Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 1 City of Sanger
Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces, 2024 Background
In 2024, the Fresno County Department of Public Health ( FCDPH), CalFresh Healthy Living (CFHL) partnered with the City of Sanger, Parks and Recreation, Community Development, Planning and Zoning Division to conduct the Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces (EAPRS) . EAPRS is an observational assessment tool utilized while observing parks in Sanger. EAPRS is a systematic observation instrument used to evaluate the physical environment of parks and playgrounds (Saelens et al.,2006 ) The instrument assesses features such as trails, open spaces, athletic fields, play equipment, and aesthetic aspects like cleanliness, condition, and accessibility. The tool helps government, researchers, residents, and urban planners understand how well public recreational spac es support physical activity, particularly for children and families. It incorporates both objective measurements (e.g., presence of amenities) and subjective ratings (e.g., cleanliness, condition).
The goal of CFHL is to make the healthy choice , the easy choice through policy, systems, and environmental change. The CFHL staff engages with stakeholders , community members, youth, and adults, to empower residents to increase access to healthy food and beverage options and access to physical activity opportunities while decreasing the appeal and consumption of unhealthy foods and beverages and reducing barriers to daily physical activity opportunities.
CFHL is striving to conduct EAPRS observational assessments in eight Fresno County communities, provide a summary of pre -assessment results and considerations for each respective City to help support city efforts to increase access and utilization of parks within each city.
The assessment of parks, trails, and open spaces is conducted to evaluate how well these spaces support physical activity. In partnership and with the city approval, each park within each of the eight communities will be assessed twice: the initial assessment in 2024 and a post -assessment in 2026. This pre - and post-assessment approach aims to measure the effectiveness of any interventions made between the two periods. In between the pre and post EAPRS assessments, CFHL staff will collaborate with each comm unity by providing support, resources, and technical assistance to help improve park access, program ming, and decrease identified barriers for daily physical activity opportunities.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 2 Approach
Data Sources and Data Collection
In the spring of 2024, CFHL met with City of Sanger Parks and Recreation Division about EAPRS. City of Sanger Parks and Recreation Division requested that CFHL meet and receive approval from City of Sanger Community Development Director and Planning and Zoning to conduct EAPRS. In May 2024, CFHL team met with City of Sanger Planning and Zoning Senior Planner to discuss and receive approval to conduct EAPR S. City of Sanger Planning and Zoning approved observations at all parks. The CFHL team agreed to provide pre-assessment data, analytics, and summary results to utilize in future parks and recreation master planning and state and federal grant opportunities.
In August 2024, CFHL staff conducted observational assessments with 20 parks in the City of Sanger, utilizing REDCap, a secure web application for building and managing online surveys and databases. REDCap is the FCDPH’s internal data project management system for data collection. Each park was observed by the same three CFHL staff to ensure thorough and consistent data collection, aiming to produce fair, credible and accurate assessments to reflect park conditions.
From September 2024 -November 2024, the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, Surveillance , and Data Management staff conducted the pre -assessment analysis and developed the summary with considerations to share with City of Sanger Parks and Recreation Division, Community Development, Planning and Zoning Division.
Tools of Measurement
The EAPRS tool, used for these assessments, is divided into four sections: Park Name and Access Fees, Physical Activity Elements, Aesthetics, and Amenities. The tool employs standardized scales to ensure consistency across different observers and locations:
• PEX (Condition) Scaling : Evaluates the physical state of park features (e.g., trails, seating) on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 indicates poor condition, 2 indicates fair, and 3 indicates excellent.
• NATE (Cleanliness) Scaling : Measures cleanliness, rating elements such as litter, graffiti, and debris on a 1 to 3 scale, with 1 representing poor, 2 fair, and 3 excellent.
• PER (Coverage/Shade) Scaling: Assesses shade coverage, with 1 representing no shade, 2 indicating partial shade, and 3 signifying full
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 3 coverage.
The initial analysis was primarily descriptive. As each park was observed and assessed by three CFHL staff. Staff observation discrepancies were resolved using a majority rule approach to minimize the influence of outlier responses and ensure consistency in the results. The analysis focused on categorical ratings (e.g., condition of open spaces, sidewalk width), with only releva nt applicable aspects of the EAPRS tool for each park. Not all elements were applicable to every park.
Critical elements not included in the final analysis and in the summary provided a brief explanation to give context to their exclusion and bring clarity of the overall findings.
In cases where one observer did not provide a rating for a particular element, the ratings from the remaining two observers were used. If observer ratings differed and were unable to apply the majority rule, all three ratings were reported to reflect the variation. These approaches ensured data integrity and minimized the impact of missing values in the overall assessment, while maintaining transparency in reporting discrepancies.
City of Sanger Parks Pre-Assessment Results
Park Access and Fees for City of Sanger
Twenty (20) parks were assessed in the City of Sanger, including:
• Acacia Park • Arts Park
• Audry Park • Brehler Square
• Cesar Chavez Park • Civic Center Park
• Community Center • Faller Park
• Galoostian Park • Greenwood Park
• Jenni Park • John F. Kennedy (JFK) Park
• Kelly Park • Medrano Park
• Quality Ave Park • Rotary Ball Park
• Sam Gutierrez Park • Sanger Park
• Sanger Youth Center • Veterans Park
All 20 parks offered free entrance, meaning there were no fees required for access . (Table 1). Similarly, parking was free at all parks, either through designated parking lots or available street parking, with no fees imposed.
As for parks with amenities, which included swimming pools and skate parks, 19 of the 20 parks allowed free use of their facilities. The only exception was Community
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 4 Center Park, where a fee was required to use the swimming pool, charging $4 for adults and $3 for youth. This made Community Center Park the only park with a paid amenity among those assessed.
Physical Activity Aspects
Open Space
Out of the 20 parks assessed, 18 (90%) had open space, while Civic Center Park and Sam Gutierrez Park were the only two parks (10%) without any open space (Table 2).
Among the parks with open space, 15 (83%) featured large open spaces (>100 ft X >100 ft), and 3 (17%; Brehler Park, Galoostian Park, and Veterans Park) had medium-sized spaces (50-100 ft X 50-100 ft).
All 18 (100%) parks with open space had grass as the predominant surface type. While grass provides a soft, natural surface that is generally suitable for activities such as running, walking, and casual sports, this lack of surface variety may limit the potential for other types of activities, like cycling or skateboarding, which often require harder surfaces.
When assessing the condition of these open spaces using the PEX scale, 14 parks (78%) were rated as having fair conditions, characterized by some imperfections such as uneven areas or the presence of small obstructions. The remaining 4 parks (22%) – Audry Park, Kelly Park, Quality Ave Park , and Veterans Park – had excellent conditions, free from significant imperfections. While the majority of parks have adequate open spaces, there is opportunity for improvements to help elevate more parks to an excellent standard.
Swimming/Wading Pools
Sanger City parks were observered during the early summer of 2024. Out of the 20 parks assessed, only 1 park (5%) – Community Center – had swimming or wading pools (Table 3). The pool was fully operational at the time of assessment, ensuring its availability for use. In terms of cleanliness, the pool received high marks on the NATE scale, being rated as mostly to extremely clean, indicating it was well-maintained with only minor wear. This is important as cleanliness directly impacts the safety and appeal of the facility, encouraging greater public use.
Additionally, the pool was assessed to be in excellent condition using the PEX scale, meaning it was fully functional and in good to excellent condition, with no significant operational issues. This level of maintenance highlights that while pools are limited in number, the facilities that do exist are well -kept, ensuring a pleasant experience for
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 5 users. Although John F. Kennedy (JFK) Park did not have a swimming or wading pool, it featured a splash zone, which was assessed to be extremely clean and in excellent condition.
Surrounding Park Sidewalks
All 20 parks (100%) were observed to have sidewalks surrounding the park, providing accessibility for pedestrians (Table 4). The cleanliness of these sidewalks w ere rated as mostly to extremely clean in 95% of the parks, indicating good maintenance and few litter issues. Galoostian Park had somewhat clean sidewalks, and minor attention may be needed in isolated areas of the park.
The condition of 12 parks (60%) rated sidewalks as fair, indicating the presence of imperfections like uneven areas that may pose tripping hazards. Meanwhile, 8 parks (40%) - Arts Park, Audry Park, Cesar Chavez Park, Quality Ave Park, Rotary Ball Park, Sam Gutierrez Park, Sanger Youth Center , and Veterans Park – had sidewalks in excellent condition. This split suggests that while most sidewalks are functional, there is room for improvement, particularly in the parks where uneven or damaged sidewalks could diminish the user experience or increase safety risks.
Sidewalk width is also an important factor. Sixteen parks (80%) had sidewalks with widths between 2-5 feet, sufficient for two adults walking side by side. In contrast, 4 parks (20%) – Rotary Ball Park, Sam Gutierrez Park, Sanger Park, and Veterans Park – had sidewalks wider than 5 feet, making them suitable for larger groups. These wider sidewalks can accommodate higher pedestrian traffic and enhance accessibility for families and those with strollers, wheelchairs, or bicycles. To be considered American with Disabilities Act ( ADA) accessible, a sidewalk should be at least 3 feet, 4 feet is preferred (U.S. Access Board, n.d).
Linkages between sidewalks and park paths were present in 15 parks (75%). Linkages facilitate the ease of movement from surrounding park sidewalks to internal park trails. However, 5 parks (25%) – Cesar Chavez Park, Civic Center Park, Faller Park, Medrano Park , and Quality Ave Park —have an opportunity to facilitate linkages.
Absence of linkage may signal potential barriers to park entry, reducing the overall usability of these spaces, particularly for individuals with mobility limitations.
The availability of crosswalks is another key element for pedestrian safety and accessibility. Fifteen parks (75%) had crosswalks across streets in or near the parks, while 5 parks (25%) – Audry Park, Faller Park, Jenni Park, Rotary Ball Park , and Veterans Park – lacked this element. The absence of crosswalks can create safety risks for pedestrians, particularly in areas where parks are adjacent to busy streets and may limit access to the parks.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 6 Playsets and Playset Equipment Features
Out of 20 parks, 11 parks (55%) – Audry Park, Cesar Chavez Park, Civic Center Park, Community Center, Faller Park, Greenwood Park, Jenni Park, JFK Park, Kelly Park, Sanger Park, and Veterans Park – had playsets or structures, with a majority in fair condition, demonstrating some maintenance issues that could benefit from upgrades (Table 5). Veterans Park stood out for having excellent conditions in several key areas, including playsets, hanging and sliding elements, climbing structures, and standing/walking elements, making it one of the parks with the best overall playset conditions. Other parks, such as Kelly Park and Cesar Chavez Park, also had excellent conditions in some features but did not match Veterans Park's consistency across multiple categories. Common features like slides (91%), functional stairs/ladders (100%), climbing structures (91%), and standing/walking elements (100%) were widely available, though cleanliness was mostly moderate . Kelly Park and Veterans Park maintained excellent cleanliness standards. Swings were present in 36% of parks (4 parks), and the swings at JFK Park were observed to be out of working order, limiting play opportunities.
Imaginary play structures were noted as minor wear and tear while functional in 45% of parks . Overall, while the parks generally offered a range of play features, improvements in cleanliness, repairs, and the inclusion of additional equipment, such as swings and climbing elements , could enhance the safety and overall play experience for youth.
Athletic Fields and Athletic Courts
Athletic fields and courts in the parks provide spaces for a range of sports, from baseball/softball and soccer to basketball and tennis. Out of 20 parks, 9 parks (45%) had athletic fields – Acacia Park, Arts Park, Cesar Chavez Park, Faller Park, Greenwood Park, Jenni Park, JFK Park, Rotary Ball Park , and Veterans Park (Table 6) – while 7 parks (35%) had athletic courts – Cesar Chavez Park, Community Center, Faller Park, Greenwood Park, JFK Park, Sanger Park, and Sanger Youth Center (Table 7). Parks with at hletic fields generally had one field per park, except for Greenwood Park and Jenni Park, which featured larger fields suitable for multiple sports.
Overall, the facilities were well -maintained, with 89% of athletic fields and 86% of athletic courts reporting moderate to excellent surface conditions. JFK Park had poor conditions for both fields and courts, raising concerns about safety due to uneven surfaces and cracks. Veterans Park stood out for its excellent field conditions. Cesar
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 7 Chavez Park, Greenwood Park, and Sanger Youth Center had courts in excellent condition.
Striped courts were more common, with 71% of courts properly marked for games.
However, Community Center and Sanger Park, lacked proper striping and necessary components, limiting their full functionality. In contrast, striped fields were less common, with 44% of fields—including those at Cesar Chavez Park, Faller Park, JFK Park, and Rotary Ball Park – lack clear markings. Five parks (56%) – Acacia Park, Arts Park, Greenwood Park, Jenni Park , and Veterans Park – were marked as “N/A” because their fields are used for activities that may or may not require line markings.
For example, all five fields featured disc golf, which does not require line marking, while sports like soccer and football do. Notably, Cesar Chavez Park, JFK Park, and Sanger Park had both athletic fields and courts, making them versatile spaces for various recreational activities.
Other Physical Activity Aspects
Acacia Park, had paved trails in excellent condition and very clean, with an estimated length of 0.5 mile. Community Center park has a skate park, in fair condition and moderately clean. Audry Park offers playset features, to include a spring toy and teeter-totter, both in excellent condition and well-maintained.
Aesthetics
City of Sanger Park neighborhood was observed to be clean and well-maintained.
Nineteen parks (95%) were rated as mostly to extremely clean, indicating minimal litter and graffiti (Table 8). However, JFK Park was noted for moderate cleanliness, suggesting the presence of litter and graffiti. Eighteen parks (90%) were noted to be in excellent condition, well-maintained buildings, ground surfaces, and natural areas.
JFK Park and Sanger Youth Center aesthetics were rated fair, noting uneven surfaces and minor imperfections.
Water fountain features were observed in 2 parks (10%) – Sam Gutierrez Park and Sanger Park. The water fountain feature at Sam Gutierrez Park was operational and in excellent condition. In contrast, Sanger Park ’s water fountain feature was non - operational.
Historical monuments were present in 6 parks (30%) – Brehler Square, Faller Park, Galoostian Park, Medrano Park, Rotary Ball Park , and Sanger Park . All the monuments were observed to be extremely clean, reflecting excellent care and preservation. Most monuments were also in excellent condition, except for Faller Park, rated as fair, indicating some minor issues.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 8 Amenities
Paths Linking Park Elements
Out of 20 parks, 17 parks (85%) had distinct and designated walking paths or routes, either paved or unpaved, providing important spaces for physical activity (Table 9).
However, 3 parks (15%) – Brehler Square, Civic Center, and Medrano Park – lacked any clear paths.
Among the parks with paths, 15 parks (88%) had extremely clean paths, while Community Center and Sanger Youth Center had moderately clean paths. In terms of path condition, 12 parks (71%) rated excellent, while 5 parks (29%) – Faller Park, Jenni Park, JFK Park , Community Center, and Sanger Park – rated fair, indicating uneven surface areas that may need attention to improve safety and usability.
Shade coverage along paths varied significantly. Eight parks (47%) had limited coverage (0 -33%), including Audry Park, Faller Park, Galoostian Park, Greenwood Park, Jenni Park, Quality Ave Park, Sanger Youth Center, and Veterans Park, making these paths less appealing during hot weather. Eight parks (4 7%) had moderate coverage (34-66%), such as Acacia Park, Cesar Chavez Park, Community Center, JFK Park, Kelly Park, Sam Gutierrez, Rotary Ball Park , and Sanger Park , offering a balance between sun and shade. Only 1 park (6%) – Arts Park – had substantial shade coverage (67-100%), providing better protection from the sun.
Drinking Fountains
Twelve parks (60%) had drinking fountains, providing an important amenity for visitors, while 8 parks (40%) did not (Table 10). The parks with drinking fountains were Audry Park, Cesar, Chavez Park, Community Center, Faller Park, Greenwood Park, Jenni Park, JFK Park, Kelly Park, Rotary Ball Park, Sanger Park, Sanger Youth Center, and Veterans Park.
When assessing the condition of drinking fountains, factors such as consistent water flow, proper drainage, and the height of the water flow were considered. Eleven parks (92%) had drinking fountains that were functional with minor flaws. Audry Park was the only park that did not have functional drinking fountains.
Notably, all drinking fountains were child height or handicap accessible, demonstrating a commitment to inclusivity and ensuring that visitors of all abilities can access drinking water. However, not all parks had paved surfacing around the fountains. Nine parks (75%) had paved areas suitable for standing while drinking, while Greenwood Park, Jenni Park, and Cesar Chavez Park lacked paved surfacing
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 9 around their fountains. For these three parks, providing paved surfacing around fountains can increase accessibility, particularly for individuals with mobility challenges.
Grills/Fire Pits
Fourteen parks (70%) had grills or fire pits, providing amenities for outdoor gatherings and barbecues, while 6 parks (30%) did not have this feature (Table 11). Parks with grills/fire pits were Audry Park, Cesar Chavez Park, Community Center, Faller Park, Galoostian Park, Greenwood Park, Jenni Park, JFK Park, Kelly Park, Medrano Park, Rotary Ball Park, Sanger Park, Sanger Youth Center, and Veterans Park.
Among the parks with grills or fire pits, 12 parks (86%) had moderately clean grills or fire pits , requiring minor cleaning before use. Galoostian Park and Sanger Youth Center had mostly clean grills that were ready for immediate use. The majority of City parks with grills or fire pits (11 of 14) were in fair condition (79%), meaning they were partially functional with some operational limitations. Kelly Park , Sanger Youth Center and Veterans Park, however, stood out for having grills or fire pits in excellent condition, which were fully functional and ready to use.
Restrooms
Seven parks (35%) had publicly accessible restrooms, for visitors (Table 12). When assessing restroom conditions, the functionality of sinks and toilets were considered.
The parks with restrooms included Cesar Chavez Park, Faller Park, Greenwood Park, JFK Park, Rotary Ball Park, Sanger Park , and Veterans Park . Six parks (85%) had moderate to extremely clean restrooms . Rotary Ball Park was noted to have the cleanest restrooms. Faller Park was observed as unclean. Five parks (71%) had restrooms in fair condition, meaning they were partially functional with some operational issues. However, Greenwood Park and Sanger Park had poor restroom conditions, indicating non-functional toilets or sinks.
Picnic Areas, Benches, and Tables
Fifteen parks (75%) had designated picnic areas, providing spaces for outdoor dining and gatherings (Table 13). However, 5 parks (25%) – Acacia Park, Arts Park, Audry Park, Brehler Square, and Quality Ave Park – did not have picnic areas. Adding picnic areas to these parks could enhance their usability for visitors seeking to enjoy meals and social gatherings in outdoor settings. In terms of cleanliness, all 15 parks with picnic areas were rated as moderately to extremely clean, indicating that most areas are well-maintained. Some parks may require more frequent maintenance to ensure consistent cleanliness of their picnic areas, benches and tables.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 10 Shade coverage over picnic areas varied. Nine parks (60%) had shaded picnic areas, providing protection from the sun, making them more comfortable during warmer months. Parks that had shaded areas included Civic Center Park, Community Center, Faller Park, Galoostian Park, Greenwood Park, JFK Park, Rotary Ball Park, Sam Gutierrez Park, and Sanger Park. However, six parks (40%) had picnic areas without shade, which may make them less appealing during hot weather.
Eleven parks (55%) in Sanger offered benches, including Audry Park, Brehler Square, Cesar Chavez Park, Civic Center Park, Community Center, Faller Park, Greenwood Park, JFK Park, Kelly Park, Rotary Ball Park , and Sam Gutierrez Park (Table 14).
Expanding bench availability to other parks would provide more resting spots, especially for families and seniors. Almost all parks had moderately to extremely clean benches, with Audry Park, Brehler Square, Community Center, Kelly Park, and Rotary Ball Park maintaining extremely clean conditions. Most benches (82%) were in fair condition, requiring some repairs, while Community Center and Faller Park had benches in excellent condition. Shade varie d, with six parks (55%) offering minimal coverage (0-33%) and include: Cesar Chavez Park,Community Center, Faller Park, Greenwood Park,Kelly Park, Rotary Ball Park. Five parks (45%) provided more shade (34-100%) and include: Brehler Square, Civic Center Park, Community Center, JFK Park, and Sam Gutierrez Park. .
Sixteen parks (80%) provided tables for visitors, creating opportunity to host a gathering (Table 15). Acacia Park, Arts Park, Brehler Square, and Quality Ave Park did not offer tables, picnic areas or benches. All 16 parks were noted as moderate to mostly clean tables, picnic areas or benches . Civic Center Park, Faller Park, Galoostian Park, JFK Park , and Veterans Park were noted as extreamly clean with tables in excellent condition . Most city park tables (88%) were functional but need some maintenance such as Sanger Youth Center where the condition of the tables was poor. Shade coverage over tables varied. Nine parks (56%) offered limited shade (0-33%) and seven parks (44%), Civic Center Park, Faller Park, Greenwood Park, Galoostian Park, JFK Park, Sanger Park, and Sam Gutierrez Park provided moderate to full shade (34-100%).
Trash Cans
Seventeen parks (85%) were equipped with trash cans . Three city parks , Arts Park, Brehler Square, and Quality Ave Park, did not provide trash cans (Table 16). Among the parks with trash cans, majority of the parks were noted in moderate to mostly clean conditions . Seven parks (41%) maintain ed mostly clean trash cans. Trash can conditions in 16 parks had adequately functional trash cans, and six parks (35%) were rated as trash cans in excellent condition.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 11 The presence of trash can covers in City parks were noted in seven parks (41%) and include the following parks , Audry Park, Galoostian Park, JFK Park, Kelly Park, Medrano Park, Sam Gutierrez, and Veterans Park. The majority (59%) of parks did not have covers. Additionally, none of the parks which provided trash cans offered separate recepticals for recycling, or compost.
Bike Racks and Parking Lots
Bike racks were provided in s even parks (35%) : Audry Park, Brehler Square, Cesar Chavez Park, Community Center, Sam Gutierrez, Sanger Park, and Veterans Park (Table 17). Parks with the bike rack amenity had one to three racks (86%). Audry Park, Brehler Square, Cesar Chavez Park, Sam Gutierrez, and Veterans Park offered one rack per site. Community Center had three bike racks. Sanger Park provided four bike racks, providing a higher capacity for cyclists. Notably, all bike racks were secured to the ground, enhanc ing safety, usability, and ensuring that cyclists can securely park their bikes.
Out of the 20 city parks assessed, nine parks (45%) had parking lots as part of or owned and maintained by the city (Table 18). Street parking was not taken into account. Parks that offered parking lots included Cesar Chavez Park, Civic Center Park, Community Center, Faller Park, JFK Park, Rotary Ball Park, Sanger Park, Sanger Youth Center, and Veterans Park. All parking lots were moderate to mostly clean. Eight city parking lot conditions (89%) were noted as mostly to extremely great condition.
Parking lot conditions were noted as adequate condition s for three parks (33%) to include Civic Center Park, Faller Park , and Sanger Park. These three parking lots were noted to have minor functional issues such as small and large potholes. Six parks (67%; Cesar Chavez Park, Community Center, JFK Park, Rotary Ball Park, Sanger Youth Center,Veterans Park ) were noted as having excellent parking lot conditions, featuring smooth, flat surfaces with few or no potholes.
Rules, Regulation Signage and Other Amenities
Out of the twenty ( 20) parks assessed, seven parks (35%) had visible rules and regulation sign age including Cesar Chavez Park, Community Center, Faller Park, Galoostian Park, Greenwood Park, JFK Park , and Rotary Ball Park (Table 19). All seven parks reported moderately to mostly clean signs. Fifty seven percent of parks with rules and regulation signage were observed and noted as being well-maintained and free from graffiti or excessive wear. The legibility and overall condition of park signage were rated as adequate to excellent.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 12 Other park amenities observed were vending machines and vending areas. F our parks (20%) – Cesar Chavez Park, Faller Park, Rotary Ball Park, and Sanger Park – featured vending areas where items could be sold, however no parks offered vending machine amenities.
Shelters or gazebos were present in four parks (20%) Greenwood Park, JFK Park, Sam Gutierrez Park, and Sanger Park. Each of these parks were in good condition and ranked moderate to extremely clean. Brehler Square and Sanger Park provided entertainment venues or stages (2 parks; 10%). Both parks entertainment venues were noted as adequately maintained and moderately clean. Faller Park and Rotary Ball Park were the only parks with bleachers (2 parks; 10%), bleachers were observed to be moderate to excellent condition and clean.
All parks offered clear visibility to and from the surrounding neighborhoods. Most parks had extremely clean entrances . Sanger Youth Center, was noted as having a moderately clean entrance.
Current event and updated e vent postings were found in four parks (20%):
Community Center, JFK Park, Rotary Ball Park , and Veterans Park . Community Center and Veterans Park included updated postings, while JFK Park and Rotary Ball Park's event information was outdated.
Summary and Park Considerations
The pre-assessment of parks in the City of Sanger revealed several strengths and opportunities for improvement. There are many commendable aspects of the City of Sanger parks. All twenty (20) City of Sanger parks are open and free to the public.
Nine city parks offer free parking with the majority (67%) in excellent condition and accomodate for ADA accessibility. Additionally, ninety percent (90%) of the parks have large open spaces with grass fields, of which 78% are maintained in fair condition.
Ninety-five percent of the cities parks are noted as being extrem ely clean , maintaining a pleasant and welcoming environment. Many of the city parks offer athletic fields and courts in good condition. Veterans Park , was noted for the excellent field conditions. Furthermore, the availability of drinking fountains was an inclusive feature in 12 parks, which were ADA compliant being youth-height, and ADA accessible. Amenities like grills (70%), picnic areas (75%), benches (55%), and trash cans (85%) are also common across the parks.
However, there are opportunities where the City of Sanger parks could improve.
While most parks offer ample open space, 78% of these spaces are in fair condition, suggesting a need for maintenance to eliminate uneven surfaces and small ground
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 13 obstructions. Water-based recreational activities to include swimming and a splash zone are limited to, Community Center and John F. Kennedy Park. The City may need to conduct further assessment of which parks would benefit from placement of additional shade (trees or structures), to enhance resident walking paths and picnic areas.
The City of Sanger park public restrooms are available in thirty five (35%) of the parks, and some (71%) restrooms require maintenance to improve functionality and cleanliness. Faller Park was noted for having unclean restrooms, highlighting an opportunity for enhanced maintenance. While the majority of parks (71%) had restrooms in fair condition, with partial functionality and minor operational issues, Greenwood Park and Sanger Park were identified as having restrooms in poor condition. These issues, including non-functional toilets or sinks, may significantly impact visitor experience and accessibility. Addressing these concerns could greatly enhance the overall usability and appeal of the city's parks. Most parks provide trash receptacles, however adding receptacle covers for waste, recycling, and composting may help reduce litter and odors. As appropriate, the city may need to assess the need and determine which parks can benefit from adding recycle or compost receptacles within city parks.
Most parks had moderately to mostly clean, visible rules and regulation signage, however we encourage the City of Sanger to utilize the areas to promote updated city events and activities for increased community engagement.
In review, the following parks Acacia Park, Arts Park, Brehler Park, Medrano Park, Quality Ave Park, and Sam Gutierrez Park are parks who have the most opportunity to improve maintainace, condition of the park open space, increase shade elements, and enhance picnic, play, and path amenities. Civic Center Park, Brehler Square, and Medrano Park have potentials to add in walking paths, while Acacia Park, Arts Park, and Quality Ave Park could be ehanced with amenities like picnic areas and grills.
Overall, the parks in Sanger provide excellent recreational opportunities, particularly in terms of free access, cleanliness, and physical activity spaces, but there are areas that could benefit from improvements.
Various parks were highlighted for their overall good ratings in both condition and cleanliness. However, Veterans Park stood out with excellent ratings across various categories, including playset amenities and cleanliness. Kelly Park and Cesar Chavez Park also received high marks in cleanliness and some physical aspects (playsets and playset equipment features) . John F. Kennedy (JFK) Park and Sanger Youth Center had minor issues with cleanliness and overall conditions. Community
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 14 Center Park can be further enhanced by renewing the striping of its courts and fields to increase its full functionality. Parks offering the most recreational amenities include, Cesar Chavez Park, Faller Park, and JFK Park, and were notable for having great open space to provide group sporting events with their versatile athletic fields and courts. These parks also offered multiple amenities for families, including picnic and playset areas. Although seven parks provided bike racks, assessing the rest of the parks to determine need and placement of bike racks would further enhance bikeability and appeal to youth and families looking for places to ride bikes to.
Looking forward, the CalFresh Healthy Living team is commited to providing support for the City of Sanger efforts in finding funding opportunities to improve and enhance community parks. Ultimately, enhancing access and enjoyment of recreation spaces, increase physical activity opportunities, and reduce barriers to daily physical activity opportunities.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 15 Appendix
Table 1. Park Access and Fees
Categories Park Counts (%)*
Access to park
Free 20 (100%)
Paid 0 (0%)
Parking
Free 20 (100%)
Paid 0 (%)
Amenitiesᶛ
Free 19 (95%)
Paidᶺ 1 (5%)
* A total of 20 parks were accessed for City of Sanger. ᶛ Includes but not limited to swimming pool, skate park, and etc.
ᶺ Of the 20 parks assessed in the City of Sanger, the
swimming pool was the sole paid amenity.
Table 2. Open Space
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Open Space Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 18 90%ꭜ
No 2 10%ꭜ
Open Space (N=18)
Average Size
<50 ft X < 50ft 0 -
50-100ft X 50-
100ft 3 17%ꭝ
>100 ft X >100ft 15 83%ꭝ
Surfaceˠ
Grass 18 100%ꭝ
Dirt 0 -
Other 0 -
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 14 78%ꭝ
Excellent 4 22%ꭝ
ˠ The surface material is determined by selecting the predominant material found across the entire open space.
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. Factors considered included ground surface condition, presence of obstructions (e.g., leaves, rocks), surface continuity, and surface hardness. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor quality (uneven or treacherous surface, high risk of twisting ankles); 2 = Fair quality (some imperfections, such as a few uneven areas); 3 = Excellent condition.
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 16 Table 3. Swimming/wading pools
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Swimming/wading
pools
Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 1 5%ꭜ
No 18 90%ꭜ
Swimming/wading
pools (N=2)
Operational Yes 1 100%ꭝ
No 0 -
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 0 -
Mostly to Extremely 1 100%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 0 -
Excellent 1 100%ꭝ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor: non-functional, where the element or all representatives are inoperable; 2 = Fair: partially functional, with some elements not fully operational if multiple are present (e.g., some of 5 benches); 3 = Excellent: completely functional and in good to excellent condition.
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 17 Table 4. Sidewalks (adjacent to park, not in park)
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Sidewalks Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 20 100%ꭜ
No 0 -
Sidewalks (N=20)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 1 5%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 19 95%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 12 60%ꭝ
Excellent 8 40%ꭝ
Width
< 2ft (1 adult) 0 -
2-5ft (2 adults) 16 80%ꭝ
>5ft (>3 adults) 4 20%
Linkages to path or
trail in parkᶿ
Yes 15 75%ꭝ
No 3 15%ꭝ
N/A 2 10%ꭝ
Any crosswalks
across streets in
parks
Yes 15 75%ꭝ
No 5 25%ꭝ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or some maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with few litter).
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. Each open space was evaluated individually, and the ratings were averaged to obtain the overall condition rating. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor quality (uneven or treacherous surface, high risk of twisting ankles); 2 = Fair quality (some imperfections, such as a few uneven areas); 3 = Excellent condition.
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
ᶿ For Linkages to Path or Trail in Park, "Yes" indicates the presence of a path or trail in the park with direct linkages to adjacent sidewalks; "No" indicates the presence of a path or trail in the park, but no direct linkages to adjacent sidewalks; "N/A" indicates that there is no path or trail in the park, making it impossible to assess linkages with sidewalks.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 18 Table 5. Playsets and Playset Equipment Features
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Playset or Structure Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 11 55%ꭜ
No 9 45%ꭜ
Playset or Structure
(N=11)
Cleanlinessᴯᶝ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 9 82%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 1 9%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 10 91%ꭝ
Excellent 1 9%ꭝ
Playset Equipment Features
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Things to hang from
(part of playset)
Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 5 45%ᶡ
No 6 55%ᶡ
Things to hang from
(part of playset) (N=5)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 1 20%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 4 80%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 3 60%ꭝ
Excellent 2 40%ꭝ
Things to slide down
(part of playset)
Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 10 91%ᶡ
No 1 9%ᶡ
Things to slide down
(part of playset) (N=10)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 8 80%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 2 20%ꭝ
Conditionᶨᶝ
Poor 0 -
Fair 7 70%ꭝ
Excellent 2 20%ꭝ
Functional stairs,
ladders, and ramps
Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 11 100%ᶡ
No 0 -
Functional stairs,
ladders, and ramps
(N=11)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 1 9%ꭝ
Somewhat 8 73%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 2 18%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 8 73%ꭝ
Excellent 3 27%ꭝ
FUN things to climb
on/up/through
Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 10 91%ᶡ
No 1 9%ᶡ
FUN things to climb
on/up/through (N=10)
Cleanlinessᴯᶝ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 6 60%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 3 30%ꭝ
Conditionᶨᶝ
Poor 0 -
Fair 8 80%ꭝ
Excellent 1 10%ꭝ
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 19 Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Things to stand or
walk on
Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 11 100%ᶡ
No 0 -
Things to stand or
walk on (N=11)
Cleanlinessᴯᶝ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 8 73%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 2 18%ꭝ
Conditionᶨᶝ
Poor 0 -
Fair 6 55%ꭝ
Excellent 4 36%ꭝ
Swings Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 4 36%ᶡ
No 7 64%ᶡ
Swings (N=4)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 3 75%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 1 25%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 1 25%ꭝ
Fair 3 75%ꭝ
Excellent 0 -
Imaginary play
structure
Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 5 45%ᶡ
No 6 55%ᶡ
Imaginary play
structure (N=5)
Cleanlinessᴯᶝ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 3 60%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 1 20%ꭝ
Conditionᶨᶝ
Poor 0 -
Fair 4 80%ꭝ
Excellent 0 -
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor: non-functional, where the element or all representatives are inoperable; 2 = Fair: partially functional, with some elements not fully operational if multiple are present (e.g., some of 5 benches); 3 = Excellent: completely functional and in good to excellent condition.
ᶝ One or more parks had varying evaluations across all three assessments and were therefore excluded from the analysis. As a result, the percentages for this category do not sum to 100%. ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
ᶡ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks with playsets or structures present (n=11).
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 20 Table 6. Athletic Fields
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Athletic Fields Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 9 45%ꭜ
No 11 55%ꭜ
Athletic Fields (N=9)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 1 11%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 8 89%ꭝ
Ground Conditionᶨ
Poor 1 11%ꭝ
Fair 7 78%ꭝ
Excellent 1 11%ꭝ
Mostly Striped (>50%)
Yes 0 0%
No 4 44%ꭝ
N/A* 5 56%ꭝ
Componentsᵜ Yes 9 100%ꭝ
No 0 -
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition, considering: presence of weeds and patches of grass where dirt should be or vice versa; piles of leaves or rocks that inhibit play; whether surfaces are continuous or have tripping hazards; and if the ground is hard-packed and uncomfortable for falls. Rating Scale: 1 = Poor Quality (Incorrect placement of dirt/grass; uneven and treacherous ground surface with many potential hazards for twisting ankles; lack of necessary components), 2 = Fair Quality (All necessary components are present; some imperfections in ground surface, e.g., a few uneven areas, presence of weeds in less used parts of fields), 3 = Excellent Condition (Ground and facilities are in excellent condition with no significant imperfections). ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
* For N/A: For example, activities like disc golf or any sports that do not require field/line marking. ᵜ "Yes" rating criteria: Soccer fields need nets; baseball/softball fields require a home plate and backstop; football fields must have goal posts. Use N/A for fields like bocce ball or handball, where equipment is brought by players, unless rating soccer, baseball, or football fields.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 21 Table 7. Athletic Courts
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Athletic Courts Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 7 35%ꭜ
No 13 65%ꭜ
Athletic Courts (N=7)
Surface Conditionᶨ
Poor 1 14%ꭝ
Fair 3 43%ꭝ
Excellent 3 43%ꭝ
Mostly Striped
(>50%)
Yes 5 71%ꭝ
No 2 29%ꭝ
Componentsᵆ Yes 5 71%ꭝ
No 1 14%ꭝ
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. Rated as: 1 = Non-functional (e.g., cracked asphalt, raised ridges; uneven surfaces risking trips or injuries), 2 = Functionally Fair (some cracks but still playable), 3 = Excellent (very few cracks, well-maintained).
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
ᵆ Functional nets were required for basketball hoops, tennis courts, and volleyball courts. "No" was rated if nets were present but damaged enough to hinder their function.
Table 8. Neighborhood Cleanliness
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Neighborhood Cleanliness
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 1 5%ꭜ
Mostly to Extremely 19 95%ꭜ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 2 10%ꭜ
Excellent 18 90%ꭜ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear, mostly or free of litter). ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. Factors considered included quality of buildings, ground surface condition, and maintenance of natural areas. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor quality (uneven surface condition, building with structural issues and aesthetic flaws); 2 = Fair quality (some imperfections, such as a few uneven areas); 3 = Excellent condition.
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 22 Table 9. Path (distinct and designated walking area/route linking elements within the park) Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Path Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 17 85%ꭜ
No 3 15%ꭜ
Path (N=17)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 2 12%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 15 88%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 5 29%ꭝ
Excellent 12 71%ꭝ
Coverage/Shadeᵝ
0-33% 8 47%ꭝ
34-66% 8 47%ꭝ
67-100% 1 6%ꭝ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor quality (uneven or treacherous surface, high risk of twisting ankles); 2 = Fair quality (some imperfections, such as a few uneven areas); 3 = Excellent condition.
ᵝ PER scaling assessed coverage with the following scale: 1 = 0-33%, 2 = 34-66%, 3 = 67-100%. ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 23 Table 10. Drinking Fountain
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Drinking fountain Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 12 60%ꭜ
No 8 40%ꭜ
Drinking fountain
(N=12)
Conditionᶨ
Poor - Not
functional/extreme
flaws
1 8%ꭝ
Fair - Functional with
minor flaws 11 92%ꭝ
Excellent -
Completely
functional
0 -
Child Height or
Handicap
Accessible
Yes 12 100%ꭝ
No 0 -
Paved Surfacingᶶ Yes 9 80%ꭝ
No 3 25%ꭝ
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. The scale was defined as follows: 3 = Completely Functional:
Water flows consistently at an appropriate height, remains contained, and drains properly. 2 = Functional with Flaws: Issues may include inconsistent flow, improper height, spillage outside the fountain, or pooling water. 1 = Non-Functional: Severe flaws make it difficult or impossible to use, such as extremely low water flow. ᶶ This question evaluated the presence of a paved surface around the fountain suitable for standing while drinking.
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 24 Table 11. Grills/Fire Pits
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Grills/Fire pits Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 14 70%ꭜ
No 6 30%ꭜ
Grills/Fire pits (N=14)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all - Not
Useable 0 -
Somewhat -
Requires cleaning 12 86%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely -
Ready to use 2 14%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 11 71%ꭝ
Excellent 3 14%ꭝ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 3 = Ready to Use (Grill is clean and ready for immediate use); 2 = Requires Cleaning (Grill must be cleaned before use); 1 = Not Usable (Grill is too dirty to be cleaned, making it uncomfortable for use).
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor: non-functional, where the element or all representatives are inoperable; 2 = Fair: partially functional, with some elements not fully operational if multiple are present (e.g., some of 5 benches); 3 = Excellent: completely functional and in good to excellent condition.
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Table 12. Restrooms
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Restrooms Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 7 35%ꭜ
No 13 65%ꭜ
Restrooms (N=7)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 1 14%ꭝ
Somewhat 5 71%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 1 14%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 2 29%ꭝ
Fair 5 71%ꭝ
Excellent 0 -
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶨ PEX scaling assessed the operational condition of sinks and toilets, The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor:
non-functional, where the element or all representatives are inoperable; 2 = Fair: partially functional, with some elements not fully operational if multiple are present (e.g., some of 5 benches); 3 = Excellent: completely functional and in good to excellent condition.
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 25 Table 13. Picnic Areas
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Picnic Areas Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 15 75%ꭜ
No 5 25%ꭜ
Picnic Areas (N=15)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 8 53%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 7 47%ꭝ
Coverage/Shadeᶭ
Yes 9 60%ꭝ
No 6 40%ꭝ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶭ This question was to assess whether eating areas were covered. ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Table 14. Benches
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Benches Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 11 55%ꭜ
No 9 45%ꭜ
Benches (N=11)
Cleanlinessᴯᶝ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 6 55%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 5 45%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 9 82%ꭝ
Excellent 2 18%ꭝ
Coverage/Shadeᵝᶝ
0-33% 6 55%ꭝ
34-66% 3 27%ꭝ
67-100% 2 18%ꭝ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶝ One or more parks had varying evaluations across all three assessments and were therefore excluded from the analysis. As a result, the percentages for this category do not sum to 100%. ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor: non-functional, where the element or all representatives are inoperable; 2 = Fair: partially functional, with some elements not fully operational if multiple are present (e.g., some of 5 benches); 3 = Excellent: completely functional and in good to excellent condition.
ᵝ PER scaling assessed coverage with the following scale: 1 = 0-33%, 2 = 34-66%, 3 = 67-100%. ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 26 Table 15. Tables
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Tables Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 16 80%ꭜ
No 4 20%ꭜ
Tables (N=16)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 11 69%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 5 31%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 1 6%ꭝ
Fair 14 88%ꭝ
Excellent 1 6%
Coverage/Shadeᵝ
0-33% 9 56%ꭝ
34-66% 5 31%ꭝ
67-100% 2 13%ꭝ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well- maintained with minor wear).
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor quality (unable to use); 2 = Fair quality (some imperfections); 3 = Excellent condition. ᵝ PER scaling assessed coverage with the following scale: 1 = 0-33%, 2 = 34-66%, 3 = 67-100%. ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 27 Table 16. Trash Cans
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Trash Cans Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 17 85%ꭜ
No 3 15%ꭜ
Trash Cans (N=17)
Cleanlinessᴯᶝ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 9 53%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 7 41%ꭝ
Conditionᶨᶝ
Poor 0 -
Fair 10 59%ꭝ
Excellent 6 35%ꭝ
Coveredᶳ Yes 7 41%ꭝ
No 10 59%ꭝ
Separate Recycling Yes 0 -
No 17 100%ꭝ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶝ One or more parks had varying evaluations across all three assessments and were therefore excluded from the analysis. As a result, the percentages for this category do not sum to 100%. ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition and functionality of the trashcans. The scale was defined as follows: 1 = Poor: Non-Functional if it cannot hold or retain trash, or if disposal is extremely difficult, focusing on the structure rather than its current fullness; 2 = Fair: partially functional, with some elements not fully operational if multiple are present (e.g., some of 5 benches); 3 = Excellent: completely functional and in good to excellent condition.
ᶳ Assessment based on whether over half the trash cans had a cover, defined as a top, lid, or enclosed container.
Not rated "yes" if coverage was only from placement under a pavilion or similar structure. ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Table 17. Bike Racks
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Bike racks Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 7 35%ꭜ
No 13 65%ꭜ
Bike racks (N=7)
Number of Bike racks
1-3 6 86%ꭝ
4-6 1 14%ꭝ
>6 0 -
Secured to ground Yes 7 100%ꭝ
No 0 -
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 28 Table 18. Parking Lots
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Parking lots Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 9 45%ꭜ
No 11 55%ꭜ
Parking lots (N=9)
Cleanlinessᴯ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 1 11%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 8 89%ꭝ
Conditionᶨ
Poor 0 -
Fair 3 33%ꭝ
Excellent 6 67%
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶨ PEX scaling was used to assess the condition. Parking lot assessment focused on flatness: 1 Poor = Steep incline/decline, non-continuous material with many potholes; 2 Fair = Moderate incline/decline, functional with some small and a few large potholes; 3 Excellent = Mostly to extremely flat, continuous surface with few or no potholes.
ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Table 19. Rules/Regulation Signs
Aspects/Elements Category Sub Category Count Percentage(%) Rules/Regulation Signs Presence of
Aspect/Element
Yes 7 35%ꭜ
No 13 65%ꭜ
Rules/Regulation Signs
(N=7)
Cleanlinessᴯᶝ
Not at all 0 -
Somewhat 3 43%ꭝ
Mostly to Extremely 4 57%ꭝ
Conditionᶨᶝ
Poor 0 -
Fair 3 43%ꭝ
Excellent 4 57%ꭝ
ᴯ NATE scaling was used to assess cleanliness on a scale of 1-3: 1 = Not at all clean (e.g., graffiti, broken glass, lack of maintenance), 2 = Somewhat clean (moderate litter or minor maintenance issues), and 3 = Mostly to extremely clean (well-maintained with minor wear).
ᶝ One or more parks had varying evaluations across all three assessments and were therefore excluded from the analysis. As a result, the percentages for this category do not sum to 100%. ᶨ PEX scaling assessed condition based on legibility: 1 = Poor, non-legible due to wear, graffiti; 2 = Fair, adequately legible with minor issues; 3 = Excellent, completely legible with minimal or no graffiti, wear. ꭜ Percentages were calculated by dividing the counts by the total number of parks assessed, N=20. ꭝ Percentages were calculated by dividing the count for each aspect by the total number of parks that include that specific aspect.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 29 Table 20a. Complete Assessment of Park Amenities and Features Across 20 Parks in Sangerᶲ Aspects/
Elements Acacia Park Arts Park Audry Park Brehler
Park
Cesar
Chavez
Park
Civic
Center Park
Community
Center
Free Access
to Park
Open Space
Pool
Presence
Sidewalks
Present
Playsets
Things to
Hang From
Things to
Slide Down
From
Functional
Stairs
FUN Things
to Climb
Things to
Stand/Walk
Swings
Imaginary
Playsets
Athletic
Fields
Athletic
Courts
Path
Drinking
Fountains
Grills/Fire
Pits
Picnic Areas
Restrooms
Benches
Tables
Trash Cans
Bike Racks
Parking Lots
Rules/
Regulations
ᶲ Green indicates the presence of that aspect/element.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 30 Table 20a. Complete Assessment of Park Amenities and Features Across 20 Parks in Sangerᶲ Aspects/
Elements Acacia Park Arts Park Audry Park Brehler
Park
Cesar
Chavez
Park
Civic
Center Park
Community
Center
Free Access
to Park
Open Space
Pool
Presence
Sidewalks
Present
Playsets
Things to
Hang From
Things to
Slide Down
From
Functional
Stairs
FUN Things
to Climb
Things to
Stand/Walk
Swings
Imaginary
Playsets
Athletic
Fields
Athletic
Courts
Path
Drinking
Fountains
Grills/Fire
Pits
Picnic Areas
Restrooms
Benches
Tables
Trash Cans
Bike Racks
Parking Lots
Rules/
Regulations
ᶲ Green indicates the presence of that aspect/element.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 31 Table 20c. Complete Assessment of Park Amenities and Features Across 20 Parks in Sangerᶲ Aspects/
Elements
Quality Ave
Park
Rotary Ball
Park
Sam Gutierrez
Park Sanger Park Sanger Youth
Center Veterans Park
Free Access
to Park
Open Space
Pool Presence
Sidewalks
Present
Playsets
Things to
Hang From
Things to Slide
Down From
Functional
Stairs
FUN Things to
Climb
Things to
Stand/Walk
Swings
Imaginary
Playsets
Athletic Fields
Athletic
Courts
Path
Drinking
Fountains
Grills/Fire
Pits
Picnic Areas
Restrooms
Benches
Tables
Trash Cans
Bike Racks
Parking Lots
Rules/
Regulations
ᶲ Green indicates the presence of that aspect/element.
Funded by USDA SNAP, an equal opportunity provider. Visit www.CalFreshHealthyLiving.org for healthy tips. 32 References
1. Saelens, B. E., Frank, L. D., Auffrey, C., Whitaker, R. C., Burdette, H. L., & Colabianchi, N. (2006). Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(Suppl 1), S190–S207. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s190
2. U.S. Access Board. (n.d.). Chapter 4: Accessible routes. Retrieved from https://www.access-board.gov/ada/chapter/ch04/