HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-01; Senior Commission; ; PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 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.