order
to create room for other projects with a greater need for
funding.
Facilitators were also trained to communicate that
a project’s inclusion on the list was not a promise to
complete that project. Facilitators informed participants
that the list of prioritized projects would be used to:
»Let the County know which park projects were most
important in their community
»Generate a cost estimate of park need in the County
»Inform potential future Countywide park funding
decisions
»Contribute to future Countywide park planning
decisions
The list of ten prioritized projects was submitted to the
Parks Needs Assessment team by the lead agency for
each Study Area. The consultant team reviewed each list
for adherence to project criteria and in some cases made
modifications to the lists to ensure that projects conformed
to the established project definitions. Consultants worked
closely with lead agencies to help them understand project
definitions and make any necessary modifications prior
to submission. Every attempt was made to uphold the
integrity of the community’s prioritized selections.
As shown in Figure 62, workshop participants prioritized
the repair of existing park amenities more frequently
than other types of projects. Among repair projects, the
most frequently prioritized address general infrastructure,
restrooms, and community centers.
Projects to add new amenities to exiting parks were
prioritized more frequently than projects to construct new
parks, but less frequently than projects to repair or replace
existing amenities.
4-77Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates
Figure 62. Most Frequently Prioritized Park Projects,
by Project Type
The majority of Study Areas prioritized at least one new
park among their projects. A total of 200 new park projects
were prioritized in 138 Study Areas, as shown in Figure 63.
Several Study Areas prioritized more than one new park.
For the list of projects prioritized in each Study Area, refer
to Appendix A.
Figure 63. Study Areas Prioritizing a New Park
Projects to Add New Amenities
to Existing Parks
Dog ParkProjectsWalking Path/Trail ProjectsCommunity Center Projects
34%
80 75 60
Projects to Repair or Replace
Existing Amenities
Community Center ProjectsRestroomProjectsInfrastructure Projects
46%
155 60 25
Projects for Constructing New
Parks
New Park Projects
20%
200
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates
4-78 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
4.1.2 REGIONAL RECREATION PARK PROJECTS
The managing agency of each regional recreation park
conducted an internal self-assessment of need. Each
regional recreational park was allowed to submit a
maximum of five park-specific projects to meet the
identified need. Qualifying projects could include deferred
maintenance or capital improvements projects and were
restricted to repairing, replacing, or adding a single
amenity type or infrastructure system. Agencies submitted
project descriptions and cost estimates to the project
consultants for review and inclusion in the Park Parks
Needs Assessment. Each agency’s submittal is available in
Appendix B.
A total of 80 park projects were submitted by agencies
managing the 17 identified regional recreational parks;
55 percent of the projects were for repairing or placing
existing amenities and 45 percent were for adding new
amenities to existing parks. A detailed breakdown of the
project types by category is shown in Figures 64 and 65.
Figure 64. Regional Recreation Park Projects by Type
Figure 65. Sample Regional Recreation Park Projects
Projects to Repair or Replace
Existing Amenities
Projects to Add New Amenities
to Existing Parks
Passive Recreation Projects
Passive Recreation
Projects
Active RecreationProjects
Active Recreation
Projects
Infrastructure Projects
Infrastructure
Projects
55%
45%
24
14
13
12
7
10
Active Recreation Projects
Include:
-New basketball facility
-Replace swimming pool
-Improve ballfields
Infrastructure Projects
Include:
-Tree planting
-New trail signage
-Repaving parking lots
Passive Recreation Projects
Include:
-Wildlife observation tower
-Group picnic areas
-New dog park
4-79Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates
4.1.3 PROJECTS AT SPECIALIZED FACILITIES
In addition to local and regional recreation parks, the
recreation network in Los Angeles County includes
regionally important specialty facilities such as open
space, nature centers, beaches,
and trails. Recognizing that
the local focus and scale of
community workshops could
potentially result in a lack of
recognition of the importance of
these specialized facilities, the
Steering Committee approved
the inclusion of potential park
projects within these facilities,
which provide the public a wide variety of recreational
opportunities that would not be otherwise available.
Specialized facilities include regionally important active
and passive recreation resources such as open space,
beaches, arboreta, specialty gardens, amphitheaters and
band shells, sports complexes, hiking trails, golf courses,
and equestrian facilities. In general, these facilities were
documented in the inventory phase of the Parks Needs
Assessment if they were located within a local park,
regional recreation park, or regional open space.
All local public park, recreation, and/or open space
agencies were invited to submit projects at the specialized
facilities they manage. Two meetings were held to explain
the process of submitting projects at specialized facilities.
These facilities were categorized as either open space &
nature center facilities or as regional specialty facilities.
The criteria for inclusion of a specialized facility are that
Figure 66. Specialized Facility Projects by Type
Projects to Repair or Replace
Existing Amenities
Passive Recreation ProjectsActive RecreationProjectsInfrastructure Projects
59%
71 6 14
Projects to Add New Amenities
to Existing Facilities
Passive Recreation ProjectsActive Recreation ProjectsInfrastructure Projects
41%
37 7 20Specialized Facilities Includ
e
:
Open space
Beaches
Hiking trails
Arboreta
Amphitheaters
Golf courses
Equestrian facilities
Figure 67. Sample Specialized Facility Projects
Active Recreation Projects
Include:
-Renovate golf course
-New equestrian center
-Add fitness equipment
Infrastructure Projects
Include:
-Build trailhead parking lot
-New lifeguard headquarters
-Add composting restrooms
Passive Recreation Projects
Include:
-Build new trails
-Construct visitor center
-Add tent camping
the facility be owned and/or operated by a local public
agency and subject to the Park Preservation Act. The
facility must be publicly accessible, provide recreational
functions, and serve a regional population greater than that
of the Study Area in which the facility is located.
Agencies were invited to submit up to three projects per
facility, with a maximum limit of five projects per Study
Area. Large agencies with multiple facilities throughout
the County were limited to submitting no more than 20
projects.
Eight qualifying local public agencies submitted projects for
inclusion in the Parks Needs Assessment. Each submitting
agency also included a cover letter detailing their mission
and relevance to recreation in the County. Refer to
Appendix C for a complete list of participating agencies and
projects submitted by each agency.
A total of 155 projects were submitted for specialized
facilities. Of these, 59 percent were for repairing or
replacing existing amenities and 41 percent were for
adding new amenities to existing facilities. A detailed
breakdown of the project types in these categories is
shown in Figure 66 and Figure 67.
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates
4-80 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
Planning-level cost estimates were developed to provide
a rough order-of-magnitude estimate of the dollar amount
needed to implement identified projects and complete
deferred maintenance work Countywide. Cost estimates
for prioritized projects and deferred maintenance were
developed by the Parks Needs Assessment team and apply
a standardized set of cost estimates to each project. Due
to the unique needs of both regional recreation parks and
specialized facilities, cost estimates for projects at these
facilities were submitted by the managing agency of each
facility.
4.2.1 METHODOLOGY
Standardized cost estimates were developed for land
acquisition, projects to construct new amenities or
completely replace existing amenities, and projects to
repair existing amenities.
These costs were developed by the consultant team and
DPR staff using a number of sources:
»Recently completed work by the County of Los
Angeles, City of Los Angeles, other public agencies in
the State, and landscape architectural staff from the
consultant team
»Commercial construction and real estate datasets
»Third-party cost estimators with experience in park
construction cost estimation in the County of Los
Angeles
4.2 COST ESTIMATES: COUNTYWIDE TRENDS
i. Land Acquisition Costs
Land acquisition costs were developed for each Study Area
for use in estimating the cost of projects requiring land
acquisition. Data from two commercial real estate analytics
sources (CoStar and LoopNet) were used to estimate these
costs. When available, average sales price per acre for
vacant land was used. If no vacant land sales data were
available, the land value component of average sales price
per acre for residential and nonresidential property sales
was used. If no sales were reported in a Study Area, the
average asking price per acre was used.
ii. New Construction/Amenity Replacement
Costs
A set of standard construction costs for new construction/
amenity replacement was developed for the 16 amenities
inventoried in the Web Portal, individual park infrastructure
components, and unique amenities prioritized at
community workshops. Starting with cost information
from a commercial construction database (RSMeans),
these numbers were modified by landscape architectural
staff from the consultant team. The estimates were then
reviewed and further fine-tuned by staff from DPR, the City
of Los Angeles, and third-party cost estimators.
These standardized costs were used as a template
to calculate costs for all priority projects identified
Countywide that involved constructing new parks,
adding new amenities or infrastructure to an existing
park, or completely replacing an existing amenity or type
of infrastructure. They were also used for all deferred
maintenance projects that required replacing existing
amenities or infrastructure.
iii. Repair Cost Estimates
The methodology for developing standardized repair costs
was based on field survey and assessment of amenities
that jurisdictions had rated “fair.” A sample of parks was
selected across the County to ensure that the field-
inspected parks represented a fair cross-section of the
region’s income levels, as a proxy for the fiscal resources
available to the jurisdiction. Five income brackets were
identified and five randomly selected parks were inspected
in each income bracket. Only parks with amenities rated
“fair” were inspected.
Field inspectors examined amenities rated “fair” to
determine the cost of repairing them to bring them up
to “good” condition. Needed repairs were identified and
summarized for these amenities. As an example, a baseball
4-81Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates
field might have needed 200 square feet of reseeding, a
new bleacher, and 20 feet of backstop fencing. The total
cost for these repairs were then added together. For each
type of amenity, estimated repair costs were averaged
across the selected parks.
This method was used for eight common amenities (Tennis
Court, Basketball Court, Baseball Field, Grass Soccer
Field, Multipurpose Field, Fitness Zone, Picnic Shelter, and
Restrooms). For the remaining amenity types, the sample
size of inspected amenities was not large enough to
calculate an average repair cost. For these amenities, the
average repair cost was assumed to be 10 percent of the
estimated replacement cost.
iv. Assumptions
Several assumptions are incorporated into the standardized
costs estimates and are listed below. For additional
information, refer to Appendix E:
»They assume that the cost of construction is similar
Countywide
»They assign a standard size or quantity when not
specified (for example, acres in a new park, square
footage of a new playground, number of stations in a
fitness zone)
»A contingency of approximately 40 percent has been
added to account for soft costs, design contingencies,
and markups.
4.2.2 COST ESTIMATES
i. Prioritized Park Projects
The standardized cost estimates were applied to the
projects prioritized at each community workshop for each
Study Area and are available in Appendix A. These costs
were summed to arrive at a Countywide cost estimate
of $ 8.8 billion for all projects prioritized at community
workshops.
The managing agency of each regional recreation park
submitted cost estimates for up to five prioritized projects.
These costs represent the agency’s best estimation of
the total cost to complete each project and are available
in Appendix B. For the 17 regional recreation parks, the
total cost of all projects is $0.3 billion, giving a total cost
estimate of $8.8 billion for all prioritized projects.
ii. Deferred Maintenance
For the purposes of estimating deferred maintenance, the
Parks Needs Assessment considered all data collected
through the Web Portal regarding the condition of park
amenities at local parks, regional recreation parks, and
regional open space in all Study Areas. The deferred
maintenance costs include the following:
»Cost to replace all amenities rated “poor” that were
not included on a prioritized project list. Estimated by
applying the standardized amenity replacement cost.
»Cost to repair all amenities rated “fair” that were
not included on a prioritized project list. Estimated by
applying the standardized cost to repair each amenity.
$10 billion
Cost to replace amenities rated “poor”
$2 billion
Cost to repair amenities rated“fair”
$12 billion
Total Deferred Maintenance Costs
Figure 68. Deferred Maintenance Costs at All
Inventoried Local Parks, Regional Recreation Parks,
and Regional Open Spaces
The standardized costs for new construction/complete
replacement were applied to all amenities rated “poor”
in every park in each Study Area. Countywide, the cost
to replace all amenities rated “poor” is $10 billion. Of
this, $6.1 billion is for amenity replacement at regional
recreation parks.
Standardized repair costs were applied to all amenities
rated “fair” in all Study Areas. Countywide, the cost to
repair all amenities rated “fair” is $2 billion. Of this, $0.7
billion is for work at regional recreation parks.
The total cost of deferred maintenance in the County is $12
billion dollars.
4.0 Potential Park Projects & Cost Estimates
4-82 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
iii. Specialized Facilities Projects
The Parks Needs Assessment recognized the importance
of specialty facilities which attract community members
across the region. Specialty facilities provide vital
resources such as open space, arboreta, specialty gardens,
amphitheaters and band shells, sports complexes, hiking
trails, golf courses, and equestrian facilities. All cities
within the County of Los Angeles plus managing agencies
of specialty facilities that met the criteria set forth in
Section 4.1.3, Projects at Specialized Facilities, were
invited to submit projects for their respective specialty
facilities. The managing agency of each specialized facility
submitted cost estimates for up to three projects per
facility. These costs represent the agency’s best estimation
of the total cost to complete each project and are available
in Appendix C. The total cost of these projects is $0.7
billion.
iv. Total Cost Estimate
The total rough order-of-magnitude cost to implement
projects identified by communities and managing agencies,
as well as differed maintenance, is $21.5 billion dollars.
$8.8
billion
Prioritized Projects
at
Local Parks
Regional Recreation Parks
Regional Open Space
and
Natural Areas
$21.5 billion
Figure 69. Countywide Cost Estimates
$12
billion
Deferred Maintenance
at
Local Parks
Regional Recreation Parks
Regional Open Space
$0.7
billion
Specialized Facilities
at
Local Parks
Regional Recreation Parks
Regional Open Space
and
Natural Areas
5.0 Next Steps
5-84 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
The Parks Needs Assessment lays the groundwork for
making important planning and funding decisions in
Los Angeles County. Most importantly, it provides the
County, its jurisdictions, and all residents of Los Angeles
County with a wealth of parks-related information and
opportunities.
i. Valuable data
The data in the Parks Needs Assessment provide a clear
picture of the current scope, scale, and location of park
need in Los Angeles County. For the first time, a single
source provides information regarding parks and park
infrastructure across the entire County. This information
helps us to understand the challenges facing our
communities and may be used to seek funding and support
for parks, inform staffing and programming decisions, and
focus outreach efforts.
ii. Ongoing Updates
The County will seek to keep data in the Parks Needs
Assessment up to date, in order to continue identifying new
needs and to track progress toward addressing already-
identified needs.
5.1 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
iii. Funding Decisions
With comprehensive information regarding existing parks
and the need for new parks, amenities, and repairs, the
County is well prepared to develop a funding measure for
park and open space projects that will provide funding
streams for improvements in the short, medium, and long
term. Local, state, and federal funds can also be leveraged
to enhance park and open space funding.
Pocket Park on Small Parcel
iv. Equitable Allocation
The comprehensive data in the Parks Needs Assessment
can be used to allocate funds to meet identified needs in
ways that emphasize areas with high to very high park
need while also addressing the specific needs of every
jurisdiction and community in the County.
5-85Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
5.0 Next Steps
v. National Model
The Parks Needs Assessment serves as a model for a
clear, replicable process that other jurisdictions across the
country can use when they assess their regionwide park
facilities and needs.
vi. New Solutions to Provide Needed Parks
The Parks Needs Assessment shows that high park need
exists in many areas of the County. Local agencies will
need to find innovative solutions to provide essential
park infrastructure in these communities, as many are
densely populated and lack vacant land. Underutilized
land, utility corridors, alleys, and other public lands should
all be considered as potential locations for new parks.
Additionally, creative partnerships, such as joint use and
reuse with schools, hospitals, libraries, and other facilities
should be considered in order to expand park opportunities
and meet recreational needs.
Parks and open spaces make significant impacts on the
everyday lives of residents, providing valuable spaces for
active and passive recreation, social engagement, and
community connectivity. They can also provide important
ecological services, including enhancing and protecting
waterways, reducing the urban heat island effect,
conserving water, and reducing energy consumption.
The construction of new parks and enhancement of existing
parks that will occur as the cities and unincorporated
communities of the County move to address high levels
of park need creates an opportunity to build the types of
thriving multi-benefit parks that will contribute to public
health and well-being, create a sense of place, increase
community cohesion, improve the environment, and boost
the economy in every community in Los Angeles County.
Park Located in Utility Easement
Active Linear Park Joint-use Park
5.0 Next Steps
5-86 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF
»John Wicker, Director of Parks and Recreation
»Norma E. Garcia, Deputy Director, Planning and
Development Agency
»Rita Robinson, Project Director
»Clement Lau, Departmental Facilities Planner ll
»Sheela Kleinknecht, Park Planner
»Over 100 staff members who helped facilitate
community workshops, evaluated amenity conditions,
reviewed costs, and determined projects for regional
recreation parks and specialized facilities
LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
»Jane I. Beesley, District Administrator
»Warren Ontiveros, Administration Section Manager
INCORPORATED CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
»Over 175 staff members in 86 cities who entered data
into the Park Assets Inventory Web Portal, attended
trainings, reached out to their communities, facilitated
workshops, and coordinated with the consultant team
RESIDENTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
»Thousands of County residents shared their thoughts
about parks in Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
»Hilda L. Solis, 1st District
»Mark Ridley-Thomas, 2nd District
»Sheila Kuehl, 3rd District
»Don Knabe, 4th District
»Michael D. Antonovich, 5th District
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT STAFF
»Javier Hernandez, 1st District
»Teresa Villegas, 1st District
»Lacey Johnson, 2nd District
»Karly Katona, 2nd District
»Maria Chong-Castillo, 3rd District
»Erin Stibal, 4th District
»Sussy Nemer, 5th District
»David Perry, 5th District
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
»Ed P. Reyes, 1st District
»Mayisha Akbar, 2nd District
»Bettina Duval, 3rd District
»John Hsu, 4th District
»William J. Korek, 5th District
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CONSULTANT TEAM
»
–David Early, Principal; Isabelle Minn, Principal;
C.C. LaGrange, Project Manager; Rob Mazur,
Project GIS Manager
»GreenInfo Network
»DakeLuna Consultants
»David Taussig & Associates
»MIG
»Prevention Institute
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
In memoriam: Steering Committee member Mary Kaufman,
avid trail supporter and enthusiast.
»Greg Alaniz, Community Services Manager, City of
Whittier, Gateway Cities Council of Governments
Representative
»Jane I. Beesley, Regional Operations Manager, Los
Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District
»Alina Bokde, Executive Director, Los Angeles
Neighborhood Land Trust, Community Based
Organization Representative
»Brad Bolger, Senior Manager, Los Angeles County
Chief Executive Office (CEO)
»William Warren Brien, Councilmember, City of
Beverly Hills, Westside Cities Council of Governments
Representative
5-87Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
5.0 Next Steps
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS, CONT’D
»John Bwarie, Executive Director, San Fernando Valley
Council of Governments Representative
»Scott Chan, Program Director, Asian Pacific Islander
Obesity Prevention Alliance (APIOPA), Community
Based Organization Representative
»Maria Chong-Castillo, Deputy, Supervisorial District 3
»Kimel Conway, South Coast Botanic Gardens
Foundation, Community-at-Large Representative
»Cheryl Davis, Recording Secretary, Crescenta Valley
Town Council, Community-at-Large Representative
»Reyna Diaz, Duarte Unified School District,
Community-at-Large Representative
»Bettina Duval, Los Angeles County Parks and
Recreation Commissioner, Community-at-Large
Representative
»Belinda V. Faustinos, San Gabriel Mountains Forever,
Community Based Organization Representative
»Norma E. Garcia, Deputy Director, Los Angeles County
Department of Parks and Recreation
»Phil Hester, Campfire Angels Council, Community
Based Organization Representative
»Michael Hughes, Hacienda Heights Improvement
Association, Community-at-Large Representative
»Lacey Johnson, Deputy, Supervisorial District 2
»John Jones, Community Service Director, City of
Torrance, South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Representative
»Amy Lethbridge, Deputy Executive Officer, Mountains
Recreation and Conservation Authority, Community-at-
Large Representative
»James Lott, Community-at-Large Representative
»Linda Lowry, City Manager, City of Pomona, San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Representative
»Michael McCaa, Chief Financial Officer, MBA, Drew
League Foundation, Community Based Organization
Representative
»Sandra McNeill, Executive Director, T.R.U.S.T South
LA, Community Based Organization Representative
»Martha Molina-Aviles, Program Manager, Community
Centers, Los Angeles County Department of
Community and Senior Services
»Veronica Padilla, Executive Director, Pacoima
Beautiful, Community Based Organization
Representative
»Ronda Perez, Parks, Recreation and Arts Director, City
of Lancaster
»David Perry, Deputy, Supervisorial District 5
»Adriana Pinedo, Health Policy Coordinator, Day One,
Community Based Organization Representative
»Jennifer Pippard, Interim Director of Community
Investments, First 5 LA
»Ed P. Reyes, LA County Parks Commissioner,
Community-at-Large Representative
»Barbara Romero, Deputy Mayor, City of Los Angeles
»Jeff Rubin, Director of Community Services, City
of Calabasas, Las Virgenes Malibu Council of
Governments Representative
»Bruce Saito, Director, California Conservation Corps
»Harry Saltzgaver, City of Long Beach Water
Commissioner, Community-at-Large Representative
»Dr. Paul Simon, MD, Los Angeles County Department
of Public Health
»Keri Smith, Recreation and Culture Director, City of
Palmdale
»Christopher Solek, Programs Director, Council
for Watershed Health, Community-at-Large
Representative
»Erin Stibal, Deputy, Supervisorial District 4
»Teresa Villegas, Deputy, Supervisorial District 1
5.0 Next Steps
5-88 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
»Javier Aguilar, Senior Regional Planner, Southern
California Association of Governments
»Lee Butterfield, Policy Development Manager, Office
of Grants and Local Services, California State Parks
»Nick Franchino, GIS Manager, Geographic Information
Systems Section, Los Angeles County Department of
Regional Planning
»Mark Greninger, Geographic Information Officer, Los
Angeles County Chief Information Office
»Su Jin Lee, Lecturer, Spatial Science Institute,
University of Southern California
»Weimin Li, Associate Professor, Department of
Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona
»Douglas Morales, Epidemiologist/GIS Coordinator, Los
Angeles County Department of Public Health
»Viktor Patiño, Manager, Office of Grants and Local
Service, California State Parks
»Patricia Pendleton, Project Manager, Center for
Geographical Studies, California State University,
Northridge
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
»Amigos de Los Rios
»Bike San Gabriel Valley
»From Lot to Spot
»Go Day One
»Korean Youth and Community Center
»Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust
»Mujeres de la Tierra
»William C. Velasquez Institute
5.0 Next Steps
5-89 Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment
APPENDICES
Appendices can be viewed and downloaded from the project website:
http://lacountyparkneeds.org/final-report/
Appendix A - Study Area Profiles
Each Study Area Profile contains a base map, park metrics, map of where parks are most
needed, amenity quantities and conditions, park need framework, project cost estimates,
submitted project reporting forms and community engagement form.
Appendix B – Regional Recreation Park Projects
Project lists and cost estimates submitted by the managing agency of each regional
recreation park.
Appendix C – Specialized Facilities Projects
Project lists and cost estimates as submitted by the managing agencies of specialized
facilities such as open space, beaches, hiking trails, arboreta, amphitheaters, golf
courses, and equestrian facilities.
Appendix D – Resources Provided to Partners
»Web Portal User Guide and Amenity Condition Definitions
»Sample Toolkit (includes facilitator training manual)
»Survey Results
Appendix E – Technical Resources
»Data Sources
»Mapping and Analysis Information
»Cost Estimate Assumptions
Expenditure Plan for Potential
Parks Funding Measure
Funding Category Annually 35 Years Annually 35 Years
Grant
Category
1
35.00% 64,957,628$ 2,273,516,994$ 32,478,814$ 1,136,758,498$
Grant
Category
2
13.00% 24,127,119$ 844,449,169$ 12,063,560$ 422,224,585$
M&S
15.00% 27,838,984$ 974,364,426$ 13,919,492$ 487,182,213$
Grant
Category
3
13.00% 24,127,119$ 844,449,169$ 12,063,560$ 422,224,585$
Grant
Category
4 13.00% 24,127,119$ 844,449,169$ 12,063,560$ 422,224,585$
Grant
Category
5
3.80% 7,052,543$ 246,838,988$ 3,526,271$ 123,419,494$
Program
Innovatio
n and
Oversight
7.20%13,362,712$ 467,694,924$ 6,681,356$ 233,847,462$
100.00% 185,593,224$ 6,495,762,846$ 92,796,612$ 3,247,881,423$
Protecting Open Spaces, Beaches,
Watersheds Program: Funds to all
eligible entities through competitive grant
programs
Regional Recreational Facilities, Trail &
Accessibility Program: Funds to all
eligible entities through competitive
grant programs
Youth and Veteran Job Training &
Placement Opportunities Program:
Funds to all eligible entities through
competitive grant programs
Strategic Planning, Technical Assistance,
Needs Assessment Updates, Innovative
Electronic Technologies, Operations of
the District: Funds distributed with
delegated authority to the Director.
$ 0.03/sq foot dev $ 0.015/sq foot dev
Community Based Park Investment
Program: Funds Returned to Study
Areas/Cities through direct grant programs
with delegated authority to the Director
Safe Parks, Healthy Communities, Urban
Greening Program: Funds to projects in
High and Very High Need Study Areas
through grant programs
Local Agency Maintenance and Servicing
Funds: Funds directly to Cities, County
Dept., local Agencies & Non‐profits,
through an administrative process from
the District
1
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ALSO ACTING AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT,
PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL TAX ELECTION TO
BE HELD IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016, AND CONSOLIDATING THE SPECIAL TAX ELECTION WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 8, 2016
WHEREAS, every year, more than 70 million people visit the over 3,000 parks in the County of Los Angeles (the "County”) and its cities, including their neighborhood parks, and participate in park-sponsored recreational programs.
Parks are important to families, as millions of children and youth use park
facilities for after-school, weekend, and summer programs, and millions of
seniors attend programs at nearby senior centers; and
WHEREAS, parks, natural lands, open space, and beaches contribute to the health and vitality of our citizens in the County. These natural areas help
make our community a wonderful place to live and protect our quality of life; and
WHEREAS, County citizens spend a great deal of time working indoors
and commuting in cars, making our parks and natural resources essential to protecting and enhancing our quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the County and its cities have a long history of making
significant investments in parks and recreation, beaches, open spaces, and
natural areas; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District (the “District”) has awarded more than 1,500 development, acquisition, improvement, restoration, and rehabilitation grant projects for parks, recreational,
cultural, and community facilities, as well as beaches and open space lands
throughout Los Angeles County; and
WHEREAS, for over 20 years the County has relied on local voter-approved funding to protect and maintain our local neighborhood, city and county parks, outdoor areas, beaches, rivers, watersheds, and local water
resources. This funding is expiring and we face the loss of the only source of
dedicated local funding for our neighborhood parks; and
WHEREAS, dedicated local funding from the District has served as matching funds for State, Federal, and philanthropic funding, and in this way is essential for our communities to receive their fair share of available resources;
and
WHEREAS, while many of the over 3,000 parks, beaches, and open
space areas and over 9,000 recreational amenities throughout the County have
2
received District funding since 1992, heavy usage by the public year-round result in a continuous need for resources to repair and replace amenities; and
WHEREAS, the County has undertaken an inventory, analysis, and
community engagement process that culminated in the 2016 Los Angeles
Countywide Comprehensive Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Final Report (the “2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment”), which allowed the County to document and analyze the needs of all the communities within its
jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment was a 16-
month outreach process to study 188 sub-regions of the County (the “Study Areas”) to identify community park needs and priorities; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment shows that
there is a serious need for tens of billions of dollars in investments in safe
neighborhood parks; protection of rivers, streams, lakes, beaches and
watersheds; safe and healthy communities; urban greening; sustainability and energy efficiency; senior centers, community and facility rehabilitation and maintenance; at-risk youth job training and placement, gang violence prevention;
and improved community access, connectivity and trails to these facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County, also acting as the
governing body of the District (the "Board"), finds and determines that the continued development, acquisition, improvement, restoration and maintenance of parks, recreational, cultural and community facilities, beaches, and open
space lands within the County confer documented health, social, environmental
and economic benefits throughout the County resulting in increased opportunities
for physical activity, improved safety and social cohesion, sustainability and maintained or enhanced property values; and
WHEREAS, the Board further finds and determines that the public interest
and convenience require, and that it is in the best interest of the County, that
local funding be secured within the County, to fund projects consistent with the
plan of expenditure hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the collection and expenditure of all funds under this measure will continue to be transparent to the voters through annual independent financial
audits and a public oversight committee, and all communities throughout the
County will receive a share of the funding. To the extent feasible, funds
generated by this measure shall be spent on priorities pursuant to the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment; and
WHEREAS, the District may issue Bonds to pay for Eligible projects that
are payable from and secured by the Special Taxes authorized herein; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation and maintenance
of parks and recreation facilities, natural resources, beaches, and open space
3
lands under this measure will aid in the development of safe places and facilities for local children, youth and families, thereby creating healthy places for children
and youth to play, learn and interact with other children. These alternatives keep
children and youth off the streets and limit exposure to gangs, drugs and
vandalism while providing positive incentives for healthy living; and
WHEREAS, the Board further finds and determines that it is necessary to provide a voter-approved funding source to ensure all parks and recreation
centers throughout Los Angeles County and its cities are continuously serviced,
maintained and upgraded, and that new parks and facilities are established and
open space lands preserved; and
WHEREAS, the protection and restoration of our last open spaces and natural areas of scenic beauty located next to rivers, creeks, streams and lakes
is necessary for the purposes of conserving native and endangered species,
biological diversity, protecting the health of the County's environment, and for the
enjoyment of this and future generations; and
WHEREAS, improving non-motorized or active transportation methods to reach the network of park facilities, beaches, and multi-use trails, including
regional bike paths, is important to our health and provides for greater
accessibility for our citizens; and
WHEREAS, the programs funded under this measure will increase the accessibility of public lands, park facilities, and park amenities to the people of Los Angeles County, especially to those living in high-need and very-high need
Study Areas; and
WHEREAS, the District intends to use the 2016 Countywide Park Needs
Assessment as a guide to direct funding to all communities within the County to ensure local priorities are met; and
WHEREAS, the District intends to continue the community and
stakeholder engagement processes and make periodic updates to the 2016
Countywide Park Needs Assessment including but not limited to regional and
specialty facilities, open space, and access; and
WHEREAS, the Board deems that this measure supports the mission and goals of the County as detailed in its strategic plan; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the matters set forth in this resolution was
called and held on July 5, 2016, and this resolution shall not take effect unless
and until the question of approval of the matters set forth herein shall have been submitted to the electorate of the County and approved by a supermajority of voters voting on the question; and
WHEREAS, the Board deems it necessary and essential to submit the
question of a special tax to the qualified voters within the County at a special tax
4
election to be held on November 8, 2016, and to consolidate such election with the Statewide General Election to be held on that date;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Los Angeles, also acting as the governing body of the Los Angeles
County Regional Park and Open Space District, as follows:
Section 1.
A special tax election shall be held and the same is hereby called and ordered to
be held in the County on the 8th day of November, 2016, for the purpose of
submitting to the voters of the County the question of a special tax to be levied by the District in the amounts and for the purposes hereinafter set forth and to be administered by the District and the issuance of bonds and other indebtedness in
accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 5500 et seq. The special
election called by this resolution shall be consolidated with the Statewide General
Elections conducted by and in the County of Los Angeles on November 8, 2016, and the Proposition shall be placed on the same ballot and the same precincts, polling places, election officers, and facilities shall be used for this special
election.
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2017-2018, an annual special tax to raise revenue
to continue funding for programs pursuant to the plan of expenditure contained herein is hereby imposed upon all improved parcels located within the District, whose boundaries are coterminous with the County of Los Angeles, including all
incorporated cities. The Special Tax shall be levied on all improved parcels in
the District at a rate of 1.5 cents per square foot of structural improvements,
excluding the square footage of improvements used for parking. For each fiscal year after 2017-2018, the Board shall by a majority vote set the rate of the tax; however, in any fiscal year the rate may be set no higher than the amount of 1.5
cents per square foot, as adjusted by the cumulative increases, if any, to the
Western Urban Consumer Price Index from July 1, 2017, as established by the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. If for any fiscal year the Board fails to set the rate, the tax shall continue at the same rate as the preceding year.
(a) All laws and procedures regarding exemptions, due dates,
installment payments, corrections, cancellations, refunds, late payments,
liens and collections for the secured roll ad valorem property taxes shall
be applicable to the collection of the Special Tax. The secured roll tax bills shall be the only notices required for the levying of the Special Tax. The Auditor-Controller of the County shall place the Special Tax on
the secured tax roll for the initial Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and for
subsequent fiscal years. The Treasurer and Tax Collector of the County
shall collect the Special Tax for the initial Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and for subsequent fiscal years, on the tax roll at the same time and in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties as the ad valorem property
5
taxes fixed and collected by or on behalf of the County. The Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District shall establish and
administer an appeals process to address and correct potential errors in
the levy of the Special Tax.
(b) Properties owned by public agencies devoted to a public use or to protect public health or safety will not be assessed, consistent with the statutes applying to possessory interests. The Special Tax shall be levied
on possessory interests based on the amount of privately-held structural
improvements.
(c) Based upon all of the facts before it on this matter, the Board finds that the submission of this question of a Special Tax to the voters is not subject to, or is exempt from, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) because it is not a project as defined by California Code of
Regulations Section 15378(b)(4) because it relates to the creation of
government funding mechanisms, which do not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
Section 2.
The Proposition for levying said special tax and issuing bonds shall appear upon the ballot substantially as follows:
Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks, Open Space, Beaches, Rivers Protection,
and Water Conservation Measure
To replace expiring local funding for safe, clean neighborhood/ city/ county
parks; increase safe playgrounds, reduce gang activity; keep neighborhood recreation/ senior centers, drinking water safe; protect beaches, rivers, water
resources, remaining natural areas/ open space; shall 1.5 cents be levied
annually per square foot of improved property in Los Angeles County, for 35
years, with bond authority, requiring citizen oversight and independent audits?
The Board does hereby submit to the qualified voters of the County, at said special District election, this proposition. The Chair and Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors are hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of said special
election in accordance with the California Elections Code. Analysis and review of
this resolution shall be carried out pursuant to Section 9160 of the California Elections Code.
Section 3.
As used in this resolution, the following terms have the indicated meanings:
6
“1992 and 1996 Propositions” means the Safe Neighborhood Parks Propositions approved by voters on November 3, 1992 and November 5, 1996,
respectively.
“2016 Countywide Parks Needs Assessment” means the 2016 Los
Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Final Report and any supplementary material adopted, and as subsequently updated, by the District.
"Advisory Board" means the Citizens Oversight Advisory Board
established in Section 7.
“Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990” means the federal law as codified in Chapter 126, Title 42, of the U.S. Codes.
“Assessor” means the County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor.
“Beaches” means a public beach or shoreline area bordering the Pacific
Ocean owned, controlled, or managed by a public agency, within the County of
Los Angeles.
"Board" means the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, also acting as the governing body of the Los Angeles County Regional Park and
Open Space District.
“Bonds” means borrow any form of indebtedness, including notes and bonds, issued to finance Eligible projects and related bond costs.
“Community Development” means the feasibility, planning, design,
permitting and construction of recreational infrastructure and amenities.
"County" is used as defined in the recitals to this resolution.
“County Cultural Facility” means a building owned &/or operated by the County of Los Angeles which shall be used for the programming, production,
presentation, and/or exhibition of natural history and any of the arts and/or
cultural disciplines. These disciplines include music, dance, theatre, creative
writing, literature, architecture, painting, sculpture, folk arts, photography, crafts, media arts, and visual arts.
“Director” means the Director of the Los Angeles County Regional Park
and Open Space District.
"District" means the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District.
7
“Eligible project” means pre-project assistance and feasibility, planning, acquisition, construction, development, improvement, restoration, rehabilitation,
or any combination thereof, for any park or recreation project or improvement.
“Greenway” means a project that incorporates elements of water conservation and reclamation, urban greening, or public safety in a linear park, urban trail and/or active transportation corridor.
“High-Need and Very-High Need” means areas designated as such in the
Parks Needs Framework as identified the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment.
“Interpretation & Education” means, a visitor serving amenity that
enhances the ability to understand and appreciate the significance and value of
natural, historical, cultural and recreational resources that may utilize educational materials in multiple languages, digital information, and the expertise of a naturalist or other skilled specialist.
“Joint-use” means shared management of facilities, land, utilities,
programs, or other common elements between two or more parties. “Local jurisdiction” means a city, county, special district or local agency.
“Multi-benefit project” means a project that maximizes or enhances
recreation opportunities and one or more of the following: protection or enhancement of the natural environment, stormwater capture, water and air quality improvements, greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, carbon sequestration,
heat-island reductions; habitat protection and biodiversity, community health
improvements, or any combination thereof.
"Natural Lands" means an area of relatively undeveloped land which has substantially retained its characteristics as provided by nature or has been
substantially restored, or which can be feasibly restored to a near-natural
condition and which derives outstanding value from its wildlife, scenic, open
space, parkland or recreational characteristics, or any combination thereof.
"Nonprofit Organization" means any charitable organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which has
among its purposes the provision of park, recreation or community services or
facilities, gang prevention and intervention, conservation corps, environmental
education and interpretation, tree-planting, or the conservation and preservation of wetlands or of lands predominantly in their natural, scenic, historical, forested or open-space condition, or restoration of lands to a natural, scenic, historical,
forested or open-space condition.
"Open space, foothill, mountain, trail, river, wetlands and stream projects"
include any of the following: preservation of natural lands, scenic vistas and
8
wildlife habitat, wildlife corridors, development and restoration of mountain and other open space hiking, biking, walking and equestrian trails, especially those
maintained by the County Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments,
restoration of natural vegetation and habitat, habitat and recreation facilities in
and adjacent to riparian and flood control channels, and the provision of recreational opportunities and public access in mountain, foothill, river, stream and wetland areas.
"Parcel" means any unit of real property that receives an annual secured
property tax bill from the Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector.
"Park" means a tract of land with scenic, natural, open-space or recreational values, set apart to conserve natural, scenic, wildlife, cultural, historical or ecological resources for present and future generations, and to be
used by the public as a place for respite, rest, recreation, education, exercise,
inspiration or enjoyment.
“Parks Fund” means the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District Park Fund.
“Per Capita and Structural Improvements” refers to each Study Area’s
respective percentage of total Countywide 1) population as of the 2010 Census,
and 2) structural improvements on parcels on the secured property tax rolls
according to the Assessor’s records as of January 1, 2017.
“Per Capita and Structural Improvements Formula” means the formula established by the District to determine how allocations of certain funding
programs under this proposition shall be distributed. Each Study Area’s
allocation percentage of the applicable funding programs shall be the arithmetic
mean of Per Capita and Structural Improvements, where Per Capita is weighted two-thirds and Structural Improvements are weighted one-third, and shall be calculated as follows: Allocation Percentage = [(Per Capita + Per Capita +
Structural Improvements)/3].
“Pre-Project Assistance” means the planning, design, feasibility and
studies necessary to define and articulate 1) a park project on land that was developed for uses other than parkland, or 2) a project to acquire and/or restore parks and natural lands.
"Public Agency" means any governmental agency, special district, or joint
power authority, established pursuant to the laws of the State that is authorized
to acquire, develop, improve and restore real property for beach, wildlife, park, recreation, community, cultural, open space, water quality, flood control, or gang prevention and intervention purposes.
“Recreation Access” means those programs that increase the ability for
county citizens to access public lands, park facilities, and park amenities,
including education, interpretive services, safety information, transportation, and
9
other activities that increase the accessibility for county residents, especially for those in high-need and very-high need study areas.
"Regional Recreational Parks" means facilities with unique, countywide
significance that are publicly owned, consist of at least 100 contiguous acres and
have three or more active recreational amenities.
"Special Tax" is the Tax levied on all improved parcels at a rate of 1.5 cents per square foot of structural improvements, within the County pursuant to
this resolution.
"State" means the State of California.
"State Lands Commission" means the Lands Commission of the State of California.
“Structural Improvements” means the square footage of building floor area
on a parcel.
“Study Areas” means the 188 regions studied for need in the 2016 Countywide Parks Needs Assessment.
“Urban area” means an urban place, as that term is defined by the United
States Department of Commerce, of 2,500 or more persons.
“Urban Forest” means those native or introduced trees and related
vegetation in an urban area, including, but not limited to, urban watersheds, soils and related habitats, street trees, park trees, natural riparian habitats, and trees on other private and public properties. Where feasible, introduced trees and
plants shall be native species selected and planted in accordance with best
management practices. No plants or trees identified on the California Invasive
Species list maintained by the California Invasive Plant Council, or other appropriate sources, shall be planted.
“Urban Forestry” means the cultivation and management of trees in an
urban area for their present and potential contribution to the economic,
physiological, sociological, and ecological well-being of urban society.
“Urban Park” means a park in an urban area that offers respite, rest, recreation, education, exercise, inspiration or enjoyment to residents of, and visitors to, that urban area.
“Veterans” means any person who served in the United States armed
forces as defined by Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
“Youth and Veterans Career Development and Job Training” means a program that provides job training, career development, or both, to young adults
10
aged 18-24 and veterans, including education and/or certification for jobs within the conservation and parks and recreation fields.
Section 4.
It is the intent of this proposition to provide funds to benefit property and improve the quality of life throughout the District by preserving and protecting parks, safe
places to play, community recreation facilities, beaches, rivers, open spaces,
water conservation, youth and veteran career development, and the urban tree
canopy. Funds will be disbursed by the District consistent with the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment to ensure all communities within the County can fund local priorities.
Section 5.
Expenditure Plan
(a) Proceeds of the Special Tax shall be allocated by the District to develop
and implement grant programs that invest in eligible projects consistent with or
similar to those identified in the 2016 Park Needs Assessment, including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Protecting and developing parks, safe places to play, beaches, open
space lands, and natural areas,
2. Protecting, enhancing, and preserving open space, natural areas, and waterways,
3. Promoting Healthy Communities,
4. Increasing investments in high-need and very high-need regions
identified in the Countywide Park Needs Assessment,
5. Protecting water resources, including lakes, rivers and creeks,
6. Developing and improving local and regional recreational facilities, including general infrastructure improvements, sustainability
improvements, and removal of asbestos, mold, and lead paint from
existing facilities,
7. Helping reduce gang activity by maintaining safe and healthy parks to encourage use by the community
8. Ensuring local drinking water continues to be safe and accessible at
park and recreation centers,
11
9. Providing safe places to play for afterschool programs for children and youth,
10. Providing youth and veteran career development and job training,
11. Improving park safety and universal accessibility, including for seniors
and those with disabilities,
12. Protecting and enhancing clean and safe beaches,
13. Improving water quality and implementing stormwater capture on park
and open space lands,
14. Developing and enhancing urban gardens, pocket parks, and other
small-scale greening projects, including education and food health programs,
15. Facilitating community education, engagement, natural, historical and
cultural resource interpretation, and other innovative projects that
engage the community regarding park facilities funded by the District.
16. Developing and enhancing senior citizen, youth, multi-generational, and other neighborhood and community recreation facilities,
17. Developing and enhancing public equestrian facilities, especially to
promote sustainable practices,
18. Developing, restoring and maintaining museums and cultural facilities,
19. Protecting and preserving the urban canopy and promoting tree health.
(b) The funds allocated pursuant to subsection (a) shall be expended
according to the following schedule:
(1) Community-Based Park Investment Program.
(A) Thirty-five percent (35%), on an annual basis, for eligible projects located in each study area, to all incorporated cities and unincorporated areas of the County located within the District. To
ensure that each community throughout the County will benefit from
improvements such as those identified in or consistent with those
identified in the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment Report, funds will be allocated to each study area based on the Per Capita and Structural Improvements Formula. The District shall prioritize
projects located in each study area as identified in or consistent
with the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment.
12
(2) Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks, Healthy Communities and Urban Greening Program.
(A) Thirteen percent (13%), on an annual basis, for the
acquisition of real property, and the construction and rehabilitation
of parks and recreation facilities that provide safe places and facilities for after-school, weekend and holiday programs for local children, youth and families, provide opportunities for healthy living
in all neighborhoods, and improve the quantity and quality of green
spaces in the county. The District shall fund projects in high-need,
and very high-need, study areas, as identified in the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment, based on the Per Capita and Structural Improvements Formula, including, but not limited to, the
following:
(i) community and local parks, including pocket parks, playgrounds, playground equipment, dog parks, and picnic areas, especially those that
connect and restore underutilized spaces;
(ii) community and senior recreational centers;
(iii) park safety, graffiti removal, facility safety lighting, safe routes to schools, and other safety improvements;
(iv) greenspace and greenway development;
gardens;
(v) urban canopy development to reduce the heat island effect, especially in heavily urbanized, tree-poor areas of the County;
(vi) active transportation and physical activity
programming that promotes recreation and
accessibility to recreational facilities; (vii) interpretation, education and communication about parks, local environmental issues and recreational
activities;
(B) Of the funds allocated to this paragraph, multi-benefit projects should seek to leverage public and private funding from water
conservation and supply; water and air quality improvements; flood
risk management; climate pollution reduction or adaptation; carbon
sequestration; heat-island reduction; habitat protection and biodiversity; public health; and environmental justice benefit programs.
(3) Natural Lands, Open Spaces and Local Beaches, Water Conservation,
and Watershed Protection Program.
13
(A) Thirteen percent (13%), on an annual basis, for planning, acquisition, development, improvement, and restoration, of multi-
benefit park projects that promote, improve, or protect clean local
water supplies, habitat improvements, park space, recreation,
public access, watershed health, and open space, including improvements or restoration of areas that buffer our rivers, streams, and their tributaries along with the lakes and
beaches throughout the County, including but not limited to, the
following:
(i) riparian corridor improvements; (ii) river and stream parkway development;
(iii) river and stream clean up, access and community
development;
(iv) lake clean up, access and community development; (v) beach and coastal watersheds clean-up, access and community development;
(vi) fishing and boating facilities;
(vii) natural lands, wildlife corridors, and watershed
protection; (viii) recreational facilities, public property and rights of way, flood control infrastructure, and other easements;
(ix) natural and cultural resource interpretive programs
and nature education activities.
(B) Of the funds allocated to this paragraph, multi-benefit projects should seek to leverage public and private funding from
water conservation and supply; water and air quality improvements;
flood risk management; climate pollution reduction or adaptation;
carbon sequestration; heat-island reduction; habitat protection and biodiversity; public health; and environmental justice benefit programs.
(C) The District shall prioritize projects that offer the greatest
regional benefits, or serve the greatest regional need.
(4) Regional Recreational Facilities, Multi-use Trails and Accessibility
Program.
(A) Thirteen percent (13%), on an annual basis, for acquisition, development, improvement, restoration, or rehabilitation projects, including but not limited to, the following:
(i) regional parks, regional facilities, museum,
environmental education and other cultural facilities;
14
(ii) multi-use sports facilities, including golf facilities and other community recreational facilities;
(iii) multi-use trail connectivity for existing and future
park facilities, including connection to Public
Works-maintained Class I bike path facilities; (iv) multi-use trail and path projects, with special emphasis being placed on those multi-use trails
that provide hiking, equestrian, bicycle and other
opportunities, including universal access and
access consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, especially in urban communities;
(v) regional, ecological, zoological, geological,
archeological, anthropological, paleontological,
and cultural sites of countywide significance. (B) Trail and accessibility projects funded under this paragraph
that connect river, mountain, and urban areas, especially to County
Parks, State Parks, the National Forest, the National Recreation
Area(s), and the National Monument(s), and that link other canyons and regional and local parks throughout the County will be given higher priority.
(5) Youth and Veteran Job Training and Placement Opportunities Program.
(A) Three point eight percent (3.8%), on an annual basis for:
(i) Organizations within the county, including certified
conservation corps, that provide education, skills training, and career pathway development to young adults, aged 18 to 25, or veterans, to
implement park projects.
(ii) Organizations within the county that provide
certifications and placement services, or apprenticeship opportunities, for young adults, aged 18-25, or veterans, for jobs and careers in
the Parks and Recreation field.
(B) The District shall prioritize grants to organizations that provide services to, or recruit a majority of their participants from, the areas of high-need, and very high-need, as identified in the
2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment Report. The District
shall grant no less than eighty percent (80%) of funds from this
paragraph pursuant to sub-paragraph (A)(i).
15
Section 6.
Implementation (a) Authority to award and administer grants pursuant to Section 5
shall be delegated by the Board to the Director for projects consistent with
this resolution.
(b) Of the funds allocated pursuant to Section 5, eligible project applicants include Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations.
(c) To the extent feasible, priority may be given to
multi-benefit recreational projects that maximize climate pollution reduction and adaptation, carbon sequestration, heat-island reduction, stormwater capture that increase infiltration, habitat protection and
biodiversity, community health improvements, promote innovative public-
private partnerships, or a combination thereof.
(d) Of the funds allocated pursuant to Section 5(b)(3) through Section 5(b)(5), the District may periodically dedicate a portion of funds to:
(1) Competitive grant solicitations accessible to eligible Public
Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations for projects consistent with the goals of this paragraph.
(2) Grant solicitations designed to leverage federal, or state, park,
conservation, water, or climate funding programs.
(e) Consistent with Section 5, in each of the years after the date the special tax is levied and collected, the schedule of expenditure of all
proceeds of the special tax shall conform to the following:
(1) Up to seventy-seven percent (77%) shall be used for grant
projects, including but not limited to, pre-project assistance, planning, acquisition, development, improvement, restoration, rehabilitation, technical assistance, and program oversight. For
purposes of this resolution, grant projects include the servicing of
bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness issued by the
District/County.
(2) Up to fifteen percent (15%) shall be set aside and designated as the maintenance and servicing amount, and shall be used only to
maintain and service, including resource protection activities for the
capital outlay projects funded by the District, inclusive of projects
funded by 1992 and 1996 Propositions. These funds shall be
16
administered separately from the District’s grant program and shall be held in trust by the District until a request from an eligible entity
is made pursuant to rules established by the District. To ensure that
every community maintains park and recreation facilities and park
safety improvements as identified in, consistent with or similar to the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment, funds granted pursuant this paragraph will be allocated based on the Per Capita
and Structural Improvements Formula. The District shall grant
funds, pursuant to this paragraph, for projects identified in the 188
study areas, as well as the associated addenda, as contained in the report. For projects identified in the 188 study areas, the District shall prioritize funds for high-need, and very high-need, areas as
identified in the report, as well as projects that provide public
access. The maintenance and servicing amount shall be allocated
each year as follows:
(A) Fifty point eighty-five percent (50.85%) to cities; ten point fifty percent (10.50%) to the Department of Beaches and
Harbors; thirteen point five percent (13.50%) to the Department
of Parks and Recreation; three percent (3.00%) to the
Department of Public Works; one percent (1.0%) to the Baldwin Hills Regional Conservation Authority; point five percent (0.5%) to the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority; eight percent (8.0%) to
the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority; two
percent (2.0%) to the Puente Hills Habitat Preservation
Authority; one percent (1.0%) to the Santa Clarita Watershed Recreation and Conservation Authority; five point fifteen percent (5.15%) to the Watershed Conservation Authority; and, four
point five percent (4.5%) unallocated for eligible nonprofit
organizations that own, operate, or both, parklands consistent
with this resolution.
(i) Any additional local agencies created for park purposes after January 1, 2017, may receive funding made available
pursuant to (e)(2)(A) according to a determination made by
the District.
(3) Up to seven point two percent (7.2%) shall be set aside and designated for strategic planning, updates to the 2016 Countywide Park Needs Assessment, and the District for operations,
management, technical assistance, outreach, and oversight,
including personnel, to administer programs pursuant to this
resolution. (f) Notwithstanding Section 6(e), starting in 2026, and each year
thereafter, the District may increase funds made available pursuant to
provision (e)(2) up to 2%, annually, and correspondingly decrease funds
17
made available pursuant to (e)(1), until funding made available pursuant to provision (e)(1) and (e)(2) both equal 46.4%.
(g) (1) Funds for maintenance and servicing as described in this
section shall be allocated annually to each recipient within the District.
Allocations shall be made only to those entities which certify that: (A) such funds shall be used only to maintain and service projects funded by the District, inclusive of grants issued pursuant to the 1992 and 1996
Propositions and this resolution, and (B) such funds shall not be used to
fund existing levels of service, but rather only to supplement or enhance
existing service levels.
(2) Funds allocated to the Department of Beaches and Harbors consistent with (e)(2)(A) shall be used for projects that repair and
replace facilities impacted from high user activity and
weatherization from being located near the ocean, such funds shall
be used to supplement existing levels of service.
(h) Except for those funds allocated to cities, the Director may, on an annual basis with Board approval, adjust the allocations pursuant to
Section 6 (e)(A) .
(i) (1) Of the funds provided in Section 5 (b)(3), up to twenty-five
percent (25%), on an annual basis, shall be allocated to the Department of Beaches and Harbors.
(2) Of the funds provided in Section 5 (b)(3), up to fifteen percent
(15%), on an annual basis, shall be allocated to develop and
implement Recreation Access programs that increase the ability for
county citizens to access public lands, park facilities, and park amenities, including education, interpretive services, safety information, transportation, and other activities that increase the
accessibility for county residents, especially for those in high-need
and very-high need areas. Programs funded pursuant to this
paragraph shall meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(3) Of the funds provided in Section 5 (b)(4), up to twenty five
percent (25%), on an annual basis, shall be allocated to the
Department of Parks and Recreation.
(4) Of the funds provided in Section 5 (b)(4), up to fifteen percent (15%), on an annual basis, shall be allocated to develop and implement Recreation Access programs that increase the ability for
county citizens to access public lands and park facilities, including
education, interpretive services, safety information, transportation,
and other activities that increase the accessibility for county
18
residents, especially for those in high-need and very-high need areas. Programs funded pursuant to this paragraph shall meet the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(5) Of the funds provided in Section 5(b)(4), up to ten percent
(10%), on an annual basis, shall be allocated to County cultural facilities.
(j) The District shall promote sustainability, energy and water
efficiency, stormwater capture, and technology innovation through the
implementation of this program, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Development of projects that include as many of the following elements as possible:
(A) Sustainability,
(B) Cost-saving energy efficiency, (C) Weatherization, (D) Stormwater capture
(E) Water efficiency, including irrigation efficiency,
(F) Use of reclaimed water or stormwater, and
(G) Use of climate and site appropriate native California tree and plant materials.
(2) Investment in enhanced electronic communications and other
forms of technology innovation that benefits the public’s interactions
with individual parks or the park system, including internet connectivity; electronic or mobile reservation, scheduling, and fee systems; regional websites; or other systems deemed necessary by
the District.
(k) (1) The Director may provide advanced payment for up to 50 percent (50%) of the grant award for those projects that satisfy one or both of the following criteria:
(A) The project proponent is an eligible grantee and would
require advanced payment to implement the project. (B) The grant award for the project is less than five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000).
(2) The Director shall establish rules to determine how advanced funds will be managed and administered.
(3) If funds are not expended, the unused portion of the grant shall
be returned to the District within 60 days after project completion or
the end of the grant performance period, whichever is earlier.
19
(4) All funds granted pursuant to this paragraph are subject to an
independent audit.
(l) Notwithstanding Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this resolution, of the funds available from the special tax, the District’s Board may, on an annual basis, allocate up to 2% of the funds for eligible projects.
(m) As a California Special District established pursuant to Section
5500 of the Public Resource Code, officers and employees of the County may act ex officio as the officers and employees of the District. However, in order to maintain transparency and accountability to the public and
fairness to its various grant recipients, the District shall hereby operate as
an independent agency of the County, with the District Administrator
reporting directly to the Director of Parks and Recreation with clear separation from its grant recipients in all aspects of District administration including, but not limited to, personnel, fiscal, budget, and audit functions.
(n) The District shall have the authority to grant funds from any study area
with a population of 2,500, or less, to an adjacent high-need, or very high-need study area.
Section 7.
Community Oversight and Accountability (a) The Citizens Oversight Advisory Board ("Advisory Board") is hereby
created.
(1) The Advisory Board shall be composed of five members appointed by the Board. Each appointing office shall appoint one member who meets each of the following criteria:
(A) An accountant, economist, or other professional with knowledge
and expertise in parks, park development, evaluating financial transactions and program cost-effectiveness, or an appointed member of the Park Needs Assessment Steering Committee;
(B) A community member from one of the five Supervisorial
Districts. (2) The Advisory Board shall do all of the following:
(A) Quarterly (4 times per year) review of all expenditures from the
special tax;
20
(B) Ensure that this program is integrated in the annual
independent audit of the District;
(C) Publish a complete accounting of all allocations each year, posting the information on the District’s publicly accessible Internet Web site; in a downloadable spreadsheet format, including
information about the location and footprint of each funded project,
its objectives, status, and outcomes, any matching funds used, and
the applicable program from the expenditure plan schedule in Section 5(b);
(D) Submit to the County periodic evaluations of the program,
which may at the Board’s direction be undertaken by independent
researchers, identifying any changes needed to meet the objectives of this resolution.
(3) (A) Members of the Advisory Board shall serve a term of four years
at the pleasure of the Board, and no member may serve more than
two consecutive four-year terms. The Board may, by order, extend this length of service or waive this limit for individuals or the Advisory Board as a whole. A member's position shall become
vacant upon his or her death, resignation, or removal by the
Advisory Board. In the case of such a vacancy, the Board shall
appoint a successor to fill the unexpired term. (B) Members of the Advisory Board shall not be compensated for
their service, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary
expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.
Section 8.
Eligibility
(a) No funds authorized pursuant to Section 5 may be disbursed to any recipient unless the recipient agrees:
(1) To maintain and operate in perpetuity the property acquired,
developed, improved, rehabilitated or restored with the funds. With the
approval of the granting agency, the recipient or its successors in interest in the property may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property in accordance with this Section.
(2) (A) To use the property only for the purposes of this resolution and to
make no other use, sale, or disposition of the property, except as described in paragraph (B).
21
(B) If the use of the property acquired through grants pursuant to
this resolution is changed to one other than a use permitted under
the category from which the funds were provided, or the property is
sold or otherwise disposed of, an amount equal to the (1) amount of the grant, (2) the fair market value of the real property, or (3) the proceeds from the portion of such property acquired, developed,
improved, rehabilitated or restored with the grant, whichever is
greater, shall be used by the recipient for a purpose authorized in
that category or shall be reimbursed to the Parks Fund and shall be available for a use authorized in that category. If the property sold or otherwise disposed of is less than the entire
interest in the property originally acquired, developed, improved,
rehabilitated or restored with the grant, an amount equal to the
proceeds or the fair market value of the property interest sold or otherwise disposed of, whichever is greater, shall be used by the grantee for a purpose authorized in that category or shall be
reimbursed to the Parks Fund and be available for a use authorized
in that category. Nothing in this Section shall limit a Public Agency
from transferring property acquired pursuant to this order to the National Park Service or the State Park System, with or without consideration.
(3) Any beach, park or other public facility acquired, developed,
rehabilitated or restored with funds from this act shall be open and accessible to the public without discrimination as to race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious belief, national origin, marital status,
physical or medical handicap, medical condition or place of residence, to
the extent consistent with the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 9.
(4) In order to maintain the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on any bonds, notes or other
evidences of indebtedness issued for purposes of this resolution, each
recipient of funds pursuant to this resolution covenants to comply with
each applicable requirement of Section 103 and Sections 141 through 150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Each recipient of funds disbursed pursuant to this resolution shall agree in writing to the
conditions specified in this paragraph.
(5) An entity receiving funds pursuant to this resolution shall agree to audits of expenditures on a regular basis, as directed by the District.
(6) To the extent practicable, a project that receives funds from this
measure will include signage informing the public that the project received
funds from the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District.
22
Section 9.
Property
(a) All real property acquired pursuant to this resolution shall be acquired in compliance with Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 7260) of Division 7 of
Title 1 of the California Government Code. Public Agencies and Nonprofit
Organizations receiving funds pursuant to this resolution shall certify compliance
to the Department of Parks and Recreation. Funds disbursed to a Public Agency in accordance with this resolution may be expended by that agency pursuant to an agreement, or by an entity, authorized or established pursuant to Article 1
(commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
Government Code.
(b) Reasonable public access to lands acquired in fee with funds made available pursuant to this resolution shall be provided except where that access
may interfere with resource protection. For purposes of this resolution,
reasonable public access shall include parking and public restrooms.
(c) Prior to recommending the acquisition of lands that are located on or near tidelands, submerged lands, swamp or overflowed lands, or other wetlands,
whether or not those lands have been granted in trust to a local public agency,
any agency receiving funds pursuant to this resolution shall submit to the State
Lands Commission any proposal for the acquisition of those lands pursuant to this measure. The State Lands Commission may, at its discretion, within ninety (90) days of such a submission, review the proposed acquisition, make a
determination as to the State's existing or potential interest in the lands, and
report its findings to the entity making the submittal and to the Department of
Parks and Recreation. (d) No wetlands or riparian habitat acquired pursuant to this resolution shall
be used as a dredge spoil area or shall be subject to revetment which damages
the quality of the habitat for which the property was acquired.
(e) No provision of this resolution shall be construed as authorizing the condemnation of publicly-owned lands.
(f) Funds that are granted pursuant to this resolution for the purposes of
development, improvement, rehabilitation or restoration shall be expended for these purposes only on lands owned by the applicant Public Agency or Nonprofit Organization or subject to a lease or other interest held by such Public
Agency or Nonprofit Organization. If such lands are not owned by the applicant
or subject to such other interest held by the applicant, the applicant shall first
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the administering agency that the project will
23
provide public benefits commensurate with the type and duration of the interest in land held by the applicant.
(g) The use of property acquired using funds pursuant to this resolution shall be
consist with purposes identified in this resolution and shall be set forth in the grant contract executed by the District. Unless otherwise approved by the Board, in no circumstances may oil, gas, or other mineral extraction occur on or under
any property acquired with funds pursuant to this resolution.
(h) The District shall ensure the following: (1) To the maximum extent possible an irrevocable deed restriction setting
forth the requirements of this resolution shall be recorded on all properties
for which funds are awarded pursuant to this resolution. This deed
restriction shall provide that the County may enforce the requirements of this resolution, and the contract entered into with the recipient of grant funds, at any time without restriction of any statute of limitations, and that
the County shall be awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs for
such enforcement.
(2) A grant applicant must maintain and operate in perpetuity the property that was acquired, developed, improved, rehabilitated or restored with the
funds from this resolution, and the purpose and/or use of the property for
such acquisition, development, improvement, rehabilitation, or
restoration. The recipient must also enter into a contract with the County whereby the recipient shall agree to comply with all terms of this resolution and any other terms deemed necessary by the District for the effective
administration and implementation of this resolution. Said contract shall
have no termination date and its provisions shall last in perpetuity. With
the prior approval of the District, the recipient or its successors in interest in the property may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property in accordance with this resolution.
(3) That any beach, park, or other public facility acquired, developed,
rehabilitated, or restored with funds derived under this resolution shall be open and accessible to the public without discrimination as to race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious belief, national origin, marital status,
physical or medical handicap, medical condition, or place of
residence. The recipient shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any person or organization seeking to use such facility based upon the place of residence of such person or the members of such organization.
(4) That the conditions specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this
Section shall not prevent the transfer of property acquired, developed, improved, rehabilitated or restored with funds authorized pursuant to
24
Section 5 of this resolution from the recipient to another Public Agency or to a Nonprofit Organization authorized to acquire, develop, improve,
restore and/or operate real property for park, wildlife, recreation,
community, open space or gang prevention and intervention purposes, or
to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, National Park Service, or the US Forest Service, provided that approval by the District is obtained prior to the change and any such successor to the recipient
assumes the obligations imposed by this resolution.
(5) Revenue generated on projects funded by this measure shall be utilized for the purposes of the measure.
Section 10.
Financing (a) It is the intention of the Board to authorize the District to issue Bonds
payable from and secured by the Special Taxes to fund all or a portion of the
costs of the projects authorized by this resolution pursuant to Article 3 of
Division 5 of the Public Resources Code. In addition, the District may also issue Bonds as may be authorized by applicable law in the future. Such Bonds may be issued in one or more series at such times, in such principal amounts, with
such terms and subject to sale, all as the Board may determine in its sole
discretion.
(b) All funds generated by the Special Tax shall be deposited into the Regional Parks and Open Space District Park Fund (Parks Fund). The Auditor-
Controller of the County, on behalf of the District, may create any other funds,
accounts or subaccounts necessary or desirable, including for the proceeds of
Bonds issued by the District. (c) All revenue generated by the District, including the proceeds from the
issuance of any Bonds, shall be deposited in the Parks Fund and shall be
allocated among all affected Public Agencies within the District as defined in
Section 5506.9 of the California Public Resources Code, for expenditure consistent with the purposes of Division 5, Chapter 3, Article 3 of the Public Resources Code and of this resolution. The District shall reimburse the County
from the Parks Fund for all costs of administration of the District, and the costs
of issuance of bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness.
(d) Pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 5506.9 of the Public Resources Code, no proceeds from any Bonds issued by the District shall be used for any
operations, maintenance or servicing purposes, except that such proceeds may
be used to pay all costs incidental to the preparation and issuance of the bonds.
25
Section 11.
The Special Tax levied pursuant to this resolution shall be levied for a period of
not exceeding thirty-five (35) years beginning with the fiscal year in which the tax
is first levied by the District and collected by the County.
Section 12.
(a) In case any provision of this resolution shall be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
Section 13.
(a) This resolution shall take effect immediately, and upon declaration by the Board that the Special Tax herein has been approved by the voters, all officers and employees of the County and the District shall take all actions necessary and
desirable to carry out the purposes of this resolution. The officers and employees
of the County and the ex officio officers and employees of the District, are and
each of them acting alone is, hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions which are necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes of this resolution.