Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-01; Parks & Recreation Commission; ; 0817-1 Parks & Recreation Feasibility Study for Multigenerational Community Recreation Center and Outdoor Adventure Park Meeting Date: Aug. 1, 2017 To: Parks & Recreation and Senior Commissions From: Chris Hazeltine, Parks & Recreation Director Staff Contact: Mick Calarco, Special Projects Manager mick.calarco@carlsbadca.gov Subject: Parks & Recreation Department Feasibility Study for Multigenerational Community Recreation Center and Outdoor Adventure Park Recommended Action Receive Parks & Recreation Department feasibility study for a multigenerational community center and for an outdoor adventure park, and recommend City Council acceptance. Executive Summary In Nov. 2015, the Parks & Recreation Department commissioned a feasibility study for a multigenerational community recreation center and an outdoor adventure park. The study was born out of two “Big Ideas” envisioned in the department’s 2015 master and strategic action plan. The community and stakeholders expressed support for the two big ideas; however, after a thoughtful investigation, both Big Ideas as envisioned are determined to be not feasible and are not recommended. Discussion The Parks & Recreation Department commissioned a feasibility study for two “Big Ideas” included in the City-Council adopted master plan. The first Big Idea proposed a large multiuse multigenerational community center featuring elements such as gymnasium, multipurpose spaces, and aquatic amenities. The second Big Idea suggested an outdoor adventure park featuring elements such as ropes and obstacle courses, zip lining, and a BMX pump track. Each Big Idea would be a local and regional visitor attraction, and recover a substantial portion of direct operating costs. The multigenerational community recreation center was proposed for Poinsettia Community Park, where a community center was part of the original (1992) and updated (2014) park master plan. Staff and consultants studied two locations for the outdoor adventure park, Zone 5 Park, and the future Veterans Park site. Stakeholder and community feedback was positive, with more than 70 percent of respondents expressing support for the center, and nearly 80 percent respondent support for the adventure park. To ensure sufficient community input and participation, city staff and consultants conducted two open public meetings, stakeholder meetings (13), an online survey (1,148 respondents), and a statistically reliable random sample survey (502 respondents). Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Based on master plan priority rankings, and meeting and survey data as found in the master plan, the department developed concept plans. To better understand park use patterns, staff commissioned consultants to conduct two parking studies at Poinsettia Community Park on both a busy spring and fall weekend. Due to parking impacts and peak use programming demand, study findings recommended the large community recreation center originally envisioned be downsized from the originally envisioned 60,000 square feet to 30-35,000 square feet. As a result, many features and amenities originally envisioned as part of the Big Idea, would not be realized. While feasible, the reduced footprint (compared to the larger originally envisioned one) is not conducive to, and reflective of, a true multigenerational community recreation center experience as was recommended in the master plan, and is not recommended. Outdoor Adventure Park City staff and consultants studied two city-owned park sites as a potential site for the outdoor adventure park. Zone 5 Park lacks sufficient acreage to contain the desired adventure park amenities to attract a regional audience. Additionally, it would be challenging to mitigate noise and use impacts to the adjacent housing community, making Zone 5 Park not recommended. The developable portion of the future Veterans Park site is large enough to accommodate the regional outdoor adventure park concept; however, significant environmental constraints (noise, lighting and use impacts) exist surrounding the park which would make developing and permitting an adventure park at that location undesirable and not recommended. Neither Zone 5 Park nor the future Veterans Park site provide an opportunity to fulfill the intended vision of the second Big Idea in serving community need to the greatest extent possible. Individual outdoor adventure park amenities, or some version of a multigenerational community center may be considered in future park development should the opportunity arise. Exhibits 1. Parks & Recreation Department Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study, Aug. 2017 2. Parks & Recreation Department Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study, Aug. 2017 Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study Acknowledgements City of Carlsbad Council Members Mayor Matt Hall Mayor Pro Tem Keith Blackburn Council Member Mark Packard Council Member Michael Schumacher Council Member Cori Schumacher City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Commission Chairman Matt Simons Vice-Chairman Roy Meenes Michael Luna Jengi Martinez Jodi Rudick-Stein Ron Withall City of Carlsbad Senior Commission Chairman Ray Pearson Vice Chairman David Tweedy Patricia Mehan Kevin Min Sheri Sachs City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department Feasibility Study Team Parks & Recreation Director Chris Hazeltine Mick Calarco Kyle Lancaster Mike Pacheco Project Lead Consultants PROS Consulting, INC. Neelay Bhatt, Vice President and Principal Consultant Sarah Durham, Project Manager Project Sub-Consultants Chris Tatham, ETC Institute Mychal Loomis, P.E., Kimley-Horn Matt Horton, AICP, Kimley-Horn Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... 1 1.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PROCESS STEPS ................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 2 1.4 OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS / GAP ANALYSIS .................................................................. 3 1.5 COMMUNITY INPUT ......................................................................................................... 5 1.6 STATISTICALLY RELIABLE SURVEY ..................................................................................... 7 1.7 PARKING STUDY ............................................................................................................... 9 1.8 PROPOSED PROGRAM PLAN .......................................................................................... 10 1.9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................ 13 CHAPTER TWO - COMMUNITY INPUT ......................................................................... 14 2.1 STAKEHOLDER AND FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS ............................................................. 14 2.2 FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONAIRE ...................................................................................... 15 2.3 COMMUNITY ON-LINE SURVEY ...................................................................................... 16 2.4 STASTICALLY VALID SURVEY ........................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 34 3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 34 3.2 TRENDS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 41 3.3 SIMILAR PROVIDER ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 51 3.4 PARKING STUDY ............................................................................................................. 54 CHAPTER FOUR - CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 57 CHAPTER FIVE - CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX A – PARKING STUDY ................................................................................... 60 APPENDIX B – PROPOSED SCENARIOS ........................................................................ 83 APPENDIX C – COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY ............................................................ 85 Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 1 CHAPTER ONE – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 OVERVIEW The City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department commissioned a feasibility study and business plan for a multigenerational community recreation center (Figure 1). This plan examines community, leadership and stakeholder input, market analysis, concept development and design, business plans, operational budgets, partnership options, possible programs and services, and the financial requirements for the multigenerational community recreation center. Needs Assessment and Comprehensive Action Plan In Dec. 2013, the City Council accepted the Parks & Recreation Department Needs Assessment and Comprehensive Action Plan, which included a strategic action plan that serves as a guide for priority development, capital improvement planning, and park, facility and amenity development for a period of five years. Based on the report findings and strategic action plan, the department completed updated master plans for Aviara, Pine Avenue, and Poinsettia Community Parks. The City Council accepted the updates, which included a conceptual layout for a multigenerational community recreation center at Poinsettia Community Park in Dec. 2014. CAPRA Accreditation Recently, as the Department sought CAPRA Accreditation for best practice operational standards, the needs assessment was revised to a master plan and accepted by the City Council in March 2015. The needs assessment served as an element of the master plan. This planning process resulted in two “Big Ideas” guided by community vision and needs. Purpose The purpose and intent of the multigenerational community recreation center is to develop a variety of multigenerational spaces satisfying a diverse programming needs, such as fitness and wellness, culinary arts, before and after school programs, dance, senior programs, cultural arts and special events. The proposed location for the multigenerational community recreation center is Poinsettia Community Park. Note: In 2014, the City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Department updated park master plans for Aviara, Pine Avenue and Poinsettia Community Park. Through an extensive public input process, the community envisioned a multigenerational community recreation center located Poinsettia Community Park. Figure 1. Map of the City of Carlsbad 2 1.2 PROCESS STEPS Feasibility study process steps: 1. Demographic overview 2. Other service providers/market opportunities 3. Community input a. Key leader and stakeholder focus group meetings b. Open public meetings c. Online survey d. Statistically reliable survey 4. Proposed design alternatives and costs 1.3 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW The demographic overview analysis provides an understanding of Carlsbad’s population. This analysis is reflective of the total population, and its key characteristics such as age segments, income levels, race, and ethnicity. Since the proposed recreation center is primarily targeting Carlsbad residents, it is important to understand the population characteristics as well as income levels to ascertain potential for use and willingness to pay for the center and its offerings. Total Population The total city population has grown approximately 4.51 percent; from 105,328 in 2010 to 110,081 in 2015. The current estimated population is projected to continue its rapid growth, increasing to 115,622 individuals in 2020, and 125,785 by 2030. Median Income The city’s median household income ($90,603) and per capita income ($47,554) are both well above the state and national averages. Age Based on the 2010 Census, the population of the target area is just slightly higher (41.5 years) than the median age of the U.S. (37.2 years). Projections show that the service area will undergo an aging trend throughout 2030, as the 55+ age group grows to represent over 36 percent of the total population. Race/Ethnicity The estimated 2015 population of the service area is predominantly White alone (81.13 percent), with the Asian (7.76 percent) population representing the largest minority. Future projections show that by 2030 the population will become more diverse. Forecasts of the target area through 2030 expect decreases in the White alone (76.65 percent) population; coinciding with slight increases in the population for all other race segments. Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 3 1.4 OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS / GAP ANALYSIS Based on input from city staff and the consultant’s operational experience, it was determined that a drive time of 15 minutes or less from Poinsettia Community Park would be considered as a primary target audience for the center. The drive time map depicts the variety of service providers within a 15 minute (in pink) and 25 minute (in blue) driving distance. These providers were identified by city staff and include a variety of special focus facilities, e.g. Crossfit facilities or gymnastics and only a few multigenerational providers, e.g. Encinitas and Oceanside YMCA, or the Encinitas Community and Senior Center, etc. Summary A drive time map review and comparison of similar providers (e.g. Crossfit) versus true competitors (e.g. YMCA) reveals that there are very few true competitors and thus, adequate potential in the Carlsbad market for this proposed facility to serve an unmet community need (Figure 2). 4 Figure 2. Drive time map of City of Carlsbad Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 5 1.5 COMMUNITY INPUT City staff and the consulting team conducted a variety of community and key leader outreach initiatives to identify the level of support and vision for financial viability for the proposed facility. The initiatives included:  Stakeholder interviews and public meeting (Dec. 10-11, 2015)  Key leader interviews (Council and Commission interviews – Feb. 9, 2016)  Online survey (1148 survey respondents)  Statistically valid survey (502 survey respondents) The groups and individuals included, but were not limited to:  City Council Members  Parks & Recreation Commissioners  Senior Commissioners  City leadership  Parks & recreation department staff  Encinitas YMCA  Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club  Regional leaders - San Diego County Parks & Recreation Director  Community interest groups and local residents 6 Summary of community input findings: Summary of Community Input Findings High level of support for the indoor facility based on respondents’ indicated frequency of use as well as paying to use the center Online 71% indicated they would use the facility at least a few times / month 60% indicated a willingness to pay (check, pay per visit, monthly auto-debit) while 21% were not willing to pay to use the center Statistically-Reliable Survey 74% indicated they would use the facility at least a few times / month 77% indicated a willingness to pay (check, pay per visit, monthly auto-debit) while 20% were not willing to pay to use the center Top choices include indoor fitness and exercise options, walking/jogging, aquatics and rock climbing Rock climbing wall, indoor lap lanes, weight room, aerobics / fitness area / multipurpose courts and indoor running / walking track were the top five choices for frequency of use Indoor fitness/ exercise/ indoor lap lanes / aerobics - dance space / walking jogging track, rock climbing wall and indoor aquatics spaces were the top five choices for frequency of use Confidence in city staff to operate the facility based on a successful precedent i.e. Alga Norte Park 64% were supportive while only 9% were not supportive 51% were supportive while only 7% were not supportive Strong support for placing measure on the ballot for a vote to develop multigenerational community recreation center 75% were supportive while only 12% were not supportive 70% were supportive while only 14% were not supportive Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 7 1.6 STATISTICALLY RELIABLE SURVEY ETC Institute partnered with PROS consulting and the City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department to conduct a community recreation survey to determine the feasibility of constructing and potentially partnering for the operation of a proposed multigenerational community recreation center. METHODOLOGY The survey was designed to ensure the results would be statistically reliable and maximize community input.  Statistically Reliable Random Sample. In order to obtain a statistically reliable sample, ETC Institute selected a random sample survey of 2,500 households. The sample was address-based, and the households were selected at random from all known residential addresses in the City of Carlsbad. A total of 502 residents from the random sample completed the survey. Of these, 344 were completed by mail, 136 were completed online, and 22 were completed by phone. The results for the random sample of 502 households have a 95 percent level of confidence with a precision rate of at least +/- 4.4 percent. Figure 3. Features Most Likely to Use 8 Figure 4. Support for Partnerships Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 9 1.7 PARKING STUDY As a separate but related part of the feasibility study, the city contracted with Kimley-Horn to conduct a parking study. City ordinance currently does not have defined parking requirements for community recreation centers constructed within existing parks. This study was conducted to analyze the parking demand expected to be generated for the site and to project the appropriate size for the proposed recreation center so as not to overburden the proposed parking supply. The detailed parking study can be found in Appendix A. Based on the Parks & Recreation Department Master Plan Big Idea #1 and Poinsettia Community Park Master Plan, the planned/recommended facilities include:  Enlarged and upgraded playground  Arena-style outdoor soccer field  Six outdoor pickleball courts  Off leash dog area  37 additional parking spaces for a total of 397 spaces  60,000+ square foot recreation center DATA COLLECTION Data was collected at Poinsettia Community Park, Alga Norte Community Park, Stagecoach Community Park, and Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA on one typical and one rainy Friday and one typical and one rainy Saturday in the spring of 2016. Data was also collected for a Friday and Saturday at Poinsettia Park in the fall 2016. Both spring and fall data was collected at Poinsettia Community Park to compare demands for each of the peak sport seasons. The parking demand on the fall weekend was found to be slightly higher than the parking demand in the spring. The Ecke YMCA exhibited characteristics most similar to proposed future improvements at Poinsettia Community Park and was used as the basis for projections of future parking demand. The Ecke YMCA was observed to have 5.34 occupied spaces per 1,000 square feet of indoor usable space during the peak period. The city requires gyms and health spas to provide five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation manual suggests ratios between 3.83 spaces and 5.19 spaces for similar uses. Because the YMCA is a popular destination in the area with amenities similar to those proposed for Poinsettia Community Park multigenerational community recreation center, providing 5.34 spaces of parking per 1,000 square feet of new recreation center space is a reasonable and slightly conservative assumption to apply in estimating future demand. The rate is considered conservative because the Ecke YMCA has significant public outreach efforts that may increase parking demand compared to a standard public park. The proposed recreation center under consideration at Poinsettia Community Park is being evaluated for sizing between 30,000 square feet and 60,000 square feet with a focus on a larger footprint as per the vision articulated in the master plan’s Big Idea #1 for a multigenerational community recreation center. 10 As such, data collected at the Ecke YMCA, which has an approximately 100,000 square foot recreation center, was scaled to scenarios between 30 percent and 60 percent and added to the existing Poinsettia site to evaluate the possible recreation center sizes being considered. The resulting parking occupancy for a Friday and Saturday were evaluated. The existing parking conditions revealed that much of the peak parking demand generated by outdoor facilities is related to active programming. Indoor facilities have more regular peak demand distributions for parking. There is a total of 397 parking spaces planned for the final Poinsettia Park layout. While 397 parking spaces can generally accommodate existing and future demand, over-full conditions are expected when periods of high recreation center demand align with well-attended, programmed events (Friday Night Lights, youth soccer tournaments, etc.). The 397 spaces could accommodate 60 percent of the demand generated by a YMCA-type facility, but without any programmed activities during peak periods. Alternatively, the 397 spaces could accommodate 30 percent of the demand generated by a YMCA-type demand with the currently programmed activities during peak periods. These two extremes seem to either severely limit outdoor programming options or limit the recreation center potential by removing uses that would result in underutilizing the site. Varying degrees in facility size and associated parking demand between these points are workable with programming modifications to balance the demand for the recreation center and the programming. RECOMMENDATION Based on the evaluation of the site and the YMCA-type facility, Kimley-Horn recommended that a 35,000 square foot recreation center facility is the preferred size, maximizing the available amenities without severely limiting special event programming nor overburdening the parking supply. 1.8 PROPOSED PROGRAM PLAN Based on community input and analysis, the consulting team has developed key program and facility/amenities that resulted in a conceptual footprint. The proposed multigenerational community recreation center at Poinsettia Community Park was scaled back to meet the maximum possible size recommended in the parking study. Based on this recommendation, the center was envisioned not to exceed 35,000 square feet, two-story structure with a walk-out lower level to take advantage of the sloping park topography. The optimum building size was determined by evaluating available parking areas and considering the desired interior spaces based on the community needs. The statistically reliable survey showed that Carlsbad residents would be likely to use the center with the following spaces. Then, areas were assigned to those functions based on our experience with similar facilities. The following pages show the program plan by square foot based on the overall target of 35,000 square feet footprint recommended for the center (Figure 5). Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 11 12 Figure 5. Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Footprint Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 13 1.9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based on community input, demographics and trends analysis, market and gap analysis and the parking study, the consulting team arrived at the following conclusion and recommendations. There is a market opportunity and community support for a multigenerational community recreation center; however, the parking study findings limit the maximum footprint of the proposed multigenerational community recreation center at 35,000 square feet or less. Space limitations eliminate the option to include desired amenities; e.g. indoor aquatics space, etc. This reduced footprint (compared to the larger originally envisioned one) is; therefore, not conducive to, and reflective of, a true multigenerational community recreation center experience as was recommended in the Parks & Recreation Department master Plan Big Idea #1. Overall, while a smaller facility; i.e. 35,000 square foot or less, could certainly be possible at the site at Poinsettia Community Park it is not recommended since it does not fulfil the intended vision of the Big Idea #1 in serving the community’s diverse needs to the greatest possible extent at this site. 14 CHAPTER TWO - COMMUNITY INPUT 2.1 STAKEHOLDER AND FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS Stakeholder interviews and focus group meetings serve as an important and critical part of the community input process. These sessions encourage participants to identify issues, opportunities, and challenges facing Carlsbad in developing a proposed multigenerational community center. By engaging community leaders through individual interviews, small group discussions, or focus group settings, the process ensures that the feasibility study is built on a community-driven and collaborative process. In Feb. 2016, consultants and the project team conducted a series of 12 individual or group focus group meetings with community stakeholders, City Council Members, parks & recreation and senior commissioners, YMCA, city manager, and with the mayor. The following sections summarize the questions and answers from the interviews and focus group sessions. At the beginning of each discussion, participants were advised that their individual responses would not be attributed to specific individuals in order to allow for more freedom and comfort in providing constructive feedback. To that end, participant responses are listed in summary form. The most common or shared responses are listed first, and each list proceeds in descending order of frequency of answers. Note: It is important to note that the summary input is a reflection of the responses provided by the attendees and not a consultant recommendation or a statement of fact. Therefore, what one respondent might consider to be a strength might be an area for improvement for another attendee. WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE POTENTIAL COMMUNITY CENTER? WHO, IF ANY, ARE POTENTIAL PARTNERS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER?  Supportive of the city and staff operating the proposed center (similar to Alga Norte Community Park) o The city and the Parks & Recreation Department has done a very good job with managing existing facilities and has a history of successfully managing them  Open to the city partnering with the YMCA o YMCA has a good track record in managing their facilities  Should have the city manage the facility and have partnerships for specific offerings/programs  Boys and Girls Club and School District could be an option WHAT DOES THE FEASIBILITY LOOK LIKE FOR THE POTENTIAL COMMUNITY CENTER?  Membership model to help operate facility o Resident/nonresident fee  Model after Alga Norte Community Park  Cost recovery of 75 percent-80 percent  Benchmark other facilities to see what their operational model looks like  The center should be affordable for everyone to use it Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 15 2.2 FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONAIRE As part of the community input process, PROS and city staff conducted a focus group questionnaire to gain a better understanding of desired features and amenities of Carlsbad residents in relation to a multigenerational community recreation centers. The questionnaire was distributed in Dec. 2015 and had a total of 24 participants. MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS PLEASE SELECT YOUR TOP 5 MOST DESIRED AMENITIES. The amenities that received the most top five votes were multipurpose courts for basketball, volleyball, etc. (11.2 percent), multipurpose space for classes/meetings/parties (10.3 percent), and indoor stage/performing arts (9.3 percent). Of the purposed choices, the amenities which received the fewest votes were stationary cycling/spinning space (0 percent) and childcare, dog training, greenhouse, and meditation classroom each receiving just 0.9 percent of votes (Figure 6). 0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0% Stationary cycling/spinning space Childcare Dog training Greenhouse Meditation classroom Dog care Gymnastics programming space Community/public garden Banquet/special events space Indoor warm water area for therapeutic purposes Unstructured indoor play space Culinary arts programming space Aerobics/fitness/martial arts/dance space Arts & crafts rooms Preschool programming space Indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming Rock climbing wall Pickleball courts Indoor running/walking track Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area Indoor stage/performing arts Multipurpose space for classes/meetings/parties Multipurpose courts for basketball, volleyball, etc. 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 6.5% 7.5% 9.3% 10.3% 11.2% Figure 6. Most Desired Amenities 16 2.3 COMMUNITY ON-LINE SURVEY PROS Consulting conducted an online survey to gain a better understanding of the characteristics, preferences, and satisfaction levels of Carlsbad residents in relation to a multigenerational community recreation center. The survey was available from Feb. 9 through March 10, 2016 and received a total of 1,148 responses. The online survey emulated the statistically reliable survey questions distributed by ETC. This allowed Carlsbad residents another opportunity to provide input even if they did not receive the statistically reliable survey. ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS ARE YOU OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD CURRENTLY USING ANY INDOOR RECREATION, SPORTS FITNESS, OR AQUATIC FITNESS FACILITIES? Currently, two-thirds of respondents use an indoor recreation, sport, or aquatic facility while 34 percent of respondents do not (Figure 7). 66% 34% Current Use of Indoor Facilities Yes No Figure 7. Survey Results of Current Use of Indoor Facilities Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 17 THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IS CONSIDERING DEVELOPING A NEW MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER AT POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK. LISTED BELOW ARE POTENTIAL FEATURES THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF A MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER. PLEASE INDICATE APPROXIMATELY HOW OFTEN YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD WOULD USE EACH OF THESE FEATURES. Top five potential amenities (bolded in table below) respondents would use several times per week are weight room/ cardiovascular equipment area (19 percent), indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming (16 percent), aerobics/fitness /martial arts/dance space (13 percent), other (13 percent), and indoor running/walking track (13 percent) (Figure 8). Other comments included:  Yoga studio  Pickleball, squash, racquetball, bocce courts  Leave it open space  Would not use due to location/not convenient  Indoor pool/splash pad  Rock climbing/adventure sport activities  Gathering/social spaces  Archery  Mountain biking/BMX track  Sand volleyball courts  Community garden 18 Potential Features Several times / week A few times / month At least once / month Less than once / month Seldom or Never Don’t Know Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area 19%12%15%12%38%2% Indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming 16%12%15%16%39%2% Aerobics/fitness/martial arts/dance space 13%13%18%18%35%3% Other 13%5%8%5%52%18% Indoor running/walking track 13%11%16%16%43%3% Indoor warm water area for therapeutic purposes 12%11%13%18%43%4% Stationary cycling/Spinning space 11%12%13%14%47%2% Rock climbing wall 8%12%20%20%37%2% Multipurpose courts for basketball, volleyball, etc.7%8%13%18%52%2% Unstructured indoor play space 6%7%13%15%56%3% Culinary arts space 6%9%20%21%40%3% Preschool space 5%2%7%7%77%2% Childcare 5%5%8%9%70%3% Arts and crafts rooms 5%9%16%23%43%4% Gymnastics space 4%6%12%14%60%3% Dog care 4%5%9%13%65%3% Multipurpose space for classes/meetings/parties 4%6%13%32%40%5% Dog training 3%6%10%14%64%3% Indoor stage/performing arts 3%5%12%24%52%5% Banquet/special event space 1%2%7%31%53%6% Figure 8. Potential Features Use Most Often Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 19 WHICH FOUR OF THE FEATURES LISTED WOULD YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD BE MOST LIKELY TO USE IF THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER? (IF 'NONE' PLEASE LEAVE BLANK) Top five potential features (bolded in table below) respondents would use the most for their first choice are rock climbing wall (15 percent), multipurpose courts for basketball, volleyball, etc. (13 percent), indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming (13 percent), weight room/cardiovascular equipment area (13 percent), and aerobics/ fitness/ martial arts/ dance space (eight percent) (Figure 9). Potential Features Households Would Be Most Likely to Use 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 4th Choice Rock climbing wall 15%9%11%6% Multipurpose courts for basketball, volleyball, etc.13%7%5%6% Indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming 13%9%9%8% Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area 13%10%7%7% Aerobics/fitness/martial arts/dance space 8%9%8%7% Indoor running/walking track 7%7%8%7% Unstructured indoor play space 4%4%4%3% Indoor warm water area for therapeutic purposes 4%7%5%5% Stationary cycling/Spinning space 3%7%6%4% Culinary arts space 3%5%8%10% Multipurpose space for classes/meetings/parties 3%5%6%6% Indoor stage/performing arts 2%3%2%5% Childcare 2%3%2%3% Arts and crafts rooms 2%4%5%7% Dog care 2%4%4%3% Dog training 2%2%2%3% Gymnastics space 2%3%3%4% Preschool space 2%1%1%2% Banquet/special event space 1%2%2%4% Figure 9. Potential Features Choice 20 IF THE MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER WERE DEVELOPED WITH THE TYPES OF FACILITIES THAT YOU INDICATED WERE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BEST REPRESENTS HOW OFTEN YOUR HOUSEHOLD WOULD VISIT THE CENTER? Nearly two-thirds of respondents would use the proposed community center once a week or more. Only six percent of respondents would never use the facility and three percent did not know (Figure 10). 7% 39% 18% 15% 5% 8%6%3% Daily Few times a week Once a week Few times a month Once a month Few times a year Never Don’t know Percentage Usage of the Center 64% Figure 10. Frequency of Usage of the Center Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 21 IF THE CITY WERE TO CHARGE FEES TO USE FEATURES AT A NEW MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER (SUCH AS THOSE LISTED IN QUESTION #2), WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE YOUR PREFERRED WAY OF PAYING FEES TO USE THE CENTER IF IT HAD THE FEATURES YOU MOST PREFERRED? Thirty-seven percent of respondents prefer paying per visit to use the center followed by 22 percent using a monthly auto-debit from banking or credit card account. Twenty percent of respondents were not willing to pay to use the center and 12 percent did not know (Figure 11). 22% 3% 37% 12% 20% 8% Monthly auto- debit from banking or credit card account By personal check, bank check or money order Pay per visit Don’t know I’m not willing to pay to use the center Other (please specify) Preferred Way of Paying Fee to Use the Center Figure 11. Preferred way of Paying Fee 22 FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS TO PAY FOR USING THE MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER, PLEASE CHECK THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY TO USE THE COMMUNITY CENTER IF IT HAD THE TYPES OF PROGRAM FEATURES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU.6A. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY FOR A MONTHLY FAMILY (4 OR MORE PEOPLE) PASS TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER? Nearly three-fourths of respondents would be willing to pay less than $80 per month for a monthly family pass to use the center (Figure 12). 4%7% 16% 73% $120 or more per month $100-$119 per month $80-$99 per month Less than $80 per month Family Monthly Pass Figure 12. Maximum Amount Willing to Pay for a Monthly Family Pass Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 23 WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY FOR AN MONTHLY ADULT PASS TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER? Sixty-two percent of respondents would be willing to pay less than $40 per month for a monthly adult pass to use the center followed by 23 percent would be willing to pay $30-$39 per month (Figure 13). 5%9% 23% 62% $50 or more per month $40-$49 per month $30-$39 per month Less than $40 per month Adult Monthly Pass Figure 13. Maximum Amount Willing to Pay for a Monthly Adult Pass 24 WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY FOR A DAILY ADULT FEE TO USE THE COMMUNITY CENTER? Majority of respondents would be willing to pay $7 per visit or less for an adult daily pass (Figure 14). WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY FOR A DAILY CHILD FEE TO USE THE COMMUNITY CENTER? Forty-four percent of respondents are willing to pay $3 or less for a daily child pass for use of the center followed by 33 percent would pay $5 per visit (Figure 15). 7%3% 17% 73% $10 or more per visit $9 per visit $8 per visit $7 per visit or less Adult Daily Fee 11% 33% 13% 44% $6 or more per visit $5 per visit $4 per visit $3 per visit or less Child Daily Fee Figure 14. Maximum Amount Willing to Pay for a Daily Adult Fee Figure 15. Maximum Amount Willing to Pay for a Daily Child Fee Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 25 THE CITY OF CARLSBAD COULD PARTNER WITH OTHER NONPROFITS OR PRIVATE BUSINESSES IN DEVELOPING AND OPERATING THE MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER AT POINSETTIA PARK. FROM THE FOLLOWING LIST OF POTENTIAL PARTNERS, PLEASE CIRCLE HOW SUPPORTIVE YOU WOULD BE OF THE CITY PARTNERING WITH NONPROFITS OR PRIVATE BUSINESSES ON POSSIBLY DEVELOPING AND OPERATING THE MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER. Seventy-four percent of respondents are very supportive or supportive of a nonprofit partnership to develop and operate a community center. Sixty-four percent of respondents were very supportive or supportive as well with no partner (city management) to develop and operate a community center. Only about half of the respondents were very supportive or supportive with partnering with private businesses to develop and operate the community center (Figure 16). 48% 36% 22% 26%28% 24% 15% 27%28% 3%5% 11%8%5% 15% Partner with Non-Profits No Partner (City Managed)Partner with Private Businesses Support of Partnerships to Develop and Operate Center Very Supportive Supportive Not Sure Not Supportive Not Supportive At All Figure 16. Support of Partnerships 26 IT IS EXPECTED THE ESTIMATED COSTS WILL EXCEED ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN CITY GENERAL FUNDS TO DEVELOP THE MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER. IN THAT CASE, HOW SUPPORTIVE WOULD YOU BE PLACING THE MEASURE ON THE BALLOT TO BE VOTED ON BY CITY OF CARLSBAD RESIDENTS? NOTE: SUPPORTING THIS BALLOT MEASURE WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY TAX INCREASE. Seventy-six percent of respondents were very supportive or supportive to place the development of the community center on the ballot for the residents of Carlsbad to vote on. Only 12 percent of respondents were not supportive or not supportive at all for placing the measure on the ballot (Figure 17). 50% 26% 12% 4%8% Very Supportive Supportive Not Sure Not Supportive Not Supportive at All Support to Place Development of Center on Ballot76% Figure 17. Support to Place the Measure on Ballot Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 27 DEMOGRAPHICS Age Segments 0 1 2 3 4 5 5+ Under age 5 46.35%35.11%16.57%0.84%0.84%0.28%0.00% Ages 5-9 33.33%43.95%21.73%0.99%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 10-14 33.60%44.88%20.47%1.05%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 15-19 40.26%45.05%12.78%1.92%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 20-24 58.41%34.96%5.75%0.88%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 25-34 42.65%29.39%26.16%1.43%0.00%0.36%0.00% Ages 35-44 22.66%32.24%44.66%0.44%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 45-54 21.25%35.33%43.19%0.23%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 55-64 27.25%37.97%34.20%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.58% Ages 65-74 38.04%32.97%28.99%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 75+74.12%19.41%6.47%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% Counting yourself, how many people in your household are: 29% 71% Gender Male Female Figure 18. Survey Respondents’ Household Size By Age Segment Figure 19. Survey Respondents’ Gender Ratio 28 2.4 STASTICALLY VALID SURVEY ETC Institute partnered with PROS consulting and the City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department to conduct a community recreation feasibility survey to determine the feasibility of constructing and potentially partnering for the operation of a proposed multigenerational community recreation center. In Dec. 2013 Carlsbad City Council accepted the needs assessment and comprehensive action plan (master plan). The master plan includes a strategic action plan that serves as a guide for the department’s priority development, capital improvement project planning, and park, facility and amenity development for a five year period. METHODOLOGY The survey was designed to ensure results would be statistically valid and maximize community input.  Statistically Reliable Random Sample. In order to obtain a statistically valid sample, ETC Institute selected a random sample survey of 2,500 households. The sample was address-based, and the households were selected at random from all known residential addresses in the City of Carlsbad. This method ensured that each household in the city had an equal probability of being selected for the survey. Survey packets were mailed to each of the 2,500 households selected for the random sample. The survey packets contained a cover letter, a copy of the survey, and a postage- paid return envelope. A few days after the surveys were mailed, ETC Institute sent emails and placed phone calls to households in the random sample to encourage participation. The emails contained a link to an online version of the survey to make it convenient and easy for residents to respond. To prevent responses from people who were not part of the random sample from being blended to those who were selected for the random sample, everyone who completed the survey online was required to enter their home address prior to submitting the survey. ETC Institute matched the addresses that were entered online with the addresses that were originally selected for the random sample. If the address from a survey completed online did not match one of the addresses selected for the random sample, the online survey was not counted as part of the random sample. A total of 502 residents from the random sample completed the survey. Of these, 344 were completed by mail, 136 were completed online, and 22 were completed by phone. The results for the random sample of 502 households have a 95 percent level of confidence with a precision rate of at least +/- 4.4 percent.  Non-Random Sample. In order to accomplish the second objective of maximizing input from the community, ETC Institute created a website for the survey that was open to all community residents. This unscientific, non-random sample allowed anyone in the community to share their opinions with the city. A total of 215 residents from the non-random sample completed the survey online. Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 29 SURVEY FINDINGS CURRENT USE OF INDOOR FACILITIES Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they currently use indoor recreation, sports fitness, or aquatic fitness facilities. Fifty-four percent (54 percent) of respondents indicated they currently used these types of indoor facilities. MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER Use of Potential Features From a list of 19 potential features that could be developed in a new community recreation center, respondents were asked to indicate how often they would use the features. The features that would be utilized the most frequently include, a preschool space, childcare, and unstructured indoor play space (Figure 20). 24.1 24.7 Q2. Use of Potential Features that Could Be Developed in a Multigenerational Community Recreation Center by percentage of respondents 40% 58% 56% 42% 48% 32% 44% 50% 41% 47% 38% 35% 35% 34% 31% 28% 30% 29% 28% 53% 21% 3% 4% 15% 9% 24% 11% 5% 14% 7% 14% 14% 12% 13% 15% 15% 13% 12% 14% 3% 4% 2% 3% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 6% 7% 10% 12% 14% 11% 10% 11% 11% 13% 9% 4% 10%4%6%10%9%13%8%8%12% 9% 13% 14%16%14%15%17%15%15%15%4% 24%33%31%24%28%23%28%29%27% 30% 25% 25%23%28%29%28%30%31%35%36% Banquet/special event space Preschool space Childcare Indoor stage/performing arts Dog training Multipurpose space Dog care Unstructured indoor play space Multipurpose courts Gymnastics space Arts & crafts rooms Rock climbing wall Culinary arts space Indoor running/walking track Stationary cycling/spinning space Aerobics/fitness/martial arts/dance space Indoor warm water area for therapeutic purposes Indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area Other 0%20%40%60%80%100% Several times per Week A few times a month At least once a month Less than once a month Seldom or Never Source: ETC Institute (2016) Figure 20. Use of Potential Features 30 Potential Features Households Would Be Most Likely to Use Based on the sum of respondents’ top four choices, 43 percent of respondents indicated they would be most likely to use the weight room/cardiovascular equipment area. Other features include: indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming (34 percent), aerobics/fitness/martial arts/dance space (28 percent), indoor running and walking track (26 percent), indoor warm water area for therapeutic purposes (24 percent), and the rock climbing wall (24 percent) (Figure 21).  When considering responses from households who chose a specific feature as their first choice for most likely to use option, multipurpose courts jump from the eighth most likely to use choice to second most likely to use choice.  Households with children under the age of ten were the most likely to use indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming, and the rock climbing wall. 12% 43% 34% 28% 26% 24% 24% 23% 21% 16% 14% 13% 11% 10% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area Indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming Aerobics/fitness/martial arts/dance space Indoor running/walking track Indoor warm water area for therapeutic purposes Rock climbing wall Stationary cycling/spinning space Multipurpose courts Culinary arts space Arts & crafts rooms Multipurpose space Dog care Dog training Banquet/special event space Unstructured indoor play space Indoor stage/performing arts Gymnastics space Childcare Preschool space Other None chosen 0%20%40%60%80% Most Likely 2nd Most Likely 3rd Most Likely 4th Most Likely Q3. Features that Households Would Be Most Likely to Use if Developed in the Multigenerational Community Recreation Center by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top four choices Source: ETC Institute (2016) Figure 21. Potential Features Households Most Likely to Use Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 31 Potential Center Use Ninety-four percent of households indicated some level of use if the multigenerational community recreation center was developed. Over half of respondents (54 percent) indicated they would use the facility at least once a week or more. Preferred Way of Paying Use Fees Seventy-four percent of respondents were either willing to pay per visit (41 percent) or on a monthly auto- debit basis (33 percent) to use the center. Only 21 percent indicated they were not willing to pay to use the center (Figure 22).  Households making under $40k were the most likely to indicate they were not willing to pay fees to use the center. Households making $40k to $129,999k were most likely to prefer to pay per visit. Households making between $130k and $249,999 were more likely to prefer to pay by monthly auto-debit. Figure 22. Preferred Way of Paying Use Fees 32 MAXIMUM AMOUNT RESPONDENTS ARE WILLING TO PAY TO USE THE CENTER  Family Monthly Pass The overwhelming majority of respondents (73 percent) were the most willing to pay less than $80 per month for a family pass to use the community center per month.  Adult Monthly Pass Fifty-eight percent were the most willing to pay less than $30 a month for an adult monthly community center pass. Twenty-five percent of respondents were willing to pay $30-$39 a month.  Adult Daily Fee Seventy-two percent were willing to pay $7 per visit or less. Seventeen percent were willing to pay $8 per visit.  Child Daily Fee Forty percent of respondents were willing to pay $3 per visit. Other amounts include: $5 per visit (27 percent), $4 per visit (21 percent), and $6 or more per visit (12 percent). Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 33 PARTNERSHIPS Support for Partnerships to Develop and Operate the Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Based on the sum of respondents who were either very supportive or supportive, 66 percent support the city to partner with nonprofits. Other supported partnerships include: no partner (city managed) (51 percent) and partner with private businesses (43 percent). FUNDING Support to Place Development of Multigenerational Community Recreation Center on Ballot Seventy percent indicated they were either very supportive (39 percent) or supportive (31 percent) of putting the measure on the ballot. Fifteen percent (15 percent) were not sure and 14 percent were not supportive (Figure 23). Figure 23. Support to Place the Measure on Ballot 34 CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS 3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS The demographic analysis provides an understanding of city’s population. This analysis is reflective of the total population, and its key characteristics such as age segments, income levels, race, and ethnicity. Future projections based on historical patterns and unforeseen circumstances during or after the time of the projections could have a significant bearing on the validity of the final projections. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW The total population of the City has increased approximately 4.51 percent; from 105,328 in 2010 to 110,081 in 2015. The current estimated population is projected to continue its rapid growth, increasing to 115,622 individuals in 2020, and 125,785 by 2030. According to U.S. Census reports, the total number of households in the target area has experienced a coinciding upward trend, increasing roughly 3.94 percent, from 41,345 in 2010 to 42,976 in 2015. The city’s total households are expected to continue to increase at this steady rate up to 48,788 households by 2030. The City’s median household income ($90,603) and per capita income ($47,554) are both well above the state and national averages. Based on the 2010 Census, the target area population is slightly higher (41.5 years) than the median age of the U.S. (37.2 years). Projections show that the service area will undergo an aging trend throughout 2030, as the 55+ age group grows to represent over 36 percent of the total population. The estimated 2015 population of the service area is predominantly White alone (81.13 percent), with the Asian (7.76 percent) population representing the largest minority. Future projections show that by 2030 the overall composition of the population will become more diverse. Forecasts of the target area through 2030 expect decreases in the White alone (76.65 percent) population; coinciding with slight increases in the population for all other ethnic segments. Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 35 METHODOLOGY Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau and from Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). All data was acquired in Nov. 2015 and reflects actual numbers as reported in the 2010 Censuses, and estimates for 2015 and 2020 as obtained by ESRI. Straight-line linear regression was utilized for projected 2025 and 2030 demographics. Carlsbad’s city boundaries were utilized as the demographic analysis boundary shown below in Figure 24. Figure 24. Carlsbad, California - City Limits 36 RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined below. The Census 2010 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time. The latest (Census 2010) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis.  American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment  Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam  Black – This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa  Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands  White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa  Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 37 CARLSBAD CITY POPULACE POPULATION The city’s population has seen a substantial growth in recent years and is currently estimated at 110,081 individuals. Projecting ahead, the total population is expected to continue to grow over the next 15 years. Based on predictions through 2030, the city is expected to have just below 125,800 residents living within 48,788 households (Figure 25). Figure 25. Total Population 105,328110,081115,622120,638 125,785 2010 CENSUS 2015 ESTIMATE 2020 PROJECTION 2025 PROJECTION 2030 PROJECTION POPULATION 38 AGE SEGMENT Evaluating the population by age segments, the service area exhibits a skewed distribution among the four major age segments; with the 35-54 and 55+ segments representing 58.4 percent of the city’s total population. Currently, the city has a predominately aging population, with the average age of its residents being 41.5 years old. The overall population composition is projected to undergo an aging trend. While the younger three age segments are expected to experience decreases or minimal increases in population percentage; the 55+ age segment is projected to continue increasing an additional 7.1% over the next 15 years. This is assumed to be a consequence of a vast amount of the Baby Boomer generation shifting into the senior age segment (Figure 26). The Parks & Recreation Department, currently offers a wide variety of programs; primarily focusing on the preschooler, teen, and adult 50+ segments. Moving forward, the department might want to consider separating its adult 50+ segment into multiple segments. Given the differences in how active adults (55+) participate in recreation programs, the trend is moving toward having at least two different segments of older adults. The department could evaluate further splitting program offerings into 55–74 and 75 plus program segments. With Carlsbad’s population expected to continue to age over the next 15 years, this would be a great time for the department to consider taking this step. Figure 26. Population Age by Segments 24.1%23.2%22.1%21.3%20.5% 18.0%18.4%18.7%19.0%19.3% 31.3%28.9%27.2%25.3%23.6% 26.6%29.5%32.0%34.4%36.6% 2010 CENSUS 2015 ESTIMATE 2020 PROJECTION 2025 PROJECTION 2030 PROJECTION POPULATION BY AGE SEGMENT <18 18-34 35-54 55+ Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 39 RACE AND ETHNICITY Carlsbad’s current population is predominately White alone. The 2015 estimate shows that 81.13 percent of the population falls into the White alone category, while the Asian category (7.76 percent) represents the largest minority. The predictions for 2030 expect the population by race to become slightly more diverse. There is expected to be a decrease in the White alone category; accompanied by slight increases in population of all other races (Figure 27). Figure 27. Population by Race 82.79%81.13%79.44%78.00%76.65% 7.08%7.76%8.56%9.17%9.76% 4.16%4.68%5.15%5.58%5.97% 2010 CENSUS 2015 ESTIMATE 2020 PROJECTION 2025 PROJECTION 2030 PROJECTION POPULATION BY RACE White Alone Black Alone American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races 40 HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME The city’s median household income ($90,603) and per capita income ($47,554) are both well above the state and national averages (Figure 28). With household income being above the national average, this indicates the presence of disposable income. Residents living in Carlsbad will be more likely to desire best in class facilities and be willing to pay for them compared to the average United States citizen. Figure 28. Comparative Income Characteristics $47,554 $29,527 $28,051 $90,603 $61,094 $53,046 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA U.S.A. COMPARATIVE INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Per Capita Income Median Household Income Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 41 3.2 TRENDS ANALYSIS The following tables summarize the findings from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) 2015 Sports, Fitness and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report, as well as the local market potential index data, which compares the demand for recreational activities and spending of residents for the targeted area to the national averages. Summary of National Participatory Trends Analysis 1. Number of “inactives” decreased slightly, those ‘active to a healthy level’ on the rise a. “Inactives” up 3% in 2014, from 80.2 million to 82.7 million b. Approximately one-third of Americans (ages 6+) are active to a healthy level 2. Most popular sport and recreational activities a. Fitness walking (112.6 million) b. Running/jogging (51.1 million) c. Treadmill (50.2 million) 3. Most participated in team sports a. Golf (24.7 million) b. Basketball (23 million) c. Tennis (17.9 million) 4. Activities most rapidly growing over last five years a. Adventure Racing – up 136% b. Non-traditional/off-road triathlon – up 123% c. Squash – up 101% d. Traditional/road triathlon – up 92% e. Rugby – up 77% 5. Activities most rapidly declining over last five years a. Wrestling – down 40% b. Touch football – down 32% c. In-line roller skating – down 32% d. Racquetball – down 25% e. Slow-pitch softball – down 23% Summary of Local Market Potential Index Analysis 1. The service area exhibits above average market potential for sport and leisure activities 2. Top recreational activities in Carlsbad compared to the national averages a. Participated in downhill b. Visited a museum c. Participated in yoga 42 Statistics published by Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) 2015 Study of Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Participation reveals that the most popular sport and recreational activities include: fitness walking, running/jogging, treadmill, free weights and road bicycling. Most of these activities appeal to both young and old alike, can be done in most environments, are enjoyed regardless of level of skill, and have minimal economic barriers to entry. These popular activities also have appeal because of the social aspect. For example, although fitness activities are mainly self-directed, people enjoy walking and biking with other individuals because it can offer a degree of camaraderie. Fitness walking has remained the most popular activity of the past decade by a large margin, in terms of total participants. Walking participation during the latest year data was available (2014), reported over 112 million Americans had walked for fitness at least once. From a traditional team sport standpoint, basketball ranks highest among all sports, with approximately 23 million people reportedly participating in 2014. Team sports that have experienced significant growth in participation are rugby, lacrosse, field hockey, ice hockey, roller hockey, and gymnastics – all of which have experienced double digit growth over the last five years. In the past year, the estimated number of “inactives” in America has increased three percent, from 80.2 million in 2013 to 82.7 million in 2014. According to the Physical Activity Council, an “inactive” is defined as an individual that doesn’t take part in any “active” sport. Although inactivity was up in 2014, the 209 million “actives” seem to be participating more often and in multiple activities. The Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Recreational Activities Topline Participation Report 2015 was utilized to evaluate national sport and fitness participatory trends. The study is based on online interviews carried out in Jan. and Feb. 2015 from nearly 11,000 individuals and households. NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS The most heavily participated in sports for 2014 were golf (24.7 million) and basketball (23 million). While both of these activities have seen declining participation levels in recent years, the numbers of participants for each activity are well above the other activities in the general sports category. The popularity of golf and basketball can be attributed to the ability to compete with relatively small number of participants. Golf also benefits from its wide age segment appeal, and is considered a lifelong sport. Basketball’s success can be attributed to the limited amount of equipment needed to participate and the limited space requirements necessary, which make basketball the only traditional sport that can be played at the majority of American dwellings as a driveway pickup game. Since 2009, squash and other niche sports, like lacrosse and rugby, have seen strong growth (Figure 29). Squash has emerged as the overall fastest growing sport, as it has seen participation levels rise 100 percent over the last five years. Based on survey findings from 2009-2014, rugby and lacrosse have also experienced significant growth, increasing by 77 percent and 73 percent respectively. Other sports with notable participation growth in the last five years were field hockey (42.6 percent), roller hockey (21.7 percent), ice hockey (20 percent), gymnastics (16.9 percent), and cheerleading (12.6 percent). In the last year, the fastest growing sports were roller hockey (33.7 percent), squash (12.9 percent), competition boxing (12.7 percent), lacrosse (10.9 percent), and rugby (7.9 percent). During the last five Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 43 years, the sports that are most rapidly declining include wrestling (40.3 percent decrease), touch football (down 32.3 percent), and racquetball (24.9 percent decrease). In terms of total participants, the most popular activities in the general sports category in 2014 include golf (24.7 million), basketball (23 million), tennis (17.9 million), baseball (13.1 million), and outdoor soccer (12.6 million). Although four out of five of these sports have been declining in recent years, the number of participants demands the continued support of these activities. Figure 29. General Sports Participatory Trends 2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14 Golf 27,103 24,720 24,700 -0.1%-8.9% Basketball 25,131 23,669 23,067 -2.5%-8.2% Tennis 18,546 17,678 17,904 1.3%-3.5% Baseball 14,429 13,284 13,152 -1.0%-8.9% Soccer (Outdoor)13,957 12,726 12,592 -1.1%-9.8% Badminton 7,469 7,150 7,176 0.4%-3.9% Softball (Slow Pitch)9,180 6,868 7,077 3.0%-22.9% Football, Touch 9,726 7,140 6,586 -7.8%-32.3% Volleyball (Court)7,737 6,433 6,304 -2.0%-18.5% Football, Tackle 7,243 6,165 5,978 -3.0%-17.5% Football, Flag 6,932 5,610 5,508 -1.8%-20.5% Volleyball (Sand/Beach)4,324 4,769 4,651 -2.5%7.6% Gymnastics 3,952 4,972 4,621 -7.1%16.9% Soccer (Indoor)4,825 4,803 4,530 -5.7%-6.1% Ultimate Frisbee 4,636 5,077 4,530 -10.8%-2.3% Track and Field 4,480 4,071 4,105 0.8%-8.4% Racquetball 4,784 3,824 3,594 -6.0%-24.9% Cheerleading 3,070 3,235 3,456 6.8%12.6% Pickleball N/A N/A 2,462 N/A N/A Softball (Fast Pitch)2,476 2,498 2,424 -3.0%-2.1% Ice Hockey 2,018 2,393 2,421 1.2%20.0% Lacrosse 1,162 1,813 2,011 10.9%73.1% Wrestling 3,170 1,829 1,891 3.4%-40.3% Roller Hockey 1,427 1,298 1,736 33.7%21.7% Squash 796 1,414 1,596 12.9%100.5% Field Hockey 1,092 1,474 1,557 5.6%42.6% Boxing for Competition N/A 1,134 1,278 12.7%N/A Rugby 720 1,183 1,276 7.9%77.2% National Participatory Trends - General Sports Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 44 NATIONAL TRENDS IN AQUATIC ACTIVITY Swimming is a lifetime sport, and aquatic activities have remained very popular. Fitness swimming leads in multigenerational appeal with over 25 million reported participants in 2014 (Figure 30). NOTE: In 2011, recreational swimming was broken into competition and fitness categories in order to better identify key trends. Aquatic exercise has a strong participation base, and has recently experienced an upward trend. Aquatic exercise has paved the way for a less stressful form of physical activity, allowing similar gains and benefits to land based exercise, including aerobic fitness, resistance training, flexibility, and better balance. Doctors have begun recommending aquatic exercise for injury rehabilitation, mature patients, and patients with bone or joint problems due to the significant reduction of stress placed on weight-bearing joints, bones, muscles, and also the effect of the water in reducing swelling of injuries. Figure 30. Aquatic Participatory Trends 2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14 Swimming (Fitness)N/A 26,354 25,304 -4.0%N/A Aquatic Exercise 8,965 8,483 9,122 7.5%1.8% Swimming (Competition)N/A 2,638 2,710 2.7%N/A National Participatory Trends - Aquatics Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 45 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS National participatory fitness trends have experienced strong growth in recent years. Many of these activities have become popular due to an increased interest among people to improve their health by engaging in an active lifestyle. These activities also have very few barriers to entry, which provides a variety of activities that are relatively inexpensive to participate in and can be performed by nearly anyone with no time restrictions. The most popular fitness activity is fitness walking, which had over 112.5 million participants in 2014. Other leading fitness activities based on number of participants include running/jogging (51 million), treadmill (50 million), hand weights (42 million), and weight/resistant machines (36 million). Over the last five years, the activities that grew most rapidly were off-road triathlons (up 123 percent), road triathlons (up 92 percent), trail running (up 55 percent), high impact aerobics (55 percent increase), and yoga (up 33 percent). Most recently, from 2013-2014, the largest gains in participation were high impact aerobics (14 percent increase), trail running (up 11 percent), and barre (up 10 percent) (Figure 31). 46 Figure 31. General Fitness National Participatory Trends 2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14 Fitness Walking 110,882 117,351 112,583 -4.1%1.5% Running/Jogging 42,511 54,188 51,127 -5.6%20.3% Treadmill 50,395 48,166 50,241 4.3%-0.3% Free Weights (Hand Weights)N/A 43,164 41,670 -3.5%N/A Weight/Resistant Machines 39,075 36,267 35,841 -1.2%-8.3% Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,215 35,247 35,693 1.3%-1.4% Stretching 36,299 36,202 35,624 -1.6%-1.9% Free Weights (Dumbells)N/A 32,209 30,767 -4.5%N/A Elliptical Motion Trainer 25,903 27,119 28,025 3.3%8.2% Free Weights (Barbells)26,595 25,641 25,623 -0.1%-3.7% Yoga 18,934 24,310 25,262 3.9%33.4% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A N/A 22,390 N/A N/A Aerobics (High Impact)12,771 17,323 19,746 14.0%54.6% Stair Climbing Machine 13,653 12,642 13,216 4.5%-3.2% Pilates Training 8,770 8,069 8,504 5.4%-3.0% Stationary Cycling (Group)6,762 8,309 8,449 1.7%24.9% Trail Running 4,845 6,792 7,531 10.9%55.4% Cross-Training N/A 6,911 6,774 -2.0%N/A Cardio Kickboxing 5,500 6,311 6,747 6.9%22.7% Martial Arts 6,643 5,314 5,364 0.9%-19.3% Boxing for Fitness N/A 5,251 5,113 -2.6%N/A Tai Chi 3,315 3,469 3,446 -0.7%4.0% Barre N/A 2,901 3,200 10.3%N/A Triathlon (Traditional/Road)1,148 2,262 2,203 -2.6%91.9% Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)634 1,390 1,411 1.5%122.6% National Participatory Trends - General Fitness Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 47 NATIONAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION Results from the SFIA’s Topline Participation Report demonstrate increased popularity in numerous outdoor recreation activities. These activities encourage an active lifestyle, can be performed individually or with a group, and are not limited by time restraints. In 2014, the most popular activities in the outdoor recreation category include road bicycling (40 million), freshwater fishing (38 million), and day hiking (36 million). From 2009-2014, outdoor recreation activities that have undergone large increases are adventure racing (up 136 percent), archery (up 33 percent), backpacking overnight (up 30 percent), and BMX bicycling (up 27 percent). Over the same time frame, activities declining most rapidly were inline roller skating (down 32 percent), camping within a quarter mile of home or vehicle (down 16 percent), and recreational vehicle camping (down 14 percent) (Figure 32). Figure 32. Outdoor Recreation Participatory Trends 2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14 Bicycling (Road)39,127 40,888 39,725 -2.8%1.5% Fishing (Freshwater)40,646 37,796 37,821 0.1%-7.0% Hiking (Day) 32,542 34,378 36,222 5.4%11.3% Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home)34,012 29,269 28,660 -2.1%-15.7% Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 Mile of Home/Vehicle)22,702 21,359 21,110 -1.2%-7.0% Camping (Recreational Vehicle)16,977 14,556 14,633 0.5%-13.8% Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)13,847 14,152 13,179 -6.9%-4.8% Fishing (Saltwater)13,054 11,790 11,817 0.2%-9.5% Backpacking Overnight 7,757 9,069 10,101 11.4%30.2% Archery 6,368 7,647 8,435 10.3%32.5% Bicycling (Mountain)7,367 8,542 8,044 -5.8%9.2% Hunting (Shotgun)8,611 7,894 7,894 0.0%-8.3% Skateboarding 7,580 6,350 6,582 3.7%-13.2% Roller Skating, In-Line 8,942 6,129 6,061 -1.1%-32.2% Fishing (Fly)5,755 5,878 5,842 -0.6%1.5% Climbing (Sport/Indoor/Boulder)4,541 4,745 4,536 -4.4%-0.1% Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,062 2,319 2,457 6.0%19.2% Adventure Racing 1,005 2,095 2,368 13.0%135.6% Bicycling (BMX) 1,858 2,168 2,350 8.4%26.5% National Participatory Trends - Outdoor Recreation Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 48 LOCAL SPORT AND MARKET POTENTIAL The following charts show sport and leisure market potential data from ESRI. A Market Potential Data (MPI) measures the probable demand for a product or service in Carlsbad. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the U.S. National average. The national average is 100, therefore numbers below 100 would represent a lower than average participation rate, and numbers above 100 would represent higher than average participation rate. The service area is compared to the national average in four categories – general sports, fitness, outdoor activity, and money spent on miscellaneous recreation. Overall, the City of Carlsbad demonstrates above average market potential index (MPI) numbers; this is particularly noticeable in the fitness and outdoor activity market potential tables. All of the activities in both of these categories have above average MPI scores (100+). Looking at the general sports and money spent on recreation market potential tables, even though they both have a few activities with MPI scores below 100, a majority of the activities are well above the national averages. These overall high MPI scores show that Carlsbad residents have a rather strong participation presence. This becomes significant when the Parks &Recreation Department considers hosting special events or starting up new programs; giving them a strong tool to estimate resident attendance. The following sport and leisure trends are most prevalent for residents within the City of Carlsbad. The activities are listed in descending order, from highest to lowest number of estimated participants among city residents. High index numbers (100+) are significant because they demonstrate that there is a greater potential that residents of the service area will actively participate in programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department. GENERAL SPORTS MARKET POTENTIAL Carlsbad USA Golf 9,906 11.7%9.4%124 Basketball 6,737 8.0%8.3%96 Tennis 5,288 6.3%4.3%147 Skiing (Downhill)4,085 4.8%2.8%169 Soccer 3,832 4.5%3.8%120 Football 3,711 4.4%5.0%88 Baseball 3,443 4.1%4.5%91 Volleyball 3,149 3.7%3.5%105 Softball 2,905 3.4%3.4%101 MPI Local Participatory Trends - General Sports Activity Estimated Participants % of Population Figure 33. City of Carlsbad MPI (General Sports) Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 49 FITNESS MARKET POTENTIAL OUTDOOR ACTIVITY MARKET POTENTIAL Carlsbad USA Walking for exercise 28,727 34.0%28.1%121 Swimming 16,825 19.9%15.8%126 Jogging/running 15,247 18.0%12.7%142 Weight lifting 11,970 14.2%10.7%133 Aerobics 9,932 11.8%8.9%132 Yoga 9,255 11.0%7.2%153 Pilates 3,165 3.7%2.8%134 Local Participatory Trends - Fitness Activity Estimated Participants % of Population MPI Carlsbad USA Hiking 12,567 14.9%10.0%149 Bicycling (road)11,162 13.2%9.9%134 Went overnight camping 11,107 13.1%12.7%103 Canoeing/kayaking 5,460 6.5%5.4%120 Boating (power)4,814 5.7%5.3%108 Bicycling (mountain)4,542 5.4%4.0%134 Fishing (salt water)3,431 4.1%4.1%101 Backpacking 3,087 3.7%3.0%125 Horseback riding 2,104 2.5%2.5%102 Local Participatory Trends - Outdoor Activity Activity Estimated Participants % of Population MPI Figure 34. City of Carlsbad MPI (Fitness) Figure 35. City of Carlsbad MPI (Outdoor Activity) 50 MONEY SPENT ON MISCELLANEOUS RECREATION Carlsbad USA Attended sports event 25,070 29.7%23.6%126 Visited a theme park 19,504 23.1%18.0%128 Visited a Museum 17,267 20.4%12.9%158 Visited a zoo 12,447 14.7%11.8%125 Attended baseball game - MLB reg seas 12,171 14.4%9.6%150 Spent $250+ on sports/rec equip 7,438 8.8%7.0%126 Spent $100-249 on sports/rec equip 6,659 7.9%6.5%121 Attended football game (college)6,239 7.4%5.6%131 Attended football game - NFL weekend 5,425 6.4%4.6%138 Spent $1-99 on sports/rec equip 5,330 6.3%5.9%106 Attended high school sports 3,782 4.5%4.6%97 Attended basketball game - NBA reg seas 3,708 4.4%3.2%139 Attended ice hockey - NHL reg seas 3,560 4.2%2.8%151 Attended basketball game (college)3,341 4.0%3.0%134 Attended football game - NFL Mon/Thurs 3,067 3.6%2.6%140 Visited indoor water park 2,802 3.3%3.1%106 Activity Estimated Participants % of Population MPI Local Participatory Trends -Money Spent on Recreation Figure 36. City of Carlsbad MPI (Recreation Expenditures) Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 51 3.3 SIMILAR PROVIDER ANALYSIS Based on city staff input and the consultant’s operational experience, it was determined that a drive time of 15 minutes or less from Poinsettia Park would be considered a primary similar provider target audience for the center. These providers were identified by city staff and include a variety of special focus facilities e.g. Crossfit facilities or gymnastics and a few multigenerational, e.g. Encinitas and Oceanside YMCA or the Encinitas Community and Senior Center, etc. The drive time map review and comparison of similar providers (e.g. Crossfit) versus true competitors (e.g. YMCA) reveals that there are very few true competitors and thus, adequate potential in the Carlsbad market for this proposed facility to serve an unmet community need (Figure 37). 52 TRUE COMPETITOR MAP YMCA-Oceanside YMCA-Carlsbad YMCA-Encinitas YMCA-Oceanside East Valley Community Center Encinitas Community and Senior Center San Marcos Community Center = Poinsettia Community Park Facility Address City State Zip Code -Poinsettia Community Park 6600 Hidden Valley Rd.Carlsbad CA 92011 7 mins YMCA 6100 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad CA 92011 12 mins YMCA 200 Saxony Rd Encinitas CA 92024 14 mins Encinitas Community and Senior Center 1140 Oakcreast Park Dr.Encinitas CA 92024 14 mins YMCA 215 Barnes St Oceanside CA 92054 23 mins YMCA 4701 Mesa Dr.Oceanside CA 92056 27 mins San Marcos Community Center 3 Civic Center Dr.San Marcos CA 92069 41 mins East Valley Community Center 2245 East Valley Parkway Escondido CA 92027 Drive Time (From Poinsettia) Figure 37. True Competitor Map for Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 53 The drive time map depicts the variety of service providers within a 15 minute (in pink) and 25 minute (in blue) driving distance (Figure 38). Figure 38. Drive Time Map of City of Carlsbad 54 3.4 PARKING STUDY As a separate but related part of the feasibility study, the city contracted with Kimley-Horn to conduct a parking study. City ordinance currently does not have defined parking requirements for community recreation centers constructed within existing parks. This study was conducted to analyze the parking demand expected to be generated for the site and to project the appropriate size for the proposed recreation center so as not to overburden the proposed parking supply. The detailed parking study can be found in the Appendix A. Based on the Parks & Recreation Department Master Plan Big Idea #1 and Poinsettia Park Master Plan, the planned/recommended facilities include:  Enlarged and upgraded playground  Arena-style outdoor soccer field  Six outdoor pickleball courts  Off-leash dog area  37 additional parking spaces for a total of 397 spaces  60,000+ square foot recreation center DATA COLLECTION Data was collected at Poinsettia Community Park, Alga Norte Community Park, Stagecoach Community Park, and Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA on one typical and one rainy Friday and one typical and one rainy Saturday in the spring 2016. Data was also collected for a Friday and Saturday at Poinsettia Park in the fall 2016. Both spring and fall data was collected at Poinsettia Park to compare demands for each of the peak sport seasons. The parking demand on the fall weekend was found to be slightly higher than the parking demand in the spring. The Ecke YMCA exhibited characteristics most similar to proposed future improvements at Poinsettia Community Park and was used as the basis for projections of future parking demand. The Ecke YMCA was observed to have 5.34 occupied spaces per 1,000 square feet of indoor usable space during the peak period. The city requires gyms and health spas to provide five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation manual suggests ratios between 3.83 spaces and 5.19 spaces for similar uses. Because the YMCA is a popular destination in the area with amenities similar to those proposed for Poinsettia Park multigenerational community recreation center, providing 5.34 spaces of parking per 1,000 square feet of new recreation center space is a reasonable and slightly conservative assumption to apply in estimating future demand. The rate is considered conservative because the Ecke YMCA has significant public outreach efforts that may increase parking demand compared to a standard public park. The proposed recreation center under consideration at Poinsettia Community Park is being evaluated for sizing between 30,000 square feet and 60,000 square feet with a focus on a larger footprint as per the vision articulated in the master plan’s Big Idea #1 for a multigenerational community recreation center. Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 55 As such, data collected at the Ecke YMCA, which has an approximately 100,000 square foot recreation center, was scaled to scenarios between 30 percent and 60 percent and added to the existing Poinsettia site to evaluate the possible recreation center sizes being considered. The resulting parking occupancy for a Friday and Saturday were evaluated. The existing parking conditions revealed that much of the peak parking demand generated by outdoor facilities is related to active programming. Indoor facilities have more regular peak demand distributions for parking. There is a total of 397 parking spaces planned for the final Poinsettia Park layout. While 397 parking spaces can generally accommodate existing and future demand, over-full conditions are expected when periods of high recreation center demand align with well-attended, programmed events (Friday Night Lights, youth soccer tournaments, etc.). The 397 spaces could accommodate 60 percent of the demand generated by a YMCA-type facility, but without any programmed activities during peak periods. Alternatively, the 397 spaces could accommodate 30 percent of the demand generated by a YMCA-type demand with the currently programmed activities during peak periods. These two extremes seem to either severely limit outdoor programming options or limit the recreation center potential by removing uses that would result in underutilizing the site. Varying degrees in facility size and associated parking demand between these points are workable with programming modifications to balance the demand for the recreation center and the programming. RECOMMENDATION Based on our evaluation of the site and the YMCA-type facility, Kimley-Horn recommended that a 35,000 square foot recreation center facility is the preferred size, maximizing the available amenities without severely limiting special event programming nor overburdening the parking supply. 56 The following figures show the parking patterns on Friday, Nov. 4 and Saturday, Nov. 5 for a 35,000 square foot recreation facility, using data from the existing Poinsettia Community Park and the Ecke YMCA (Figures 39 and 40). These graphs do not provide for any adjustments to programming that occurred simultaneously at both facilities. The anticipated demand is expected to be slightly less than what is shown on the graphs since simultaneous programs at the two data collection sites would be consolidated at the new facility. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime Nov 4th Existing Poinsettia Park + 35% of YMCA PP 11/4 Spillover YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime Nov 5th Existing Poinsettia Park + 35% of YMCA PP 11/5 Spillover YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy Figure 39. Parking Patterns (Nov 4th) Figure 40. Parking Patterns (Nov 5th) 57 CHAPTER FOUR - CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT Figure 41. Center Concept 58 Figure 42. Site Square Foot Mapping Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 59 CHAPTER FIVE - CONCLUSION Based on community input, demographics and trends analysis, market and gap analysis and the parking study, the consulting team arrived at the following conclusion and recommendations. There is a market opportunity and community support for a multigenerational community recreation center; however, the parking study findings limit the maximum footprint of the proposed multigenerational community recreation center at 35,000 square feet or less. Space limitations eliminate the option to include desired amenities; e.g. indoor aquatics space, etc. This reduced footprint (compared to the larger originally envisioned one) is; therefore, not conducive to, and reflective of a true multigenerational community recreation center experience as was recommended in the Parks & Recreation Department master Plan Big Idea #1. Overall, while a smaller facility; i.e. 35,000 square foot or less, could certainly be possible at the site at Poinsettia Community Park it is not recommended since it does not fulfil the intended vision of the Big Idea #1 in serving the community’s diverse needs to the greatest possible extent at this site. 60 APPENDIX A – PARKING STUDY INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department is currently undergoing planning efforts for the addition of proposed indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and amenities at Poinsettia Community Park, located at 6600 Hidden Valley Road. The addition of these proposed facilities is expected to increase the demand for on-site parking. Kimley-Horn conducted a parking study to determine the level of demand expected to be generated by additional facilities, whether the planned parking supply onsite is adequate, and potential mitigation strategies. METHODOLOGY Kimley-Horn conducted a field review of existing parking utilization conditions at Poinsettia Park as well as three comparison locations in the community. The three comparison sites were determined in coordination with city staff to represent facilities that have similar aspects to the planned facilities at Poinsettia Community Park. The locations where parking observations were taken are included below:  Poinsettia Community Park, 6600 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011  Stagecoach Park, 3420 Camino De Los Coches, Carlsbad, CA 92009  Alga Norte Community Park, 6565 Alicante Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009  Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA, 200 Saxony Rd., Encinitas, CA 92024 Data was collected by placing vehicle counters and video cameras at points of onsite parking lot ingress and egress. Observations took place in May on the 6 (Friday), 7 (Saturday), 13 (Friday), and 14 (Saturday) from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. A second pair of Friday and Saturday measurements were included because of poor weather forecasted for May 6 and 7. Programmed activities were canceled at outdoor facilities on May 6 and likely depressed parking demand at the four locations. Additional observations were made at Poinsettia Community Park in November on the 4 (Friday) and 5 (Saturday) to capture parking demand for fall activities. During this data collection period, offsite parking conditions were also collected at neighborhoods adjacent to Poinsettia Park using manual counts. Observed occupancies at these sites were compared to identify patterns in the scale and temporal distribution of parking demand on different days. This information was used to identify an appropriate parking ratio to assume for new facilities at Poinsettia Community Park and estimate parking demands generated by facilities not currently at Poinsettia Park. Observations for the fall activities (November 4 and 5) showed slightly higher demand at Poinsettia Park than the spring activities. RESULTS This section details the observed existing conditions at Poinsettia Community Park and the three comparison recreation facility sites. The different amenities at the sites are identified as well as the measured parking utilization on the different data collection days. Utilization rates at 85 percent are considered an effective maximum occupancy for public parking lots. Occupancies over 85 percent, while acceptable for short periods of time, may impact parking operations by causing circulation conflicts, affecting customer experience, and inducing spill-over into the adjacent Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 61 neighborhood. Observed occupancies on each day of data collection are shown in the table below, using the following legend for percent occupied: Utilization < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 85% > 85% Location Poinsettia Park Stagecoach Alga Norte YMCA Capacity 360 241 502 537 Time 5/6 5/7 5/13 5/14 11/4 11/5 5/6 5/7 5/13 5/14 5/6 5/7 5/13 5/14 5/6 5/7 5/13 5/14 06:00 4 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 2 4 37 3 38 0 112 0 141 0 06:15 4 0 7 0 1 5 5 2 6 6 36 16 36 10 103 0 151 0 06:30 4 1 7 0 2 6 6 3 8 7 40 24 36 14 107 0 163 0 06:45 6 3 8 1 3 6 13 3 8 6 41 41 31 26 122 34 167 38 07:00 6 8 7 10 5 12 11 4 13 6 34 50 28 38 108 74 165 87 07:15 6 4 12 19 8 15 20 4 25 7 29 59 26 45 110 95 173 110 07:30 5 3 15 24 6 22 19 8 53 11 22 82 25 48 132 118 189 135 07:45 4 4 17 25 16 30 22 8 63 11 18 108 30 67 203 230 285 202 08:00 2 6 25 40 23 78 26 10 67 11 20 128 44 83 231 231 336 258 08:15 4 9 27 88 30 138 26 13 69 13 23 138 52 86 247 270 362 317 08:30 3 17 38 120 33 172 29 20 71 21 26 160 61 86 289 339 385 400 08:45 3 20 44 169 40 215 39 45 77 35 33 194 86 81 332 433 408 505 09:00 3 6 47 190 46 273 38 51 79 41 35 201 92 87 324 405 407 489 09:15 5 3 52 215 52 303 36 55 64 43 39 198 98 104 323 426 393 500 09:30 6 3 57 217 54 288 38 57 69 49 39 145 109 126 316 445 374 529 09:45 7 1 56 244 54 295 35 64 78 61 59 160 135 151 313 441 377 534 10:00 5 6 50 217 44 312 31 85 75 70 55 170 137 150 294 388 354 489 10:15 7 6 39 205 43 276 31 97 71 79 63 165 135 187 299 356 349 475 10:30 5 5 27 195 28 218 33 94 70 85 58 171 157 198 274 374 326 485 10:45 3 7 20 200 28 228 31 95 68 94 63 224 195 217 279 385 335 529 11:00 1 9 28 170 27 229 37 84 67 88 60 249 190 223 261 355 323 503 11:15 3 8 27 153 28 232 44 53 58 62 60 289 178 236 279 370 307 500 11:30 6 7 35 120 23 164 45 41 58 54 52 311 163 225 268 393 287 529 11:45 12 9 50 135 27 146 52 41 58 54 65 331 184 192 255 434 294 517 12:00 20 8 68 153 43 165 44 42 59 47 76 320 198 202 243 382 278 460 12:15 21 7 67 178 48 177 44 39 50 36 76 313 194 193 233 336 255 458 12:30 26 7 61 197 49 141 46 40 47 33 76 320 207 187 228 330 243 427 12:45 31 14 57 209 45 156 45 36 45 31 72 366 200 199 223 332 245 423 13:00 28 29 39 211 42 146 42 33 46 35 69 360 194 198 220 223 234 335 13:15 20 31 29 167 36 134 45 38 45 35 67 339 181 178 216 214 237 349 13:30 10 35 23 166 16 163 51 32 48 39 62 309 173 164 205 197 234 367 13:45 7 41 21 165 14 185 51 28 52 42 62 306 154 157 218 209 249 426 14:00 3 46 19 157 8 186 42 33 60 48 65 319 146 165 202 126 233 402 14:15 6 46 17 149 12 192 56 41 68 53 66 299 126 163 209 117 238 392 14:30 10 41 20 103 13 140 71 39 74 56 71 284 90 175 197 120 255 415 14:45 12 43 20 94 15 139 47 59 37 75 66 282 100 163 203 128 255 453 15:00 15 40 27 92 21 142 38 71 33 96 69 286 107 151 234 142 261 406 15:15 17 37 37 101 38 151 36 77 43 101 69 276 113 156 268 143 257 365 15:30 22 35 60 113 79 157 35 80 40 113 66 263 125 144 276 129 276 350 15:45 23 33 96 115 149 167 30 98 40 136 74 233 150 137 298 129 266 384 16:00 28 32 139 118 226 122 30 104 45 140 81 210 185 137 299 70 271 369 16:15 28 29 170 138 288 94 34 82 55 119 71 198 247 139 323 71 269 368 16:30 36 27 195 135 325 94 38 72 64 110 75 175 286 112 338 111 251 366 16:45 25 20 213 125 340 95 26 86 74 129 74 165 309 100 367 86 269 382 17:00 25 13 219 80 336 96 26 95 70 132 68 151 326 107 370 70 248 368 17:15 25 13 181 57 299 85 18 70 65 104 65 132 289 94 364 76 225 354 17:30 20 14 198 57 324 81 18 51 56 91 61 129 320 87 377 96 208 313 17:45 19 15 222 57 319 83 19 51 59 85 60 123 316 79 395 56 175 263 18:00 20 18 236 49 292 76 19 47 59 73 64 102 315 69 313 0 136 222 18:15 25 11 272 45 281 54 27 16 63 49 72 96 317 65 266 0 121 191 18:30 27 14 333 43 301 48 34 8 68 37 67 86 335 59 288 0 128 170 18:45 35 9 347 39 311 49 36 6 64 34 64 82 329 57 299 0 107 143 19:00 36 8 350 33 324 53 32 8 57 35 68 64 308 55 196 0 59 99 19:15 34 5 350 31 342 58 34 6 51 27 62 55 274 43 188 0 42 34 19:30 33 5 337 6 347 55 32 2 51 11 54 46 252 39 192 0 53 42 19:45 30 4 317 6 338 32 35 2 40 11 54 41 218 32 205 0 57 54 20:00 23 3 342 5 326 35 36 3 37 12 58 44 207 28 121 0 40 29 20:15 20 3 336 6 327 37 38 5 36 10 67 34 207 23 122 0 34 22 20:30 18 3 279 4 284 37 36 5 34 6 52 40 156 17 152 0 35 23 20:45 17 5 239 8 205 37 36 1 32 5 40 37 124 15 185 0 54 29 21:00 18 7 227 8 166 35 32 1 31 3 39 29 117 14 140 0 25 0 21:15 10 13 149 8 148 23 29 0 28 2 39 28 107 13 125 0 26 0 21:30 10 13 33 7 82 20 28 0 22 2 29 27 59 10 111 0 19 0 21:45 3 9 16 5 34 8 18 0 15 1 12 14 13 7 78 0 4 0 MAX 36 46 350 244 347 312 71 104 79 140 81 366 335 236 395 445 408 534 MAX OCC 10% 13% 97% 68% 96% 87% 29% 43% 33% 58% 16% 73% 67% 47% 74% 83% 76% 99% Figure 43. Parking Utilization 62 The following sections discuss the parking data and observed occupancies for each location in further detail. POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK Poinsettia Community Park is located at 6600 Hidden Valley Road near Pacific Rim Elementary School and is owned and operated by the City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department. There are four parking lots with a total of 360 parking spaces. Existing amenities at the park include:  Playground (1)  Tennis Courts (10)  Basketball Courts (2)  Baseball Field (3)  Soccer Field (1)  Passive Open Space Figure 44. Poinsettia Community Park – Satellite Map Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 63 Poinsettia Community Park is currently programmed with a variety of activities including baseball, soccer, football, softball, and concerts. The highest parking demand occurs during scheduled sports league activities and special events. Parks & Recreation staff have observed that the eastern two parking lots are generally under-utilized due to their distance from the majority of programmable spaces. Over the six-day observation period, the parking lots had a maximum of 97 percent utilization on May 13, primarily generated by a scheduled youth sports league activity. Similarly, youth sports league activity also occurred on November 4 and November 5 which resulted in a peak occupancy of 96 percent and 87 percent, respectively. Outside of demand generated by the youth sports leagues, the site was mostly underutilized, with the total occupancy surpassing 50 percent for short times during May 14. Parking demand was likely suppressed on May 6 and 7 due to weather conditions and the cancellation of activities. Total parking demand is shown in Figure 45. As part of the November 4 and 5 data collection process, on-street parking conditions were also recorded to estimate the amount of spillover parking associated with scheduled activities at the park. On-street facilities that were collected and how likely they are to accommodate spillover parking from the park based on the data collected is shown in Figure 46. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Observed Parking DemandTime Poinsettia Community Park 5/6 5/7 5/13 5/14 11/4 11/5 85% Occupancy Figure 45. Poinsettia Park Observed Occupancies 64 Figure. 46 On-Street Data Collection Areas and Spillover Classification Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 65 The categories of on-street areas were used to detect unexpected changes in occupancy that could be attributed to spillover from the park. Streets “Not in Demand” remained consistent throughout the observational period on both days and suggested any variation in occupancy with “Streets in Demand” or “Streets Possibly in Demand” can be attributed to scheduled youth events. By analyzing this variation, the amount of spillover parking was identified for different parts of the day. On-street occupancies and the 12estimated number of spillover vehicles is shown in Figure 47 and Figure 48. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%VehiclesOccupancyTime On-Street Occupancy -November 4, 2016 Spillover Vehicles Streets In Demand Streets Possibly in Demand Streets Not in demand Figure 47. On-Street Occupancy and Estimated Spillover - November 4 66 Overall, spillover parking was detected during the scheduled youth sporting events and subsequent high- occupancy periods of the Poinsettia Park surface parking lots. November 4 had an estimated 36 spillover vehicles at its peak between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. with concentrations on Plum Tree Road and Turnstone Road. Observed spillover parking on November 5 was limited with a peak of 10 vehicles from 11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. While some specific curb faces were observed to have high occupancies during peak periods, the total parking occupancy of streets near the park remained low and well below the 85 percent effective maximum occupancy threshold. Spillover parking was observed to occur prior to all on- site parking being occupied, as location of the adjacent streets relative to the sporting field where activities are held is closer in some cases than available on-site parking. As such, spillover parking was not always a result of lack of on-site parking as much as a convenience factor. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%6AM6:30AM7AM7:30AM8AM8:30AM9AM9:30AM10AM10:30AM11AM11:30AM12PM12:30PM1PM1:30PM2PM2:30PM3PM3:30PM4PM4:30PM5PM5:30PM6PM6:30PM7PM7:30PM8PM8:30PM9PM9:30PMVehiclesOccupancyTime On-Street Occupancy -November 5, 2016 Spillover Vehicles Streets In Demand Streets Possibly in Demand Streets Not in demand Figure 48. On-Street Occupancy and Estimated Spillover - November 5 Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 67 STAGECOACH COMMUNITY PARK Stagecoach Community Park is located at 3420 Camino de los Coches near La Costa Canyon High School and is operated by the City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department. There are three parking lots with a total of 241 parking spaces. Amenities at the park include:  Playground (1)  Tennis Courts (4)  Basketball Courts (2)  Baseball Field (1)  Baseball/Soccer Field (2)  Passive Open Space  Recreation Center (17,084 square feet) This site was selected as a comparison site since it has both a recreation center and outdoor facilities. The recreation center at this site is smaller than the one being considered at Poinsettia Community Park. The site is programmed with a variety of activities including youth baseball, soccer, karate, and ballet. The highest parking demand occurs during scheduled sports league activities on the outdoor fields. Parks & Recreation staff have observed that the western-most parking lot is generally under-utilized due to its distance from the majority of programmable spaces. Figure 49. Stagecoach Community Park – Satellite Map 68 Field observations show general under-utilization of parking spaces at Stagecoach Community Park. During the four-day observation period, the parking lots had a maximum of 58 percent utilization on May 14, with the highest demand of less than 150 vehicles. Total occupancy rarely surpassed 50 percent. Parking demand was likely suppressed on May 6 and 7 due to weather conditions. Total parking demand is shown in Figure 50. The occupancy information obtained at Stagecoach Community Park suggests that the small recreation center at this location was not a major attraction for parking demand. It is anticipated that a larger recreation center 0 50 100 150 200 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Observed Parking DemandTime Stagecoach Park SC 5/6 SC 5/7 SC 5/13 SC 5/14 85% Occupancy Figure 50. Stagecoach Park Observed Occupancies Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 69 ALGA NORTE COMMUNITY PARK Alga Norte Community Park is located at 6565 Alicante Road near Poinsettia Lane and is operated by the City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department. There is one parking lot with a total of 502 parking spaces along the eastern edge of the site. Amenities at the park include:  Playground (1)  Basketball Courts (1.5)  Baseball Field (3)  Skatepark (1)  Aquatic Areas  Passive Open Space  Aquatic Center (13,000 square feet) This site was selected as a comparison site since it has an aquatic center and outdoor facilities. This site has a large area that serves both recreational users and special events. The site is programmed with a variety of activities including swimming lessons, football, softball, and birthday parties, and offers on-site food and beverage service. The highest parking demand occurs during swimming lessons and on weekends with aquatic and ball field activities overlapping. Figure 51. Alga Norte Community Park – Satellite Map 70 Field observations show steady utilization of parking spaces at Alga Norte Park. Over the four-day observation period, the parking lot had a maximum of 73 percent utilization on May 7 with 360 parking spaces occupied. Parking demand was likely suppressed on May 6 and 7 due to weather conditions. Total parking demand is shown in Figure 52. The occupancy information obtained at Alga Norte Community Park suggests that the combination of outdoor facilities, aquatic area, and recreation center generates a demand that would be similar to the available capacity at Poinsettia Community Park. While the uses are somewhat different, the programming of special events mixed with consistent recreational users is successfully managed at this site. 0 100 200 300 400 500 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Observed Parking DemandTime Alga Norte Community Park AN 5/6 AN 5/7 AN 5/13 AN 5/14 85% Occupancy Figure 52. Alga Norte Community Park Observed Occupancies Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 71 MAGDALENA ECKE FAMILY YMCA Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA is located at 200 Saxony Road northeast of the Interstate 5 and Encinitas Boulevard interchange. The entire complex is operated by the YMCA except for the athletic fields which are scheduled for sports league activities by the City of Encinitas Parks & Recreation Department. There are two parking lots with a total of 537 parking spaces. Amenities at the site include:  Basketball courts (1)  Baseball fields (3)  Multi-sport arena fields (2)  Skatepark (1)  Outdoor pickleball court (1)  Recreation center (100,000 square feet) This site was selected as a comparison site since it has a large recreation center and outdoor facilities. While this is a membership based facility, the uses at the site are most similar to the proposed facilities at Poinsettia Park. It is also important to note that this particular site has significant public outreach efforts that may result in increased use over a site with less marketing. Figure 53. Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA – Satellite Map 72 The site is programmed with a variety of activities including baseball and softball along with other activities within the YMCA complex. The highest parking demand occurs during Saturday mornings. YMCA staff noted that parking is routinely difficult on Saturday mornings. Field observations show high-utilization of parking spaces at the YMCA, particularly in the morning periods. Over the four-day observation period, the parking lots had a maximum of 99 percent utilization on May 14, indicating maximum parking occupancy was achieved. Total occupancy was consistently high throughout the day before rapidly declining in the evening around 6 p.m. Parking demand was not as suppressed as other sites were due to weather conditions on May 6 and 7. This is assumed to be because of the indoor recreation facilities available that were not affected by weather. Total parking demand is shown in Figure 54. The occupancy information obtained at Ecke YMCA provides a good comparison of a site with several uses, indoor and outdoor, but on a slightly larger scale than the planned facilities at Poinsettia Community Park. Based on the information collected, this site is considered the most applicable for estimating future demand at Poinsettia Community Park. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS The community parks operated by the city generally lack large indoor public facilities. Periods of peak parking demand can generally be attributed to programmed activities. Outside of periods within these programmed activities, the parking facilities at these locations were generally under-utilized. The Ecke YMCA showed regular demand and consistent peak periods. The relatively minor difference in demand between the May 6 and 7 period which was affected by weather conditions and the May 13 and 14 period suggests that demand can primarily be attributed to use of the indoor recreation facilities. 0 100 200 300 400 500 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Observed Parking DemandTime Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA YM 5/6 YM 5/7 YM 5/13 YM 5/14 85% Occupancy Figure 54. Ecke YMCA Observed Occupancies Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 73 RESEARCH The City of Carlsbad does not have an established parking demand rate for a park with a recreation facility. The most comparable fit would be a fitness and health spa land use which requires 5.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This ratio accommodates for the peak times at the facility. The data collected in this parking study for the comparison site provides some data that can be used to estimate a parking demand rate. The Ecke YMCA was determined to be the best comparison site based on the information collected. The peak parking ratio at the YMCA was reached at 9:45 a.m. on May 14 at 5.34 spaces per 1,000 square feet of recreation center. To test the findings of this study, additional public sources of parking demand generation by similar facilities were consulted. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual is a common source for parking generation rates in the absence of resources to conduct a parking study. The following land uses are the most similar to the city’s plans for proposed facilities at Poinsettia Community Park. Land Use Peak Parking Ratio / 1,000 square feet Peak Period Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495) 3.83 6 p.m. – 8 p.m. Health and Fitness Club (Land Use 492) 5.19 8 a.m. – 10 a.m. & 6 p.m. – 7 p.m. In addition to ITE rates, previous studies prepared by Kimley-Horn were consulted. At community centers in Asheville, NC, St. Petersburg, FL, and Ft. Collins, CO, the average observed parking demand was 0.87 spaces per 1,000 square feet with a range between 0.49 and 1.28. The facilities context included in these other studies varies widely and have different travel behaviors than Carlsbad would be likely to experience. These data points indicate that recreation centers are generally less utilized than what is planned in Carlsbad. Otherwise, the data does not provide a strong comparison and should not be relied on to make a recommendation on a parking ratio for the proposed improvements at Poinsettia Community Park. The Ecke YMCA is a strong analog for the type of demand that is likely to be generated by the new facilities at Poinsettia Community Park. Confidence in this ratio is strengthened due to proximity to the ITE Parking Generation ratio of 5.19 for Health and Fitness Clubs and the city’s existing requirement of 5.0 for fitness and health spa land uses. Therefore, the parking generation rate of 5.34 spaces per 1,000 square feet of recreation center was used for this analysis by applying the YMCA data to the existing Poinsettia Community Park data as described in the following section. Figure 55. Parking Demand 74 SITE EVALUATION The proposed improvements at Poinsettia Community Park will increase the demand for parking greater than what is currently observed on-site. The proposed additions to the site include:  Enlarged and upgraded playground  Arena-style outdoor soccer field  Six outdoor pickleball courts  Off-leash dog area  37 additional parking spaces for a total of 397 spaces  30,000 – 60,000 square foot community recreation center To estimate the parking demand at the site, a percentage of parking demand observed at the Ecke YMCA was used to scale the demand relative to the facility size and then added to the observed demand at Poinsettia Community Park. The new recreation center being considered at Poinsettia Park is being evaluated for sizing between 30,000 square feet and 60,000 square feet. As such, the Ecke YMCA data was scaled at 30 percent and 60 percent and added to the existing Poinsettia Community Park site to evaluate the smallest and largest recreation center size being considered. The evaluation utilizes the data collected and does not adjust for possible duplicate programming at the two facilities that may be consolidated if combined at one site. 30,000 SQUARE FOOT SCENARIO Figures 57 and 58 show total demand for Poinsettia Park with the addition of 30 percent of the demand generated by the YMCA site (representing 30,000 square feet of recreation center space and 30 percent of the outdoor space) using data from May and November at Poinsettia Park. In this May (spring) scenario, parking conditions at Poinsettia Park would not be expected to exceed 100 percent capacity and would reach 85 percent between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Friday and between 9 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on Saturday. These times correlate with scheduled sports activities. In this November (fall) scenario, parking conditions at Poinsettia Park on Friday between 4:30 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. exceed total capacity on-site by a maximum of 24 vehicles. In fall on a Saturday, parking supply would meet the demand in this scenario except between 9 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. where total capacity on- site would be exceeded by a maximum of 62 vehicles. These times correlate with scheduled sports activities. Based on these analyses, Poinsettia Community Park would be able to accommodate a recreation center facility this size with minor reductions and restrictions in current programming and the proposed additional parking spaces. Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 75 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime Nov 4th Existing Poinsettia Park + 30% of YMCA PP 11/4 Spillover YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime May 13th Existing Poinsettia Park + 30% of YMCA PP YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy Figure 56. Existing Poinsettia Park + 30% YMCA Scenario on Friday 76 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime Nov 5th Existing Poinsettia Park + 30% of YMCA PP 11/5 Spillover YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime May 14th Existing Poinsettia Park + 30% of YMCA PP YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy Figure 57. Existing Poinsettia Park + 30% YMCA Scenario on Saturday Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 77 60,000 SQUARE FOOT SCENARIO Figures 58 and 59 show total demand for Poinsettia Community Park with the addition of 60 percent of the demand generated by the YMCA site (representing 60,000 square feet of recreation center space and 60 percent of the outdoor space) using data from May and November at Poinsettia Park. In this May (spring) scenario, parking conditions at Poinsettia Community Park on Friday exceed the 85 percent threshold consistently between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. but would not exceed 100 percent capacity. These times correlate with scheduled sports activities. In spring on a Saturday, parking demand far exceeds the effective capacity between 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. Parking conditions are projected to remain difficult, but operational, from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. In this November (fall) scenario, parking conditions at Poinsettia Park on Friday between 4:15 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., exceed total capacity on-site by about 100 vehicles. In fall on a Saturday, parking demand far exceeds the effective capacity between 8:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., where total capacity would be exceeded by about 200 vehicles. Based on these analyses, Poinsettia Community Park would have to significantly manage and restrict programming to be able to accommodate a recreation center facility this size. 78 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime Nov 4th Existing Poinsettia Park + 60% of YMCA PP 11/4 Spillover YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime May 13th Existing Poinsettia Park + 60% of YMCA PP YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy Figure 58. Existing Poinsettia Park + 60% YMCA Scenario on Friday Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 79 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime Nov 5th Existing Poinsettia Park + 60% of YMCA PP 11/5 Spillover YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime May 14th Existing Poinsettia Park + 60% of YMCA PP YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy Figure 59. Existing Poinsettia Park + 60% YMCA Scenario on Saturday 80 ADDITIONAL SCENARIOS Based on the finding that 30 percent of the demand generated by the Ecke YMCA was relatively easily accommodated and 60 percent of the demand was difficult to accommodate, additional scenarios of 35 percent, 40 percent, and 45 percent were created to determine a size that has the best potential to maximize utilization of the site without generating significant parking issues. The data collected in November that represents a fall scenario was found to be more restrictive to the site than the May data and is carried forward for the additional scenarios evaluation. Appendix B shows projected demand using different scenarios of YMCA-type demand. Comparing these additional scenarios, there are similar demands on Friday night due to the scheduled sports league activity. Friday evening prior to the sports league activity exceeds 100 percent occupancy for 2.75 hours under the 45 percent of YMCA scenario while exceeding 100 percent occupancy for 1.0 and 0.75 hours in the 40 percent and 35 percent of YMCA scenarios, respectively. The Saturday morning peak exceeds 100 percent occupancy for each of the three additional scenarios. The 45 percent option shows 3.0 consecutive hours over 100 percent occupancy, the 40 percent option shows 2.75 consecutive hours over 100 percent, and the 35 percent option shows 2.25 hours over 100 percent. The Saturday morning peak is assumed to be caused by programming at both Poinsettia Community Park and the Ecke YMCA. It is not anticipated that the actual demand will be this high at Poinsettia Community Park, even with expanded facilities, as the programming can be managed to limit the demand during these times. However, the 40 percent and 45 percent options are over capacity for most of Saturday (8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) and would require major limitations and restrictions to programming similar to the 60 percent scenario evaluation. The 35 percent scenario has demand that potentially exceed capacity on Saturday mornings, but for a timeframe of three hours or less that is expected to be manageable through programming. As such, the 35 percent scenario is recommended as the most intense size for the site without major reductions in programming or the creation of significant parking issues. 35,000 SQUARE FOOT SCENARIO Figures 60 and 61 show total demand for Poinsettia Community Park with the addition of 35 percent of the demand generated by the YMCA site (representing 35,000 square feet of recreation center space and 35 percent of the outdoor space) on to data collected on a typical November weekend. In this scenario, parking conditions on a Friday in fall are expected to meet the demand except between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m., which currently occurs at Poinsettia Community Park. On a typical Saturday in fall, parking supply was expected to meet the demand in this scenario except between 8:45 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., similar to what currently occurs at Poinsettia Community Park. As previously noted, the peak demand shown in the data is assumed to be caused by outdoor sports league programming at Poinsettia Community Park and the Ecke YMCA. It is anticipated that this excess demand can be managed by limiting the programming of events at Poinsettia Community Park to maintain parking conditions similar to what is occurring today. Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 81 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime Nov 4th Existing Poinsettia Park + 35% of YMCA PP 11/4 Spillover YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy Figure 60. Existing Poinsettia Park + 35% YMCA Scenario on Friday November 4th 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 06:0006:3007:0007:3008:0008:3009:0009:3010:0010:3011:0011:3012:0012:3013:0013:3014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:3021:0021:30Parking DemandTime Nov 5th Existing Poinsettia Park + 35% of YMCA PP 11/5 Spillover YMCA 85% Occupancy 100% Occupancy Figure 61. Existing Poinsettia Park + 35% YMCA Scenario on Saturday November 5th 82 Spillover parking would be expected to continue to occur due to proximity of the adjacent streets to the sports fields as observed in the data collection activities. The effect on the spillover parking would depend on how well the programming is managed. There is on-street capacity to capture the current demand and additional demand without hindering the adjacent neighborhood’s ability to park near their houses. RECOMMENDATIONS While the 397 parking spaces at the improved Poinsettia Community Park can generally accommodate existing and future demand, issues are expected when periods of high recreation center demand align with well-attended scheduled sports league activities. The 397 spaces could accommodate 60 percent of the demand generated by a YMCA-type facility without any programmed activities during peak periods. The 397 spaces could also accommodate 30 percent of the demand generated by a YMCA-type demand with the currently programmed activities during peak periods. Varying degrees in improvement intensity between these points will require programming modifications to adjust accordingly to balance the demand of the recreation center with programming. Based on our evaluation of the site and the YMCA-type facility, it is recommended that a 35,000 square foot recreation center facility is considered as the preferred size, maximizing the available amenities of the recreation center facility without severely limiting special event programming nor overburdening the parking supply. Regardless of the final square footage, additional development of the site will increase demand for parking. Parking demand management strategies can be adopted to improve the efficiency of the parking supply. Examples of potential demand management strategies include:  Wayfinding and signage  Dedicated carpool spaces  Metering  Encouraging other modes of transportation (walking, biking, transit, and rideshare) Poinsettia Community Park will have five separate parking areas parking in the proposed plan. Wayfinding and signage directing visitors to the appropriate lots for the amenity desired can help eliminate confusion as to where to park and reduce the amount of internal circulation for vehicles deciding where to park. It also helps the site users park near their destinations and reduce walk distances and times. 83 APPENDIX B – PROPOSED SCENARIOS Poinsettia + YMCA Location Capacity Existing Poinsettia Park 360 Poinsettia Park + 30% YMCA 397 Poinsettia Park + 35% YMCA 397 Poinsettia Park + 40% YMCA 397 Poinsettia Park + 45% YMCA 397 Poinsettia Park + 60% YMCA 397 Time PP 5/6 PP 5/7 PP 5/13 PP 5/14 PP 11/4 PP 11/5 PP 5/6 PP 5/7 PP 5/13 PP 5/14 PP 11/4 PP 11/5 PP 5/6 PP 5/7 PP 5/13 PP 5/14 PP 11/4 PP 11/5 PP 5/6 PP 5/7 PP 5/13 PP 5/14 PP 11/4 PP 11/5 PP 5/6 PP 5/7 PP 5/13 PP 5/14 PP 11/4 PP 11/5 PP 5/6 PP 5/7 PP 5/13 PP 5/14 PP 11/4 PP 11/5 06:00 4 0 4 0 0 4 38 0 46 0 42 4 43 0 53 0 49 4 49 0 60 0 56 4 54 0 67 0 63 4 71 0 89 0 85 4 06:15 4 0 7 0 1 5 35 0 52 0 46 5 40 0 60 0 54 5 45 0 67 0 61 5 50 0 75 0 69 5 66 0 98 0 92 5 06:30 4 1 7 0 2 6 36 1 56 0 51 6 41 1 64 0 59 6 47 1 72 0 67 6 52 1 80 0 75 6 68 1 105 0 100 6 06:45 6 3 8 1 3 6 43 13 58 12 53 17 49 15 66 14 61 19 55 17 75 16 70 21 61 18 83 18 78 23 79 23 108 24 103 29 07:00 6 8 7 10 5 12 38 30 57 36 55 38 44 34 65 40 63 42 49 38 73 45 71 47 55 41 81 49 79 51 71 52 106 62 104 64 07:15 6 4 12 19 8 15 39 33 64 52 60 48 45 37 73 58 69 54 50 42 81 63 77 59 56 47 90 69 86 65 72 61 116 85 112 81 07:30 5 3 15 24 6 22 45 38 72 65 63 63 51 44 81 71 72 69 58 50 91 78 82 76 64 56 100 85 91 83 84 74 128 105 119 103 07:45 4 4 17 25 16 30 65 73 103 86 102 91 75 85 117 96 116 101 85 96 131 106 130 111 95 108 145 116 144 121 126 142 188 146 187 151 08:00 2 6 25 40 23 78 71 75 126 117 124 155 83 87 143 130 141 168 94 98 159 143 157 181 106 110 176 156 174 194 141 145 227 195 225 233 08:15 4 9 27 88 30 138 78 90 136 183 139 233 90 104 154 199 157 249 103 117 172 215 175 265 115 131 190 231 193 281 152 171 244 278 247 328 08:30 3 17 38 120 33 172 90 119 154 240 149 292 104 136 173 260 168 312 119 153 192 280 187 332 133 170 211 300 206 352 176 220 269 360 264 412 08:45 3 20 44 169 40 215 103 150 166 321 162 367 119 172 187 346 183 392 136 193 207 371 203 417 152 215 228 396 224 442 202 280 289 472 285 518 09:00 3 6 47 190 46 273 100 128 169 337 168 420 116 148 189 361 188 444 133 168 210 386 209 469 149 188 230 410 229 493 197 249 291 483 290 566 09:15 5 3 52 215 52 303 102 131 170 365 170 453 118 152 190 390 190 478 134 173 209 415 209 503 150 195 229 440 229 528 199 259 288 515 288 603 09:30 6 3 57 217 54 288 101 137 169 376 166 447 117 159 188 402 185 473 132 181 207 429 204 500 148 203 225 455 222 526 196 270 281 534 278 605 09:45 7 1 56 244 54 295 101 133 169 404 167 455 117 155 188 431 186 482 132 177 207 458 205 509 148 199 226 484 224 535 195 266 282 564 280 615 10:00 5 6 50 217 44 312 93 122 156 364 150 459 108 142 174 388 168 483 123 161 192 413 186 508 137 181 209 437 203 532 181 239 262 510 256 605 10:15 7 6 39 205 43 276 97 113 144 348 148 419 112 131 161 371 165 442 127 148 179 395 183 466 142 166 196 419 200 490 186 220 248 490 252 561 10:30 5 5 27 195 28 218 87 117 125 341 126 364 101 136 141 365 142 388 115 155 157 389 158 412 128 173 174 413 175 436 169 229 223 486 224 509 10:45 3 7 20 200 28 228 87 123 121 359 129 387 101 142 137 385 145 413 115 161 154 412 162 440 129 180 171 438 179 466 170 238 221 517 229 545 11:00 1 9 28 170 27 229 79 116 125 321 124 380 92 133 141 346 140 405 105 151 157 371 156 430 118 169 173 396 172 455 158 222 222 472 221 531 11:15 3 8 27 153 28 232 87 119 119 303 120 382 101 138 134 328 135 407 115 156 150 353 151 432 129 175 165 378 166 457 170 230 211 453 212 532 11:30 6 7 35 120 23 164 86 125 121 279 109 323 100 145 135 305 123 349 113 164 150 332 138 376 127 184 164 358 152 402 167 243 207 437 195 481 11:45 12 9 50 135 27 146 89 139 138 290 115 301 101 161 153 316 130 327 114 183 168 342 145 353 127 204 182 368 159 379 165 269 226 445 203 456 12:00 20 8 68 153 43 165 93 123 151 291 126 303 105 142 165 314 140 326 117 161 179 337 154 349 129 180 193 360 168 372 166 237 235 429 210 441 12:15 21 7 67 178 48 177 91 108 144 315 125 314 103 125 156 338 137 337 114 141 169 361 150 360 126 158 182 384 163 383 161 209 220 453 201 452 12:30 26 7 61 197 49 141 94 106 134 325 122 269 106 123 146 346 134 290 117 139 158 368 146 312 129 156 170 389 158 333 163 205 207 453 195 397 12:45 31 14 57 209 45 156 98 114 131 336 119 283 109 130 143 357 131 304 120 147 155 378 143 325 131 163 167 399 155 346 165 213 204 463 192 410 13:00 28 29 39 211 42 146 94 96 109 312 112 247 105 107 121 328 124 263 116 118 133 345 136 280 127 129 144 362 147 297 160 163 179 412 182 347 13:15 20 31 29 167 36 134 85 95 100 272 107 239 96 106 112 289 119 256 106 117 124 307 131 274 117 127 136 324 143 291 150 159 171 376 178 343 13:30 10 35 23 166 16 163 72 94 93 276 86 273 82 104 105 294 98 291 92 114 117 313 110 310 102 124 128 331 121 328 133 153 163 386 156 383 13:45 7 41 21 165 14 185 72 104 96 293 89 313 83 114 108 314 101 334 94 125 121 335 114 355 105 135 133 357 126 377 138 166 170 421 163 441 14:00 3 46 19 157 8 186 64 84 89 278 78 307 74 90 101 298 90 327 84 96 112 318 101 347 94 103 124 338 113 367 124 122 159 398 148 427 14:15 6 46 17 149 12 192 69 81 88 267 83 310 79 87 100 286 95 329 90 93 112 306 107 349 100 99 124 325 119 368 131 116 160 384 155 427 14:30 10 41 20 103 13 140 69 77 97 228 90 265 79 83 109 248 102 285 89 89 122 269 115 306 99 95 135 290 128 327 128 113 173 352 166 389 14:45 12 43 20 94 15 139 73 81 97 230 92 275 83 88 109 253 104 298 93 94 122 275 117 320 103 101 135 298 130 343 134 120 173 366 168 411 15:00 15 40 27 92 21 142 85 83 105 214 99 264 97 90 118 234 112 284 109 97 131 254 125 304 120 104 144 275 138 325 155 125 184 336 178 386 15:15 17 37 37 101 38 151 97 80 114 211 115 261 111 87 127 229 128 279 124 94 140 247 141 297 138 101 153 265 154 315 178 123 191 320 192 370 15:30 22 35 60 113 79 157 105 74 143 218 162 262 119 80 157 236 176 280 132 87 170 253 189 297 146 93 184 271 203 315 188 112 226 323 245 367 15:45 23 33 96 115 149 167 112 72 176 230 229 282 127 78 189 249 242 301 142 85 202 269 255 321 157 91 216 288 269 340 202 110 256 345 309 397 16:00 28 32 139 118 226 122 118 53 220 229 307 233 133 57 234 247 321 251 148 60 247 266 334 270 163 64 261 284 348 288 207 74 302 339 389 343 16:15 28 29 170 138 288 94 125 50 251 248 369 204 141 54 264 267 382 223 157 57 278 285 396 241 173 61 291 304 409 260 222 72 331 359 449 315 16:30 36 27 195 135 325 94 137 60 270 245 400 204 154 66 283 263 413 222 171 71 295 281 425 240 188 77 308 300 438 259 239 94 346 355 476 314 16:45 25 20 213 125 340 95 135 46 294 240 421 210 153 50 307 259 434 229 172 54 321 278 448 248 190 59 334 297 461 267 245 72 374 354 501 324 17:00 25 13 219 80 336 96 136 34 293 190 410 206 155 38 306 209 423 225 173 41 318 227 435 243 192 45 331 246 448 262 247 55 368 301 485 317 17:15 25 13 181 57 299 85 134 36 249 163 367 191 152 40 260 181 378 209 171 43 271 199 389 227 189 47 282 216 400 244 243 59 316 269 434 297 17:30 20 14 198 57 324 81 133 43 260 151 386 175 152 48 271 167 397 191 171 52 281 182 407 206 190 57 292 198 418 222 246 72 323 245 449 269 17:45 19 15 222 57 319 83 138 32 275 136 372 162 157 35 283 149 380 175 177 37 292 162 389 188 197 40 301 175 398 201 256 49 327 215 424 241 18:00 20 18 236 49 292 76 114 18 277 116 333 143 130 18 284 127 340 154 145 18 290 138 346 165 161 18 297 149 353 176 208 18 318 182 374 209 18:15 25 11 272 45 281 54 105 11 308 102 317 111 118 11 314 112 323 121 131 11 320 121 329 130 145 11 326 131 335 140 185 11 345 160 354 169 18:30 27 14 333 43 301 48 113 14 371 94 339 99 128 14 378 103 346 108 142 14 384 111 352 116 157 14 391 120 359 125 200 14 410 145 378 150 18:45 35 9 347 39 311 49 125 9 379 82 343 92 140 9 384 89 348 99 155 9 390 96 354 106 170 9 395 103 359 113 214 9 411 125 375 135 19:00 36 8 350 33 324 53 95 8 368 63 342 83 105 8 371 68 345 88 114 8 374 73 348 93 124 8 377 78 351 98 154 8 385 92 359 112 19:15 34 5 350 31 342 58 90 5 363 41 355 68 100 5 365 43 357 70 109 5 367 45 359 72 119 5 369 46 361 73 147 5 375 51 367 78 19:30 33 5 337 6 347 55 91 5 353 19 363 68 100 5 356 21 366 70 110 5 358 23 368 72 119 5 361 25 371 74 148 5 369 31 379 80 19:45 30 4 317 6 338 32 92 4 334 22 355 48 102 4 337 25 358 51 112 4 340 28 361 54 122 4 343 30 364 56 153 4 351 38 372 64 20:00 23 3 342 5 326 35 59 3 354 14 338 44 65 3 356 15 340 45 71 3 358 17 342 47 77 3 360 18 344 48 96 3 366 22 350 52 20:15 20 3 336 6 327 37 57 3 346 13 337 44 63 3 348 14 339 45 69 3 350 15 341 46 75 3 351 16 342 47 93 3 356 19 347 50 20:30 18 3 279 4 284 37 64 3 290 11 295 44 71 3 291 12 296 45 79 3 293 13 298 46 86 3 295 14 300 47 109 3 300 18 305 51 20:45 17 5 239 8 205 37 73 5 255 17 221 46 82 5 258 18 224 47 91 5 261 20 227 49 100 5 263 21 229 50 128 5 271 25 237 54 21:00 18 7 227 8 166 35 60 7 235 8 174 35 67 7 236 8 175 35 74 7 237 8 176 35 81 7 238 8 177 35 102 7 242 8 181 35 21:15 10 13 149 8 148 23 48 13 157 8 156 23 54 13 158 8 157 23 60 13 159 8 158 23 66 13 161 8 160 23 85 13 165 8 164 23 21:30 10 13 33 7 82 20 43 13 39 7 88 20 49 13 40 7 89 20 54 13 41 7 90 20 60 13 42 7 91 20 77 13 44 7 93 20 21:45 3 9 16 5 34 8 26 9 17 5 35 8 30 9 17 5 35 8 34 9 18 5 36 8 38 9 18 5 36 8 50 9 18 5 36 8 Utilization < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 85% 85% - 100% >100% 84 Intentionally Left Blank Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 85 APPENDIX C – COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY Below responses are the reasons why respondents do not support placing the development of multigenerational community recreation center on the ballot: (comments below are verbatim from online survey responses, no corrections were made in the text).  Not sure it's nesessary for that amt of money.  Too much overlap with the Ecke YMCA and Boys & Girls Club facilities.  Private businesses already serve this purpose. Pointsettia Park is too much traffic to get to for me. I'd have to get stuck on freeway traffic and several intersections to get there  wouldn't use  Indoor facilities seems foolish here in Cbad. Just put up some sun sails at existing parks. Build additional trails and regular free parks. Our biggest asset is our perfect weather and beaches.  Leave as open space  We want to restore our confidence in the city  I would not use, this proposal replaces my current gym  the facility is too far from where we live  no pickleball courts  I would rather the $ be spent on trails at the agua hedionda lagoon or develop a park area overlooking our ocean views. The new hotel by Sheraton would have been a great location to preserve some open space for a grassy public picnic area to ask the developer to allow. (Like the Montage resort in Laguna beach)  I didn't like seeing our wonderful city decided on prop A and I don't want to fight my neighbors again over an election.  We don't need more indoor space.  An adventure park is not needed. Put in pickle ball courts and some cultural activities  We don't want to see the increase of traffic.  It is already expensive to live in San Diego  This is not needed or necessary in Carlsbad. Leave poinsettia the way it is. No new traffic or parking problems.  I don't trust you measure A idiots with anything.... Clue in!  Don't need it.  Our city just went through a major ordeal over a vote. We need time to heal before doing something again that could make almost half the residents unhappy.  I am not sure the city needs another park for that cost  There are other rec centers and gyms around, there is probably a better way to spend $1M  I do not foresee my family being very interested in the suggested improvements. The park is just as well as is.  We don't need either. Expand the trails at Batiquitos and put in trails at Agua Hedionda  Just have a park with grass and trees and benches.  city counsel should decide that ia wqhy you are elected  Would prefer it to remain as open space.  You tried this with the golf course and that has been a flop. You should have built a swim facility.  We have Harding Center  There is enough recreation in north county already  too risky 86  We don't need another park where non Carlsbad residents will use the facilities  Not a priority  I don't think the park is large enough to handle more there. I don't want the added traffic and loitering that comes with a park. We have enough - we don't need more.  Won't use! Bring back the Caruso project!  It would not benefit the people in northern Carlsbad.  believe future endeavor will prove to be tax increasing.  There are few things that meet my needs  Don't think we need it.  Would prefer money be spent to preserve existing outdoor areas  Costs too much, not interested in supporting something I won't use.  I don't think we need such development  I don't think there is enough demand for it.  Open space with trails is all we need. You seem determined to develope every square inch of this city to enrich someone's pockets.  The parks and facilities are already great. I'd prefer to see money go to more trails. Outdoor, nature-based activities are preferred to indoor, pay-to-use activities.  Carlsbad and this Council need to take some time out and reconsider the City's role in development after the catastrophe of Measure A. Let's go back to basics for a few years. The community wounds are just too deep right now.  Too expensive to place on the ballot  Due to the lack of more designated turf/ grass open space.  People who would never use the facility would be able to block others from benefitting from it.  The City of Carlsbad does not need another community center. The new community center at Pine Street and Calavera Hills is only a few miles from Poinsettia Park. I do not support a new community center at Poinsettia Park.  Do not support outdoor adventure park!  Carlsbad has enough money already to pay for it.  It's not what is needed  I live in the La Costa area: too far to use on a regular basis  additional taxpayer cost related to election; is there really a need to develop proposed facility?  This does not seem like the best use of city funds. The city should focus on adding open space parks, trails, etc. There are plenty of indoor gym facilities around already.  After your behavior with the Caruso debacle, I do not trust any of you.  wouldn't use that much. prefer a larger dog park  Because of the conduct of the mayor on Measure A  Not What Carlsbad Residents Want/Need! You Are Out of Touch With City Needs. Stop Wasting Our Money!  Why would we need to add a facility that we need to pay to use. We already have bike trails, basketball courts and the ocean.  We don't need it  We don't need this in Carlsbad.  Won't use it  Use avail. funds to maintain roads & existing structures. Do not add to exisiting traffic problems.  Carlsbad does not need this facility. We have many fitness centers and recreational opportunities. It is a waste of taxpayers money. Multigenerational Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study 87  I have absolutely no confidence in our city's mayor and council members. You are totally clueless and brazen. Please retire.  Do not want present Poinsettia Park disturbed in any way.  Do not trust you. The City has money already.  We spent too much on the election.  The special election you just had for the lagoon project was a total waste of money!  It would not bring anything new to the area that doesn't already exist.  We need to develop the trails on the lagoon first and foremost.  We already have all of those programs in Carlsbad  Stop wasting our money on nonsense. Spend the money set aside already to improve Agua Hedionda Lagoon  Outdoors is better  I don't think we need it but everyone wants stuff not thinking of the cost. Again, when residents are footing the bill, non-residents should have to pay a much higher fee to help foot some of that bill  There will always be nay sayers, and this is a city project that doesn't need voter approval.  There are already two Rec centers mostly empty  We spend enough money on the city and elections  Build the traila by the lagoon firat  Don't spend the money. Use it other ways. Most people have access to these services.  Would like to first see a park put in at the Buena Vista Reservoir  the city should not be building this type of facility. I currently have a membership elsewhere thst charges less than the city would (based on fees charged at Alga Norte)  we have lots of community centers  I don't think these facilities would be used by many in the community. I think any money should be spent on finishing the Batiquitos plans for trail under the 5 and out to Ponto and the beach and Trails at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.  Indoor facilities are not worthwhile. The city HS tracks should also be open to the public outside of school house. the public paid for them.  Alga Norte Park is a mess. We don't need another one like it. The rules are posted but nobady is there to enforce them so it is a free for all.  Because I don't want the multi generation ale center in Poinsettia park. The park is a Beautiful area for kids and  family. It s already catering people tighter and help family and young to get together and to stay outside. The only thing it need is an improved playground. That's it. Thanks.  Traffic and possible increase in taxes  We have the best weather, the indoor center is not needed! We need the BV Resivour turned into a park in N. Carlsbad and trails put on the lagoon. We have the beach and that area has plenty of parks. Let kids be kids and use their imaginations. They don't need all the hoopla!  Put money into Carlsbad High School complete what you started.  I feel confident in the City planning commission!  City spends that amount all ready on other project, this is a back door question for raising the city authority to spend over $1 million.... How much did the golf course cost?  We already pay enough  The city hasn't show it can be impartial in delivering information.  I think we should just have open space 88  Its not sonetging my family and i woild use. Also think we need things in our community that are for residents to enjoy free of charge. More open space would be ideal  I'm not looking for amusement park type features in local parks and centers. If you live in Carlsbad you know where trails are, there are many. This seems like unnecessary development.  I don't feel the citizens need it  Build the lagoon trails like was voted in on prop c.  Just voted in school bill and LCC and SDA got nothing compared to TP and CCA our representives sell us out to promote Del mar area over us!!! When we're paying just like them! I don't trust officials to be honest and Do projects that benefit theremesekves financially perfect example prop A if we dug into y mayor in's council I'm sure would find they had personal gain if prop A passed! What I always say no matter what power a person is given they will abuse it!  Buy open space or make trails, we'll never use this concept you created  I live far away from the park. I also think of parks as outdoors, not indoors.  we live in a beautiful place with beautiful weather. The city does not spend money on good outdoor space. We do not need more costly amenities.  I don't believe a comm center is necessary; spending & developing this seems wasteful.  Want outdoor dedicated pickleball courts and they are not included in survey  If funding is not required, then we should rely on our government officials to do what we elected them to do  park money needed in other areas of Carlsbad  there are plenty of fitness centers in the area. We need an adventure park or something we don't currently have. What is the foot traffic for harding center?  waste of money, another flop imposed by an inept city council  it's a waste of money. we already have outdoor adventure park called ocean and lagoon. stop looking for stupid ways to waste our money. August 2017 Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study i Acknowledgements City of Carlsbad Council Members Mayor Matt Hall Mayor Pro Tem Keith Blackburn Council Member Mark Packard Council Member Michael Schumacher Council Member Cori Schumacher City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Commission Chairman Matt Simons Vice-Chairman Roy Meenes Michael Luna Jengi Martinez Jodi Rudick-Stein Ron Withall City of Carlsbad Senior Commission Chairman Ray Pearson Vice Chairman David Tweedy Patricia Mehan Kevin Min Sheri Sachs City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department Feasibility Study Team Parks & Recreation Director Chris Hazeltine Mick Calarco Kyle Lancaster Mike Pacheco Project Lead Consultants PROS Consulting, INC. Neelay Bhatt, Vice President and Principal Consultant Sarah Durham, Project Manager Project Sub-Consultants Chris Tatham, ETC Institute Kanten Russell, Stantec Robert Prohaska, Stantec ii Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... 1 1.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PROCESS STEPS ................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 2 1.4 OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS/MARKET OPPORTUNITIES .................................................. 3 1.5 COMMUNITY INPUT ......................................................................................................... 5 1.6 SITE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 7 1.7 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER TWO COMMUNITY INPUT ........................................................................... 11 2.1 STAKEHOLDER AND FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS ............................................................. 11 2.2 FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONAIRE ...................................................................................... 12 2.3 COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY ....................................................................................... 13 2.4 STATISTICALLY RELIABLE SURVEY ................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 25 3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 25 3.2 TRENDS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 32 3.3 SIMILAR PROVIDER ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 38 CHAPTER FOUR RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION .......................................... 41 APPENDIX A - COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY ............................................................. 42 Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 1 CHAPTER ONE – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 OVERVIEW The City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department commissioned a feasibility study for an outdoor adventure park (Figure 1). This plan will examine whether there is community need and market support/location, economic and environmental feasibility for an outdoor adventure park. Needs Assessment and Comprehensive Action Plan In Dec. 2013, the City Council accepted the Parks & Recreation Needs Assessment and Comprehensive Action Plan, which included a strategic action plan that serves as a guide for priority development, capital improvement planning, and park, facility and amenity development for a period of five years. CAPRA Accreditation As the Department sought CAPRA accreditation for best practice operational standards, the needs assessment was updated to a Master Plan and accepted by the City Council in March 2015. The needs assessment served as an element of the master plan. This planning process resulted in two Big Ideas guided by community vision and needs. Purpose The purpose of an outdoor adventure park includes a variety of programming, from fitness and wellness, adventure and environmental education programs, youth summer camps, and special events. These types of spaces could include options from mountain biking/dirt biking, rock or wall climbing, zip lines and canopy tours, interpretive education opportunities, ropes courses, outdoor events space or an amphitheater, mud course or artificial obstacle courses, etc. With a community that loves and appreciates outdoor recreation and a large corporate presence seeking outdoor teambuilding activities, this type of facility could serve a wide variety of individual and group outdoor recreation needs in the community while potentially becoming a regional and national Figure 1. Map of the City of Carlsbad 2 destination. This type of facility also lends itself to partnership models with public, private or nonprofit providers for design, development and operation. 1.2 PROCESS STEPS Key process steps undertaken as a part of the feasibility study: 1. Demographic overview 2. Other service providers/market opportunities 3. Community input a. Key leader and stakeholder focus group meetings b. Open public input meetings c. Online survey d. Statistically reliable survey 1.3 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW The Demographic overview analysis provides an understanding of the Carlsbad’s population. This analysis is reflective of the total population, and its key characteristics such as age segments, income levels, race, and ethnicity. Total Population The city has recently experienced a rather significant population increase of approximately 4.51 percent; from 105,328 in 2010 to 110,081 in 2015. The current estimated population is projected to continue its rapid growth, increasing to 115,622 individuals in 2020, and 125,785 by 2030. Median Income The city’s median household income ($90,603) and per capita income ($47,554) are both well above the state and national averages. Age Based on the 2010 Census, the population of the target area is just slightly higher (41.5 years) than the median age of the U.S. (37.2 years). Projections show that the service area will undergo an aging trend throughout 2030, as the 55+ age group grows to represent over 36 percent of the total population. Race/Ethnicity The estimated 2015 population is predominantly White alone (81.13 percent), with Asian (7.76 percent) population representing the largest minority. Future projections show that by 2030 the overall composition of the population will become more diverse. Forecasts of the target area through 2030 expect decreases in the White alone (76.65 percent) population; coinciding with slight increases in the population for all other race segments. Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 3 1.4 OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS/MARKET OPPORTUNITIES Based on city staff input and the consultant’s operational experience, it was determined that a drive time of 15, 35 and 50 minutes or less would be considered as a primary target audience for the proposed outdoor adventure park. Activities considered in this similar provider analysis were zip lines, trampoline parks, paintball, BMX facilities, rock climbing, archery, outdoor obstacle course and disk golf facilities. The drive time map depicts the variety of service providers within a 15 minutes (in pink) and 35 minutes (in blue) and 50 minutes (in orange) driving distance. Summary A drive time map review and comparison of similar providers (e.g. Crossfit) versus true competitors (e.g. YMCA) reveals that there are very few true competitors and adequate potential in the Carlsbad market for a proposed outdoor adventure park to serve an unmet community need (Figure 2). 4 Figure 2. Drive Time Map of City of Carlsbad Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 5 1.5 COMMUNITY INPUT Parks & Recreation Department staff and the consulting team conducted a variety of community and key leader outreach initiatives to identify the level of support and vision for financial viability for the proposed facility. This included:  Stakeholder interviews and public meeting (Dec. 10-11, 2015)  Key leader interviews (Council and Commission interviews – Feb. 9, 2016)  Online survey (1148 survey respondents)  Statistically reliable survey (502 survey respondents) The groups and individuals included:  City Council Members  Parks and Recreation Commissioners  Senior Commissioners  City leadership  Parks & recreation staff  Encinitas YMCA  Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club  Regional leaders – San Diego County Parks & Recreation Director  Community interest groups and local residents 6 The summary of community input findings: Summary of Community Input Findings High level of support for the Outdoor Adventure Park based on respondents’ indicated frequency of use as well as paying to use the park Online 78% indicated they would use the park at least a few times / month; 63% indicated a willingness to pay (check, pay per visit, monthly auto-debit) while 21% were not willing to pay to use the park Statistically Reliable Survey 80% indicated they would use the park at least a few times / month; 71% indicated a willingness to pay (check, pay per visit, monthly auto-debit) while 29% were not willing to pay to use the park Top choices include exercise path, zipline and mountain bike trail Exercise path, zipline, skate Parks, velodrome, cycling track and mountain bike trails were the top five choices for frequency of use Exercise path, outdoor fitness course, zipline, mountain bike trails and rock climbing wall were the top five choices for frequency of use Confidence in city staff to operate the park based on a successful precedent i.e. Alga Norte Park 49% were supportive while only 24% were not supportive 51% were supportive while only 7% were not supportive Strong support for placing measure on the ballot for a vote to develop Outdoor Adventure Park 77% were supportive while only 11% were not supportive 71% were supportive while only 12% were not supportive Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 7 1.6 SITE ANALYSIS In the summer of 2016, Stantec and City staff walked two park sites, Zone 5 and Veterans Park, that seemed the most viable to determine if either of them was more feasible for an outdoor adventure park. While there was some initial thought to split the outdoor adventure park between the two parks to reduce the footprint and impact of the proposed activities in the parks, it was decided against to preserve the vision proposed by Big Idea 2. Zone 5 park seemed to have potential to be a center for corporate fitness for the local businesses adjacent to the park as well as other Carlsbad residents (Figure 3). This park site would feature the more extreme activities such as a zip line, ropes courses, and other adrenaline fueled outdoor fitness stations (Figure 4). This would allow for corporate retreats, team building exercise, and possible corporate sponsorship from the nearby businesses and be a good outlet for regional thrill seekers. Ultimately, it was determined that the site didn’t fit the criteria for the project. It only had one access point and a lack of available parking. It also didn’t have enough space to create a regional outdoor adventure park that had the amenities that the community was requesting. ZONE 5 Figure 3. City of Carlsbad Zone 5 Park 8 0 50 100 200 Approx.8AcreCorporate&CommunityFitnessPark SCALE: 1"=100'-0" CityofCarlsbadZone5Park 9179AeroDrive,SanDiego,CA92123 (ph)858.633.4233 Obstacle Fitness Course Active Space Rock Climbing ZiplineRopes Course Figure 4. Zone 5 Adventure Park Layout Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 9 VETERANS PARK Veterans Park lent itself to feature more of the walking trails, exercise nodes, mountain bike trails, pump tracks, and other healthy fitness activities that could be designed into the natural terrain and topography of the site. The site was already used for walking and running trails so it would be easier to enhance the activities that had already been introduced to the site. These activities would also appeal to users who wanted to have some of the outdoor adventure activities without the impact of a zip line or ropes course on site to try to preserve a little bit more of the passive park feel of the existing park. The goal was to also add more parking, staging areas, and a Veterans memorial somewhere on site to honor the veterans at the park site. Veterans Park being the larger site was the reason it was decided to combine all the activities into one outdoor adventure park. It had more access points, more room for parking, and great topography to also include a zipline and ropes course along with all the other original planned amenities. After potential site impacts were analyzed through an environmental constraints assessment and an opportunities and constraints exhibit, it was determined that there wasn’t sufficient developable park acreage at Veterans Park to include all the elements needed for the Outdoor Adventure Park, consistent with the master plan Big Idea. Buffer Zone Active Space Bike Pump Track Bike Park PavedTrailwith ExerciseStations Mountain BikeTrails Pedestrian BufferZone FARADAYAVE. BMXRace Track Pedestrian 0 100 200 400 Tunnel Approx.12-14AcreOutdoorAgilityAdventurePark Tunnel SCALE: 1"=200'-0" Figure 5. Veterans’ Adventure Park Layout 10 1.7 CONCLUSION Based on community input, demographics and trends analysis, market and gap analysis and consultation with the city’s community & economic development planners and staff, the consulting team arrived at the following conclusion and recommendations. There is a community support and a market gap for an outdoor adventure park that can serve as a regional destination in the City of Carlsbad. However, for it to fulfill the vision of Big Idea #2 and function as a true regional draw, it requires a significant footprint. Based on the assessment, the existing space limitations, neighborhood impacts and environmental concerns on city-owned park site do not serve adequately to recommend Big Idea 2. As for specific sites, Zone 5 Park lacks the total acreage to contain the desired adventure park amenities to attract a regional audience. Additionally, mitigating noise and use impacts to the community living in adjacent housing will be a challenge. The developable portion of the future Veterans Park site is large enough to accommodate the regional outdoor adventure park concept; however, significant environmental constraints (noise, lighting and use impacts) exist surrounding the park, which would make developing and permitting an adventure park at that location undesirable and not recommended. Neither Zone 5 nor the future Veterans Park site provide an opportunity to fulfill the intended vision of Big Idea 2 in serving community need to the greatest extent possible. However, given the popularity and expressed community need for outdoor adventure amenities, individual offerings may be considered in future park development as the opportunity arises. Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 11 CHAPTER TWO COMMUNITY INPUT 2.1 STAKEHOLDER AND FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS Stakeholder interviews and focus group meetings are an important part of the community input process. Sessions encourage participants to identify the issues, opportunities, and challenges facing Carlsbad in developing a proposed outdoor adventure park. By engaging community leaders through individual interviews, small group discussions, or focus group settings, the process ensures that the feasibility study is built collaboratively. In Feb. 2016, the planning team conducted a series of 12 individual or group focus group meetings with community stakeholders, City Council members, Commission members, YMCA, city manager, and the mayor. The following sections summarize the questions and answers from the interviews and focus group sessions. At the beginning of each discussion, participants were told individual responses would not be attributed to specific individuals in order to allow for freedom in providing constructive feedback. The responses from participants are listed in summary form. The most common or shared responses are listed first, and each list proceeds in descending order of frequency of answers. Note: Summary input is a reflection of the responses provided by the attendees and not a consultant recommendation or a statement of fact. Thus, what one respondent might consider to be a strength might be an area for improvement for another attendee. WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE POTENTIAL OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK? WHO, IF ANY, ARE POTENTIAL PARTNERS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER?  City should not run the outdoor adventure park o Not qualified, trained, or have the expertise in managing this type of facility  Cautious of managing risk and liability – outside partner would help ease this concern  Potential partners o GoApe, San Diego Sports Commission, tourism partners, etc. WHAT DOES THE FEASIBILITY LOOK LIKE FOR THE POTENTIAL OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK?  Outdoor adventure park should be 100 percent cost recovery  Needs to be a regional draw, if feasible then should develop it o Help drive economic impact  If tax payers developed it then should have limited fees to residents o Resident discount model 12 2.2 FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONAIRE As part of the community input process, PROS and the Parks & Recreation Department conducted a focus group questionnaire to gain an understanding of desired features and amenities of Carlsbad residents in relation to an outdoor adventure park. The questionnaire was distributed in Dec. 2015 and had a total of 24 participants. OUTDOOR ADVENTURE ACTIVITY PARK QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS PLEASE SELECT YOUR TOP 5 MOST DESIRED AMENITIES. The amenities that received the most top five votes were mountain bike trails (11.3 percent), outdoor amphitheater (9.6 percent), and Exercise path (9.6 percent). Mixed martial arts/fitness area, laser tag, paintball, bungee jump, labyrinth/climbing structure, and velodrome/cycling track all tied for the least popular amenities, each receiving no votes (Figure 6). 0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0% Mixed martial arts/fitness area Laser tag Paintball Bungee jump Labyrinth/climbing structure Velodrome, cycling track Slack line mini park Archery Ropes course Swing park/primal swing giant BMX race track BMX dirt jumps Frisbee golf Play area for kids Multipurpose space Bike pump tracks Skate park/wheel friendly plaza Zipline Bike skills/agility courses Obstacle course Pickleball courts Outdoor fitness course (parkour) Rock climbing wall Exercise path Outdoor amphitheater Mountain bike trails 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 5.2% 5.2% 6.1% 6.1% 7.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.6% 11.3% Figure 6. Features Households Most Likely Use Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 13 2.3 COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY PROS Consulting conducted an online survey to gain an understanding of the characteristics, preferences, and satisfaction levels of Carlsbad residents in relation to an outdoor adventure park. The survey was available from Feb. 9 through March 10th and received a total of 1,148 responses. The online survey emulated the statistically reliable survey questions distributed by ETC. This approach allowed Carlsbad residents another opportunity to provide input even if they did not receive the statistically reliable survey. ON-LINE SURVEY FINDINGS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IS CONSIDERING DEVELOPING A NEW OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK. LISTED BELOW ARE POTENTIAL FEATURES THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF A NEW OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK. PLEASE INDICATE THE FEATURES YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD WOULD USE. (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) Top features respondents would use at an outdoor adventure park are exercise path (81 percent), outdoor fitness course (63 percent), zipline (58 percent), rock climbing wall (57 percent), and mountain bike trails (50 percent) (Figure 7). 13% 13% 17% 21% 23% 26% 26% 27% 29% 33% 43% 46% 50% 57% 58% 63% 81% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% Bike pump tracks Velodrome, cycling track BMX race track Mixed martial arts/fitness area Bike skills/agility courses Laser tag Skate parks Slack line mini-park Disc / Frisbee golf Archery Ropes course Obstacle course Mountain bike trails Rock climbing wall Zipline Outdoor fitness course Exercise path Potential Use of Features at Outdoor Adventure Park Figure 7. Potential Use of Features 14 WHICH FOUR OF THE FEATURES WOULD YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD BE MOST LIKELY TO USE IF THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE NEW OUTDOOR ADVENTURE ACTIVITY PARK? (IF 'NONE' PLEASE LEAVE BLANK) Top five potential features (bolded in table below) most used by respondents for their first choice are exercise path (68 percent), zipline (31 percent). Skate parks (29 percent), velodrome, cycling track (28 percent), and mountain bike trails (26 percent) (Figure 8). Potential Features 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 4th Choice Exercise path 68%17%8%7% Zipline 31%25%25%20% Skate parks 29%20%24%27% Velodrome, cycling track 28%11%30%30% Mountain bike trails 26%28%28%18% Rock climbing wall 20%24%30%26% BMX race track 20%20%20%39% Outdoor fitness course 20%50%18%12% Archery 17%27%29%27% Bike pump tracks 17%22%49%12% Laser tag 16%18%32%34% Disc / Frisbee golf 14%27%30%29% Mixed martial arts/ fitness area 11%36%25%28% Bike skills/agility courses 10%26%33%31% Obstacle course 10%16%39%35% Slack line mini-park 10%11%21%59% Ropes course 9%18%26%47% Figure 8. Potential Use of Features Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 15 IF THE OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK WERE DEVELOPED WITH THE TYPES OF FACILITIES THAT YOU INDICATED WERE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BEST REPRESENTS HOW OFTEN YOUR HOUSEHOLD WOULD VISIT THE ADVENTURE PARK? Fifty-seven percent (57 percent) of respondents would visit the adventure park once a week or more. Only five percent would never visit the adventure park and three percent did not know how often they would visit (Figure 9). 6% 33% 18% 21% 7%8%5%3% Daily Few times a week Once a week Few times a month Once a month Few times a year Never Don't know Potential Visitation57% Figure 9. Potential Frequency of Visitation 16 THE COST OF OPERATING A NEW OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK WILL NEED TO BE COVERED BY USER FEES. KNOWING THIS, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE YOUR PREFERRED WAY OF PAYING TO USE THE OUTDOOR ADVENTURE ACTIVITY PARK IF IT HAD THE FEATURES YOU MOST PREFERRED? Forty percent of respondents would prefer to pay per visit; followed by either monthly auto debit from banking or credit card account (21 percent) or they are not willing to pay to use the adventure park (21 percent) (Figure 10). 21% 2% 40% 11% 21% 5% Monthly auto- debit from banking or credit card account By personal check, bank check or money order Pay per visit Don’t know I’m not willing to pay to use the outdoor adventure park Other (please specify) Preferred Way of Paying Fees to Use the Outdoor Adventure Park Figure 10. Preferred Way of Paying Fees Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 17 THE CITY OF CARLSBAD COULD PARTNER WITH OTHER NON-PROFITS OR PRIVATE BUSINESSES IN DEVELOPING AND OPERATING THE OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK. FROM THE FOLLOWING LIST OF POTENTIAL PARTNERS, PLEASE CIRCLE HOW SUPPORTIVE YOU WOULD BE OF THE CITY PARTNERING WITH NON-PROFITS OR PRIVATE BUSINESSES ON POSSIBLY DEVELOPING AND OPERATING THE OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK. Seventy-four percent of respondents are very supportive or supportive of a nonprofit partnership to develop and operate an outdoor adventure park. Sixty-three percent of respondents were very supportive or supportive as well with partnering with private businesses to develop and operate an outdoor adventure park. Only about half of the respondents were very supportive or supportive with no partner (city management) to develop and operate the adventure park (Figure 11). 49% 25% 35% 25%24%28% 15% 28%25% 3% 10% 5%8% 14% 7% Partner with Non-Profits No Partner (City Managed)Partner with Private Businesses Support for Partnerships to Develop and Operate Outdoor Adventure Park Very Supportive Supportive Not Sure Not Supportive Not Supportive At All Figure 11. Support for Partnerships 18 IT IS EXPECTED THE ESTIMATED COSTS WILL EXCEED ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN CITY GENERAL FUNDS TO DEVELOP THE OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK. IN THAT CASE, HOW SUPPORTIVE WOULD YOU BE PLACING THE MEASURE ON THE BALLOT TO BE VOTED ON BY CITY OF CARLSBAD RESIDENTS? NOTE: SUPPORTING THIS BALLOT MEASURE WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY TAX INCREASE. Seventy-seven percent of respondents are very supportive or supportive of placing the outdoor adventure park development on the ballot to be voted on by City of Carlsbad residents. Only 11 percent of respondents were not supportive or not supportive at all for placing this measure on the ballot (Figure 12). 52% 25% 12% 3% 8% Very Supportive Supportive Not Sure Not Supportive Not Supportive at All Support to Place Development of Adventure Park on Ballot 77% Figure 12. Support to Place the Measure on Ballot Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 19 DEMOGRAPHICS 29% 71% Gender Male Female Age Segments 0 1 2 3 4 5 5+ Under age 5 46.35%35.11%16.57%0.84%0.84%0.28%0.00% Ages 5-9 33.33%43.95%21.73%0.99%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 10-14 33.60%44.88%20.47%1.05%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 15-19 40.26%45.05%12.78%1.92%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 20-24 58.41%34.96%5.75%0.88%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 25-34 42.65%29.39%26.16%1.43%0.00%0.36%0.00% Ages 35-44 22.66%32.24%44.66%0.44%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 45-54 21.25%35.33%43.19%0.23%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 55-64 27.25%37.97%34.20%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.58% Ages 65-74 38.04%32.97%28.99%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% Ages 75+74.12%19.41%6.47%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% Counting yourself, how many people in your household are: Figure 13. Survey Respondents’ Household Size by Age Segment Figure 14. Survey Respondents’ Gender Ratio 20 2.4 STATISTICALLY RELIABLE SURVEY ETC Institute partnered with PROS consulting and the City of Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department to conduct a community recreation feasibility survey to determine the feasibility of constructing and potentially partnering for the operation of a proposed outdoor adventure park. In 2013 Carlsbad City Council accepted the needs assessment and comprehensive action plan (master plan). The master plan includes a strategic action plan that serves as a guide for the department’s priority development, capital improvement project planning, and park, facility and amenity development for a five-year period. The two projects that were tested on the survey were derived from the planning process and developed based on extensive community input and values, leadership vision and future trends. METHODOLOGY The survey was designed to accomplish two objectives, ensure the results would be statistically reliable and maximize community input.  Statistically reliable random sample To obtain a statistically reliable sample, ETC Institute selected a random sample of 2,500 households for the survey. The sample was address-based, and the households were selected at random from all known residential addresses in the City of Carlsbad. This method ensured that each city household had an equal probability of being selected for the survey. Survey packets were then mailed to each of the 2,500 households selected for the random sample. The survey packets contained a cover letter, a copy of the survey, and a postage-paid, return envelope. A few days after the surveys were mailed; ETC Institute sent emails and placed phone calls to households in the random sample to encourage participation. The emails contained a link to the online version of the survey to make it easy for residents to complete the survey. To prevent responses from people who were not part of the random sample from being blended to those who were selected for the random sample; everyone who completed the survey online was required to enter their home address prior to submitting the survey. ETC Institute matched the addresses that were entered online with the addresses that were originally selected for the random sample. If the address from a survey completed online did not match one of the addresses selected for the random sample, the online survey was not counted as part of the random sample. A total of 502 residents from the random sample completed the survey. Of these, 344 were completed by mail, 136 were completed online, and 22 were completed by phone. The results for the random sample of 502 households have a 95 percent level of confidence with a precision rate of at least +/- 4.4 percent.  Non random sample To maximize community input, ETC Institute created a website for the survey that was open to all community residents. This unscientific, non-random sample, allowed anyone in the community to share their opinions with the City. A total of 215 residents from the non-random sample completed the survey online. Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 21 SURVEY FINDINGS OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PARK Use of Potential Features Respondents were asked to select from a list of 17 potential features which ones their household would use if developed at an outdoor adventure park. Seventy-eight percent of households indicated they would use the exercise path. Other features include: outdoor fitness course (61 percent), zip-line (45 percent), rock climbing wall (42 percent), mountain bike trails (39 percent), and obstacle course (34 percent).  More than 50 percent of households with children and household with adults ages 20-54 and no children indicated they would use the zip-line and the rock climbing wall. Only 16 percent or less of household’s ages 55 and older indicated use therefore significantly lowering the average. Potential Features Households Would Be Most Likely to Use Based on the sum of respondents’ top four choices, 66 percent indicated they would most likely use the exercise path. Other features include: outdoor fitness course (47 percent), zip-line (27 percent), mountain bike trails (24 percent), and rock climbing wall (24 percent). Potential Visitation Ninety-four percent of households indicated some level of usage of the outdoor adventure park. Fifty-two percent of respondents indicated they would use the facility once a week or more. 22 Figure 15. Potential Visitation Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 23 Preferred Way of Paying Fees to Use the Outdoor Adventure Park Sixty-nine percent of respondents were either willing to pay per visit (45 percent) or by monthly auto- debit (24 percent). Twenty-eight percent (28 percent) indicated they were not willing to pay to use the adventure park (Figure 16). Households in every income bracket who were willing to pay to use the outdoor adventure activity park most preferred to pay per visit. Figure 16. Preferred Way of Paying Fees 24 PARTNERSHIPS Support for Partnerships to Develop and Operate the Outdoor Adventure Park: Based on the sum of respondents who were either very supportive or supportive, 63 percent support for the city to partner with nonprofits. Other similar levels of support include: no partner (city managed) (48 percent) and partner with private businesses (43 percent). FUNDING Support to Place Development of Outdoor Adventure Park on Ballot Seventy-one percent indicated they were either very supportive (39 percent) or supportive (32 percent) of putting the measure on the ballot. Sixteen percent were not sure and 12 percent were not supportive (Figure 17). Figure 17. Support to Place the Measure on a Ballot Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 25 CHAPTER THREE – MARKET ANALYSIS 3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS The demographic analysis provides an understanding of the population within the City of Carlsbad. This analysis is reflective of the total population, and its key characteristics such as age segments, income levels, race, and ethnicity. Future projections are based on historical patterns, and unforeseen circumstances during or after the time of the projections could have a significant bearing on the validity of the final projections. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW The total city population has experienced an increase of approximately 4.51 percent; from 105,328 in 2010 to 110,081 in 2015. The current estimated population is projected to continue its rapid growth, increasing to 115,622 individuals in 2020, and 125,785 by 2030. According to U.S. Census reports, the total number of households in the target area has experienced a coinciding upward trend, increasing roughly 3.94 percent, from 41,345 in 2010 to 42,976 in 2015. The city’s total households are expected to continue to increase at this steady rate up to 48,788 households by 2030. The City’s median household income ($90,603) and per capita income ($47,554) are both well above the state and national averages. Based on the 2010 Census, the target area population is just slightly higher (41.5 years) than the median age of the U.S. (37.2 years). Projections show that the service area will undergo an aging trend throughout 2030, as the 55+ age group grows to represent over 36 percent of the total population. The estimated 2015 service area population is predominantly White alone (81.13 percent), with the Asian (7.76 percent) population representing the largest minority. Future projections show that by 2030 the overall composition of the population will become more diverse. Forecasts of the target area through 2030 expect decreases in the White alone (76.65 percent) population; coinciding with slight increases in the population for all other race segments. 26 METHODS Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau and from Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). All data was acquired in Nov. 2015 and reflects actual numbers as reported in the 2010 Censuses, and estimates for 2015 and 2020 as obtained by ESRI. Straight-line linear regression was utilized for projected 2025 and 2030 demographics. Carlsbad’s boundaries were utilized as the demographic analysis boundary shown below in Figure 18. Figure 18. Carlsbad, California- City Limits Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 27 RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below. The Census 2010 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the US population over time. The latest (Census 2010) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis.  American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment  Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam  Black – This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa  Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands  White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa  Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race 28 CARLSBAD CITY POPULACE POPULATION The city’s population has seen a growing trend and is currently estimated at 110,081 individuals. The total population is expected to continue to grow over the next 15 years. Based on predictions through 2030, the city is expected to have just below 125,800 residents living within 48,788 households (Figure 19). 105,328110,081115,622120,638 125,785 2010 CENSUS 2015 ESTIMATE 2020 PROJECTION 2025 PROJECTION 2030 PROJECTION POPULATION Figure 19. Total Population Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 29 AGE SEGMENT Evaluating population by age segments, the service area exhibits a skewed distribution among the four major age segments; with the 35-54 and 55+ segments representing 58.4 percent of the City’s total population. Currently, the City has a predominately aging population, with the average age of its residents being 41.5 years old. The overall population composition is projected to undergo an aging trend. While the younger three age segments are expected to experience decreases or minimal increases in population percentage; the 55+ age segment is projected to continue increasing an additional 7.1 percent over the next 15 years. This is assumed to be a consequence of a vast amount of the Baby Boomer generation shifting into the senior age segment (Figure 20). The Parks & Recreation Department currently offers a wide variety of programs; primarily focusing on the preschooler, teen, and adult 50+ segments. Moving forward, the department might want to consider separating its adult 50+ segment into multiple segments. Given the differences in how active adults (55+) participate in recreation programs, the trend is moving toward having at least two different segments of older adults. The department could evaluate further splitting program offerings into 55–74 and 75 plus program segments. With Carlsbad’s population expected to continue to age over the next 15 years, this would be a great time for the department to consider taking this step. 24.1%23.2%22.1%21.3%20.5% 18.0%18.4%18.7%19.0%19.3% 31.3%28.9%27.2%25.3%23.6% 26.6%29.5%32.0%34.4%36.6% 2010 CENSUS 2015 ESTIMATE 2020 PROJECTION 2025 PROJECTION 2030 PROJECTION POPULATION BY AGE SEGMENT <18 18-34 35-54 55+ Figure 20. Population Age by Segments 30 RACE AND ETHNICITY Carlsbad’s current population is predominately White alone. The 2015 estimate shows that 81.13 percent of the population falls into the White alone category, while the Asian category (7.76 percent) represents the largest minority. The predictions for 2030 expect the population by race to become slightly more diverse. There is expected to be a decrease in the White alone category; accompanied by slight increases in population of all other races (Figure 21). 82.79%81.13%79.44%78.00%76.65% 7.08%7.76%8.56%9.17%9.76% 4.16%4.68%5.15%5.58%5.97% 2010 CENSUS 2015 ESTIMATE 2020 PROJECTION 2025 PROJECTION 2030 PROJECTION POPULATION BY RACE White Alone Black Alone American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races Figure 21. Population by Race Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 31 HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME The City’s median household income ($90,603) and per capita income ($47,554) are both well above the state and national averages (Figure 22). With the household income being above the national average, this indicates the presence of disposable income. Carlsbad residents will be more likely to desire best in class facilities and be willing to pay for them compared to the average United States citizen. $47,554 $29,527 $28,051 $90,603 $61,094 $53,046 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA U.S.A. COMPARATIVE INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Per Capita Income Median Household Income Figure 22. Comparative Income Characteristics 32 3.2 TRENDS ANALYSIS The following tables summarize the findings from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) 2015 Sports, Fitness and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report, as well as the local market potential index data, which compares the demand for recreational activities and spending of residents for the targeted area to the national averages. Summary of National Participatory Trends Analysis 1. Number of “inactives” decreased slightly, those ‘active to a healthy level’ on the rise a. “Inactives” up 3% in 2014, from 80.2 million to 82.7 million b. Approximately one-third of Americans (ages 6+) are active to a healthy level 2. Most popular sport and recreational activities a. Fitness walking (112.6 million) b. Running/jogging (51.1 million) c. Treadmill (50.2 million) 3. Activities most rapidly growing over last five years a. Adventure racing – up 136% b. Non-traditional/off-road triathlon – up 123% c. Squash – up 101% d. Traditional/road triathlon – up 92% e. Rugby – up 77% 4. Activities most rapidly declining over last five years a. Wrestling – down 40% b. Touch football – down 32% c. In-line roller skating – down 32% d. Racquetball – down 25% e. Slow-pitch softball – down 23% Summary of Local Market Potential Index Analysis 1. The service area exhibits above average market potential for sport and leisure activities 2. Top recreational activities in Carlsbad compared to the national averages a. Participated in skiing (downhill) b. Visited a museum c. Participated in yoga Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 33 Information released by Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) 2015 Study of Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Participation reveals that the most popular sport and recreational activities include: fitness walking, running/jogging, treadmill, free weights and road bicycling. Most of these activities appeal to both young and old alike, can be done in most environments, are enjoyed regardless of level of skill, and have minimal economic barriers to entry. These popular activities also have appeal because of the social aspect. For example, although fitness activities are mainly self-directed, people enjoy walking and biking with other individuals because it can offer a degree of camaraderie. Fitness walking has remained the most popular activity of the past decade by a large margin, in terms of total participants. Walking participation during the latest year data was available (2014), reported over 112 million Americans had walked for fitness at least once. In the past year, the estimated number of “inactives” in America has increased three percent, from 80.2 million in 2013 to 82.7 million in 2014. According to the Physical Activity Council, an “inactive” is defined as an individual that doesn’t take part in any active sport. Although inactivity was up in 2014, the 209 million “actives” seem to be participating more often and in multiple activities. The Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Recreational Activities Topline Participation Report 2015 was utilized to evaluate national sport and fitness participatory trends. SFIA is the number one source for sport and fitness research. The study is based on online interviews carried out in Jan. and Feb. 2015 from nearly 11,000 individuals and households. 34 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS National participatory fitness trends have experienced strong growth. Many of these activities have become popular due to an interest in improving health by engaging in an active lifestyle. These activities also have very few barriers to entry, which provides a variety of activities that are relatively inexpensive to participate in and can be performed by nearly anyone with no time restrictions. The most popular fitness activity by far is fitness walking, which had over 112.5 million participants in 2014. Other leading fitness activities based on number of participants include running/jogging (51 million), treadmill (50 million), hand weights (42 million), and weight/resistant machines (36 million). Over the last five years, the activities that grew most rapidly were off-road triathlons (up 123 percent), road triathlons (up 92 percent), trail running (up 55 percent), high impact aerobics (55 percent increase), and yoga (up 33 percent). Most recently, from 2013-2014, the largest gains in participation were high impact aerobics (14 percent increase), trail running (up 11 percent), and barre (up ten percent) (Figure 23). 2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14 Fitness Walking 110,882 117,351 112,583 -4.1%1.5% Running/Jogging 42,511 54,188 51,127 -5.6%20.3% Treadmill 50,395 48,166 50,241 4.3%-0.3% Free Weights (Hand Weights)N/A 43,164 41,670 -3.5%N/A Weight/Resistant Machines 39,075 36,267 35,841 -1.2%-8.3% Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,215 35,247 35,693 1.3%-1.4% Stretching 36,299 36,202 35,624 -1.6%-1.9% Free Weights (Dumbells)N/A 32,209 30,767 -4.5%N/A Elliptical Motion Trainer 25,903 27,119 28,025 3.3%8.2% Free Weights (Barbells)26,595 25,641 25,623 -0.1%-3.7% Yoga 18,934 24,310 25,262 3.9%33.4% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A N/A 22,390 N/A N/A Aerobics (High Impact)12,771 17,323 19,746 14.0%54.6% Stair Climbing Machine 13,653 12,642 13,216 4.5%-3.2% Pilates Training 8,770 8,069 8,504 5.4%-3.0% Stationary Cycling (Group)6,762 8,309 8,449 1.7%24.9% Trail Running 4,845 6,792 7,531 10.9%55.4% Cross-Training N/A 6,911 6,774 -2.0%N/A Cardio Kickboxing 5,500 6,311 6,747 6.9%22.7% Martial Arts 6,643 5,314 5,364 0.9%-19.3% Boxing for Fitness N/A 5,251 5,113 -2.6%N/A Tai Chi 3,315 3,469 3,446 -0.7%4.0% Barre N/A 2,901 3,200 10.3%N/A Triathlon (Traditional/Road)1,148 2,262 2,203 -2.6%91.9% Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)634 1,390 1,411 1.5%122.6% National Participatory Trends - General Fitness Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) Figure 23. General Fitness National Participatory Trends Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 35 NATIONAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION Results from the SFIA’s Topline Participation Report demonstrate increased popularity among Americans in numerous outdoor recreation activities. Much like the general fitness activities, these activities encourage an active lifestyle, can be performed individually or with a group, and are not limited by time restraints. From 2009-2014, outdoor recreation activities that have undergone large increases are adventure racing (up 136 percent), archery (up 33 pecrcent), backpacking overnight (up 30 percent), and BMX bicycling (up 27 percent). Over the same time frame, activities declining most rapidly were in-line roller skating (down 32 percent), camping within a quarter mile of home or vehicle (down 16 percent), and recreational vehicle camping (down 14 percent) (Figure 24). 2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14 Bicycling (Road)39,127 40,888 39,725 -2.8%1.5% Fishing (Freshwater)40,646 37,796 37,821 0.1%-7.0% Hiking (Day) 32,542 34,378 36,222 5.4%11.3% Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home)34,012 29,269 28,660 -2.1%-15.7% Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 Mile of Home/Vehicle)22,702 21,359 21,110 -1.2%-7.0% Camping (Recreational Vehicle)16,977 14,556 14,633 0.5%-13.8% Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)13,847 14,152 13,179 -6.9%-4.8% Fishing (Saltwater)13,054 11,790 11,817 0.2%-9.5% Backpacking Overnight 7,757 9,069 10,101 11.4%30.2% Archery 6,368 7,647 8,435 10.3%32.5% Bicycling (Mountain)7,367 8,542 8,044 -5.8%9.2% Hunting (Shotgun)8,611 7,894 7,894 0.0%-8.3% Skateboarding 7,580 6,350 6,582 3.7%-13.2% Roller Skating, In-Line 8,942 6,129 6,061 -1.1%-32.2% Fishing (Fly)5,755 5,878 5,842 -0.6%1.5% Climbing (Sport/Indoor/Boulder)4,541 4,745 4,536 -4.4%-0.1% Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,062 2,319 2,457 6.0%19.2% Adventure Racing 1,005 2,095 2,368 13.0%135.6% Bicycling (BMX) 1,858 2,168 2,350 8.4%26.5% National Participatory Trends - Outdoor Recreation Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) Figure 24. Outdoor Recreation Participatory Trends 36 LOCAL SPORT AND MARKET POTENTIAL The following charts show sport and leisure market potential data from ESRI. A Market Potential Data (MPI) measures the probable demand for a product or service in Carlsbad. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the US National average. The national average is 100, therefore numbers below 100 would represent a lower than average participation rate, and numbers above 100 would represent higher than average participation rate. The service area is compared to the national average in four categories – general sports, fitness, outdoor activity, and money spent on miscellaneous recreation. Overall, the City of Carlsbad demonstrates above average market potential index (MPI) numbers; this is particularly noticeable in the fitness and outdoor activity market potential tables. All of the activities in both of these categories have above average MPI scores (100+). These overall high MPI scores show that Carlsbad’s residents have a rather strong participation presence. This becomes significant when the Parks & Recreation Department considers hosting special events or starting up new programs; giving them a strong tool to estimate resident attendance. As seen in the tables below, the following outdoor activities and leisure trends are most prevalent for Carlsbad residents. The activities are listed in descending order, from highest to lowest number of estimated participants among residents. High index numbers (100+) are significant because they demonstrate that there is a greater potential that residents of the service area will actively participate in programs offered by the Parks & Recreation Department. FITNESS MARKET POTENTIAL Carlsbad USA Walking for exercise 28,727 34.0%28.1%121 Swimming 16,825 19.9%15.8%126 Jogging/running 15,247 18.0%12.7%142 Weight lifting 11,970 14.2%10.7%133 Aerobics 9,932 11.8%8.9%132 Yoga 9,255 11.0%7.2%153 Pilates 3,165 3.7%2.8%134 Local Participatory Trends - Fitness Activity Estimated Participants % of Population MPI Figure 25. City of Carlsbad MPI (Fitness) Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 37 OUTDOOR ACTIVITY MARKET POTENTIAL MONEY SPENT ON MISCELLANEOUS RECREATION Carlsbad USA Hiking 12,567 14.9%10.0%149 Bicycling (road)11,162 13.2%9.9%134 Went overnight camping 11,107 13.1%12.7%103 Canoeing/kayaking 5,460 6.5%5.4%120 Boating (power)4,814 5.7%5.3%108 Bicycling (mountain)4,542 5.4%4.0%134 Fishing (salt water)3,431 4.1%4.1%101 Backpacking 3,087 3.7%3.0%125 Horseback riding 2,104 2.5%2.5%102 Local Participatory Trends - Outdoor Activity Activity Estimated Participants % of Population MPI Carlsbad USA Attended sports event 25,070 29.7%23.6%126 Visited a theme park 19,504 23.1%18.0%128 Visited a Museum 17,267 20.4%12.9%158 Visited a zoo 12,447 14.7%11.8%125 Attended baseball game - MLB reg seas 12,171 14.4%9.6%150 Spent $250+ on sports/rec equip 7,438 8.8%7.0%126 Spent $100-249 on sports/rec equip 6,659 7.9%6.5%121 Attended football game (college)6,239 7.4%5.6%131 Attended football game - NFL weekend 5,425 6.4%4.6%138 Spent $1-99 on sports/rec equip 5,330 6.3%5.9%106 Attended high school sports 3,782 4.5%4.6%97 Attended basketball game - NBA reg seas 3,708 4.4%3.2%139 Attended ice hockey - NHL reg seas 3,560 4.2%2.8%151 Attended basketball game (college)3,341 4.0%3.0%134 Attended football game - NFL Mon/Thurs 3,067 3.6%2.6%140 Visited indoor water park 2,802 3.3%3.1%106 Activity Estimated Participants % of Population MPI Local Participatory Trends -Money Spent on Recreation Figure 26. City of Carlsbad MPI (Outdoor Activity) Figure 27. City of Carlsbad MPI (Recreation Expenditures) 38 3.3 SIMILAR PROVIDER ANALYSIS Based on input from city staff and the consultant’s operational experience, it was determined that a drive time of 15, 35 and 50 minutes or less would be considered as a primary target audience for the proposed outdoor adventure park. Amenities were identified to be potential comparable providers to the outdoor adventure park within a 15, 35, and 50 minute drive time. Activities looked at in this similar provider analysis were zip lines, trampoline parks, paintball, BMX facilities, rock climbing, archery, outdoor obstacle course and disk golf facilities. The comparison of similar providers reveals that there are very few competitors within a 35 minute drive time, indicating the opportunity for Carlsbad to serve to serve an unmet community need for an outdoor adventure park. Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 39 Activity Name of Business Less Than15 Minutes Away Less Than 35 Minutes Away Less than 50 Minutes Away ZipLine Skull Canyon ZipLine Corona San Diego Safari Park Flightline Zipline San Diego La Jolla Zip Zoom Line La Jolla Trampoline Parks Get Air Vista Get Air Temecula Sky Zone San Marcos Sky Zone San Diego Paintball Ariakin PaintBall Carlsbad The Paintball Park (MCB Camp Pendleton)Oceanside BMX ABX BMX Racing San Diego Chula Vista BMX Chula Vista YMCA Mission Valley YMCA Encinitas City of Carmel Valley Parks and Recreation Skate/BMX Carmel Valley City of Escondido Parks and Recreation Skate/BMX Escondido City of Coronado Parks and Recreation Skate/BMX Coronado MCB Camp Pendleton Skate Park/BMX Oceanside Rock Climbing Vital Climbing Gym Carlsbad The Wall Climbing Gym Vista Solid Rock Climbing Gym San Marcos Solid Rock Climbing Gym Poway Vertical Hold Rock Climbing Gym San Diego Aztec Recreation Center San Diego Mesa Rim Climbing Center San Diego Outback Climbing Gym UC San Diego Solid Rock - Old Town San Diego Archery Upshot Archery Escondido Willow Creek Archery Escondido Performance Archery San Diego City of San Marcos Parks and Recreation San Marcos City of Poway Parks and Recreation Poway City of La Mesa Parks and Recreation La Mesa City of El Cajon Parks and Recreation El Cajon City of Santee Parks and Recreation Santee Outdoor Obstacle Course (Including Teambuilding)No service providers Disk Golf Kinetic Disk Golf Vista CSUSM Disk Golf San Marcos City of Escondido Parks & Recreation Department - Kit Escondido Figure 28. Similar Providers 40 The drive time map depicts the variety of service providers within a 15 minute (in pink), a 35 minute (in blue), and 50 minute (in orange) driving distance (Figure 29). Figure 29. Drive Time Map of City of Carlsbad Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 41 CHAPTER FOUR RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION Based on community input, demographics and trends analysis, market and gap analysis and consultation with the city’s community & economic development planners and staff, the consulting team arrived at the following conclusion and recommendations. There is a community support and a market gap for an outdoor adventure park that can serve as a regional destination in the City of Carlsbad. However, for it to fulfill the vision of Big Idea #2 and function as a true regional draw, it requires a significant footprint. Based on the assessment, the existing space limitations, neighborhood impacts and environmental concerns on city-owned park site do not serve adequately to recommend Big Idea 2. As for specific sites, Zone 5 Park lacks the total acreage to contain the desired adventure park amenities to attract a regional audience. Additionally, mitigating noise and use impacts to the community living in adjacent housing will be a challenge. The developable portion of the future Veterans Park site is large enough to accommodate the regional outdoor adventure park concept; however, significant environmental constraints (noise, lighting and use impacts) exist surrounding the park, which would make developing and permitting an adventure park at that location undesirable and not recommended. Neither Zone 5 nor the future Veterans Park site provide an opportunity to fulfill the intended vision of Big Idea 2 in serving community need to the greatest extent possible. However, given the popularity and expressed community need for outdoor adventure amenities, individual offerings may be considered in future park development as the opportunity arises. 42 APPENDIX A - COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY Below are the respondents’ reasons on why they do not support to place the development of Adventure Park on the ballot: (comments below are verbatim from online survey responses, no corrections were made to the text).  Too much liability and overhead  Seems touristy, gimmicky, and full of novelty for tourists, not residents. Put the money towards improvements at existing parks (like adding shade sails) and to develop more trails and more passive use, free parks.  Leave as open space  These are decisions that the government is entrusted to make  no pickleball courts  I would rather city $ be spent on an outdoor grassy picnic area/park that overlooks our ocean views or use $ to build the trails at agua hedionda lagoon  Again, didn't like the division it could make between the community.  Won't use it  I do not support a new outdoor adventure park in the City of Carlsbad.  I dont think we need to totally overhaul the existing parks but rather improve them. I would prefer some more open air trails and paths.  We have a lot of outdoor activity venues already available  This is not needed in Carlsbad.  Don't need it.  The city just spent over half a million dollars for a special election. I'm not in the mood to vote for anything that will cost our city money right now.  same as previous  Same as answer 13a  I do not foresee my family using the suggested improvements very much. The park could just as well be left as is.  See previous  Just have grass and trees and benches  same as above  Would prefer it to remain as natural open space.  My family and I don't want any further park development in Carlsbad like these ideas  Enough recreation in area already  this type of project should be developed and managed by a corporation that specializes in this kind of facility  Again it would be used mostly by non Carlsbad residents like the alga Norte  I don't want more traffic and more people at nearby Poinsettia Park. Our neighborhoods are not equipped to be a high traffic "retail" space like this.  Don't want increased traffic or crowds for this.  Don't care about this!  I'm not in favor of it.  an outdoor,adventure park will have a negative impact on this nice quiet neighborhood.  Preserve current outdoor areas  The cost outweighs the benefits. I'd rather put money into the multigenerational center for Carlsbad residents and make that outstanding. An Adventure park will get old over time with the Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 43 same walls, ropes, or obstacles that it will take more money to update it to make it continuously appealing to the public.  We don't need this kind of facility / development  Because trails and open space are enough! No need to always be looking for ways to fill in open space with elaborate plans which enrich someone's pockets.  Seems too touristy/gimmicky and prefer to see funds go to more trails and nature-based activities.  Measure A divided the communist to. Take a time out before trying anything else.  Due to the lack of more designated turf/ grass open space.  Worded oddly. But I'm not in favor of the outdoor adventure park in general. I think it will get very little use and be a big liability for the City.  citizens who would never use the facility could block others from using it.  I do not support a Adventure Park in the City of Carlsbad.  Do not support outdoor adventure park!  Carlsbad city can afford it  We do not need an outdoor adventure park. There is so much of that type of stuff and Carlsbad already with Legoland. We are in desperate need of something for teenagers to do other than swimming. We have two fitness centers for exercise weightlifting we have trails already. How about an ice hockey rink where there's ice skating and ice complex, bowling alley, billiard tables, something for teenagers.  because we wouldnt use it  Not interested in outdoor adventure park  taxpayer cost related to election; is there truly a need to develop facility?  The city has spent too much money on expensive parks which are located in the southern part of carlsbad. It should be considering all of its residents and scaling back the expense. It should also use the money already allocated to build the trails for the AH lagoon. It should scale back the project so it can be done within the $5 million dollar allocation - which is already excessive!  This seems totally unnecessary and not something that we (or many people we know) would use on a regular basis, especially if we have to pay for use. Regular parks are fine, less expensive, and more appropriate for more of our residents.  They are others places the city need to improve like the old senior center in pine street  After your behavior with the Caruso debacle, I do not trust anything you do.  wouldn't use much or if all. won't bring up value of community  Because of the conduct of the Mayor on Measure A  Not What Carlsbad Residents Want/Need! You Are Out of Touch With City Needs. Stop Wasting Our Money! This Is Why We Need A Serious Change Of Leadership In Carlsbad!  Stop sending money. Carlsbad already has outdoor activties to enjoy that are free.  an advanture park is not needed  Would be of little use for me  We don't need this in Carlsbad  This project would cost Carlsbad lots of money down the road. We have lots of nice facilities now that are not total utilizes. We missed the ball by a no vote on A that would have given us all those hiking trails at no cost to us!!!  See other comments. Any new facility is likely to attract non-residents who do not pay local taxes.  Carlsbad does not need this. Parking around Poinsettia Park cannot support it. Waste of money 44  I don't have confidence in the city's judgement. I would prefer to hold off on any improvements until we have a competent, ethical city government. Thank you for asking for the citizens' opinion however. Maybe you will get a clue.  sounds too commercial, not appropriate for the city to develop  I don't think the city should be involved in adventure parks.  Don't want another Disney Land in Carlsbad.  This park is no where near me so I would not use it often. I am also not supportive of turning a free park into a pay to use park!  Need a new City Council  Costs of mailers to "don't sign the petition" negate this development  The special election Carlsbad just had for the lagoon project was a total waste of tax payer money!  Limited appeal so don't want to pay for it  Again, we need to first put the trails near the lagoon.  No personal use  Stop wasting our money. Use the money already set aside to improve Agua Hedionda  Don't vote, just do it  There will always be nay sayers. This is what we vote people into office for.  The outdoors are not always available to use and the cost would be a lot more to maintain an outdoor park than an inside facility  You get enough of our money and we spend enough on elections  Too costly when other traila need to be built now for hiking and biking and sitting on a bench  Daily oversight needs and community liability  Would like to see a passive-use park put in at the Buena Vista Reservoir  This is not being built for residents! it's using city land and funds to build something for tourists and corporations use. city money and land should be used for citizens!  Money should go to current projects of finishing Batiquitos trails under the 5 and to Ponto and the Agua Hedionda trails. Outdoor High School tracks should be open to the public outside of school open hours. The public paid for them  Alga Norte park ha ruined the surrounding neighborhoods with noise, graffitti and traffic. we don't need another like it  Let kids be kids! We have the beach, numerous places to workout!  Doesn't meet my family's needs  Put money into Carlsbad High School.  I am confident in the city's decision making process.  Want the money put into the tennis facility  I wouldn't use it enough  I already belong to a gym.  We already pay enough  See my 1st answer  There are enough facilities in North County  It is not something my family and i would use. As a prosperous cotu i would like residents to stop having to pay for things our tax dollars support. Woild like more open space.  We don't need adventure centers. We have the beach and the outdoors. If another skate park or pump track was built I could possibly be into that but depends on the plans. The rest seems like unnecessary development. Outdoor Adventure Park Feasibility Study 45  I don't think we need an outdoor recreation center. Enhance the existing Poinsettia Park, but please don't develop on open space.  Not needed by my family nor by the city of carlsbad  Build the trails and Veterans Memorial park that was to be completed in 2013!  Don't want this park at all. I want the Batiquitos trails finished to the lagoon and I want the trails built on the AHL. The city has that money. It's time to open that lagoon up to the citizens of Carlsbad. This adventure park seems like a liability and a tourist attraction. We need more free city amenities - suitable for all  It appears geared to tourists, not residents. Want trails on the AHL to be built. That's what the voters said with Measure A. Those for and against Measure A - we all want the trails.  I'm not willing to give power to city managers three only out for things that give themself financial gain. We have been taken advantage of to promote Del mar both in prop A because Del mar won't allow any commercial big mall but want it up in our neck of the woods. We support a bill to improve schools and Del mar is only schools getting real or most improvements. We get reamed with every item that sounds good but ends up benifiting other areas. My guess is most of what gets voted in doesn't actually live in this area but more south towards Del mar!  We need trails and open space, not Disneyland? Open space carlsbad!  I don't think it's needed  We do not nbeed a lot of expensive high maintenance facilities. We need outdoor space!  We don't view a city-operated outdoor adventure park as necessary or as serving the broader population.  Same answer as before - this project is not necessary for my family, and the city has other park obligations to fulfill first. Hub, Veterans, etc.  You need pickleball before esoteric adventure sports  Will not use/attend/support an Adventure Park - No interest  not necessary as stated before  Inept and corrupt city council, let get them out and then do things right  Buy lagoon land instead  I do not support the current proposed idea of an adventure park in the City of Carlsbad. I would support a “natural” outdoor adventure park that is educational to our children and sensitive to our coastal nature. The City of Carlsbad’s Adventure Park should focus on a natural dirt pathway that meanders around coastal open space with an interconnecting paved pathway. Park would included picnic pavilions, and picnic areas in the outdoor adventure park.