The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 15 - Final Needs Assessment for Community ParkJanuary 18, 2022, Item #15DATE: TO: FROM: CONTACT: SUBJECT: Summary: AGENDA REPORT CityofPoway January 18, 2022 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Robert Manis, Director of Development Services {)I\ David De Vries, City Planner \)~\) (858) 668-4604 or ddevries@poway.org Final Needs Assessment for Community Park CITY COUNCIL This action is a review of the Final Needs Assessment for Community Park (Assessment) prepared by PROS Consulting. PROS Consulting was contracted by the City to prepare a usage and needs assessment of Community Park. At the meeting, the consultant will provide a brief overview of the Final Needs Assessment and priorities for Community Park for consideration. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Final Needs Assessment for Community Park (Attachment A). Discussion: Following a City Council initiated item introduced by Councilmember Leonard and Councilmember Grosch, the City Council directed the preparation of this Assessment in December 2019 to complement the recent renovation of the Swim Center and the new Mickey Cafagna Community Center. The City Council also acknowledged that, with the adoption of the Poway Road Specific Plan in 2017 and recently entitled housing projects, there would be many new families in the area using the park. The Assessment was prepared based on a robust outreach program and research analysis. Outreach included discussions with City staff, the City Council, and community stakeholders including the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC), representatives from the Poway Valley Senior Citizens Corporation, Poway Sports Association (PSA), and contract instructors. This outreach program, the research analysis, and resulting considerations are discussed further in the Assessment. At the November 16, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Council supported the Draft Needs Assessment Executive Summary and noted that adding bike access, increasing park visibility and creek renovations should also be prioritized. The City Council then directed the consultant to prepare the Assessment for adoption. PROS Consulting will present an overview of the Assessment and priorities for consideration at the City Council meeting (presentation available online at PlanCommunityPark.com). If adopted by the City Council, the assessment will be used to prioritize future improvements to Community Park as a part of future capital improvement program (CIP) 1 of 60 January 18, 2022, Item #15project programming. The results of this Assessment will be used to prioritize projects and develop a long-term concept plan for implementing improvements. This concept plan would be used to match up prioritized projects with available funding each year with the CIP budget process. Environmental Review: This action is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Fiscal Impact: None. Public Notification: A Notice of this meeting was posted on the designated webpage (PlanCommunityPark.com). Notification was provided to news and social media outlets, all website registrants, and noted stakeholders. Attachments: A. Final Needs Assessment for Community Park Reviewed/ Approved By: Wendy Kaserman Assistant City Manager 2 of60 Reviewed By: Alan Fenstermacher City Attorney Approved By: c~ City Manager January 18, 2022, Item #15COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT DRAFT DECEMBER 2021 PLANCOMMUNITYPARK.COM January 18, 2022, Item #154 of 60 COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City of Poway Chris Hazeltine, City Manager Wendy Kaserman, Assistant City Manager Audrey Denham, Community Services Director Bob Manis, Development Services Director Will Wiley, Assistant Director of Public Works, Maintenance and Operations David De Vries, City Planner Carrie Sanchez, Recreation Area Manager Rene Carmichael, Community Outreach Coordinator Bob Hahn, Parks and Trails Manager PROS Consulting. INC. Neelay Bhatt, Vice President and Principal Consultant Jason Elissalde, Senior Project Manager pros;,';> consultiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE --EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT PROCESS .............................................................................................. 1 1.3 KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 2 1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 3 1.5 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER TWO -PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ....................................................... 5 2.1 KEY STAKEHOLDER AND USER GROUPS SUMMARY .......................................................... 6 2.2 PUBLIC INPUT MEETINGS ...................................................................................... 11 2.3 ELECTRONIC SURVEY .......................................................................................... 13 2.4 WEBSITE ANALYTICS ........................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER THREE -RECREATION TRENDS AND BENCHMARKING ............................................. 33 3.1 RECREATION TRENDS .......................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER FOUR -STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 38 4. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 38 CHAPTER FIVE -CONCLUSION ••••.••••••••••••••.•.•.•••..•..•••••••..•.•••••••••••••••••.••••.••••..•.•.....••.•. 39 APPENDIX A -NON-PARTICIPANT INTEREST BY AGE SEGMENT .............................................. 41 APPENDIX B -NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMING TRENDS .......................................... 42 APPENDIX C -CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION TRENDS ................................................... 45 APPENDIX D -PUBLIC INPUT MEETING POLL RES UL TS .•••••.••.••.••••••••.•••..••.•.••...••••..•••.•.....•.. 51 APPENDIX E -PUBLIC INPUT MEETING CHAT COMMENTS ••••.•.•.•.••..••••..••..•••..•••.•.••.•••••.•..•..•. 55 5 of 60 ii January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT CHAPTER ONE --EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Poway selected PROS Consulting to assist in developing a Needs Assessment for Community Park ("Assessment"). The purpose of the Assessment is to serve as a usable "blueprint" to the City staff, Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee, and the City Council in planning for the needs of Community Park for the growing population using it. This document is intended to be an identification of community needs based on: • Recreation Trends • Key Leader, Stakeholder, and User Group Input • Virtual Public Meetings and Community Survey • Benchmarking Data • Staff Visioning Process The next step in this process is recommended to be a Site Master Plan to help design and identify the best placement and location of the approved needs identified through this assessment. 1.2 PROJECT PROCESS The Assessment followed a process of data collection, public input, on-the-ground study, assessment of existing conditions, market research, and open dialogue with local leadership and key stakeholders. The project process followed a planning path, as illustrated below: Where Are We TODAY? .................... • Site Tour • Benchmark Analysis 6 of 60 Where Are We Going TOMORROW? ............................. • Community Engagement • Demographic and Trends • Level of Service Standards • Online Survey 1 How Do We Get THERE? . ..................... . • Needs Prioritization pros~,';> consuttiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15I CITY OF POWA V 1.3 KEY FINDINGS 1.3.1 RECREATION TRENDS These were developed for Poway using data from Environmental Services Research Institute (ESRI) using participation data based on Market Potential Index (MPI) measures (the probable demand for a product or service within a defined service area). It shows the Fitness MPI likelihood that an adult resident will -Poway -National Average 160 147 participate in 140 certain activities 120 when compared to J 100 the U.S. National 80 average which is ~ 60 denoted as 100. 40 Thus, numbers 20 below 100 0 Yoga Jogging/ Pilates Swimming Weight Walking for Aerobics Zumba represent lower Running Lifting Exercise than average participation rates (lower demand) and numbers above 100 represent above average participation rates (higher demand). MPls were developed for General Sports, Fitness, and Outdoor Activity. As seen below, a variety of fitness activities including jogging, running, and walking for exercise are all very high priorities compared to the national average. 1.3.2 COMMUNITY INPUT This included a variety of key leader (City Council, Committee members, staff etc.), stakeholder, and user groups (partial list shown) who shared Stakeholders and User Groups their input on strengths, opportunities, and their top priorities/vision for Community Park. Two virtual public meetings were also conducted in June 2021 and had over 30 attendees participated in them. City of Poway Poway City Council Poway Valley Senior Citizen Corporation Board of Directors Valley Elementary June 9, 2021 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Trail Advisory Board SD Skate Life Poway Sports Association In additional, the Consulting team, in conjunction with City staff, administered an online survey via Survey Virtual Public Meeting #2 ·-COMPLETED Monkey and the project website www.plancommunityparks.com. The survey was launched in English and Spanish and City staff help market and promote the survey to the broader community. The survey was live from August 2 -September 4, 2021 and had a total of 1, 171 responses which is an exceptionally high response rate. 7 of 60 2 6.00pm - 7.00pm PST January 18, 2022, Item #15I POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on an iterative visioning process with staff combined with the community input, benchmarking, and analysis of recreational trends, the Consulting Team identified the following considerations and top priorities. 1-4-1 CONSIDERATIONS: UPDATE EXISTING AMENITIES The following considerations are tied to updating already existing facilities and/or amenities: 1. Add additional trees and/or shade structures to areas including, but not necessarily limited to: • Tot lots • The Splash Pad • Grass areas • Baseball field areas • Parking lots 2. Improve Signage (Directional/Wayfinding and Informational): • Entrance (e.g., archway, on entry fences/walls) • Amenities • Facilities and Rooms • Trail Information and Mile Markers • Parking 3. Connect Pedestrian loops (e.g., bridges, circle paths) and bicycle paths and enhance ADA accessibility 4. Upgrade/add play structures for all-abilities playgrounds 5. Increase park visibility and safety lighting in and around the park (e.g., reduce fencing, relocate operational yards) 1.4.2 CONSIDERATJONS: NEW AMENITIES The following considerations are for potential new amenities that could be added to Community Park: 1. Add outdoor adventure elements 2. Add dedicated pickleball courts 3. Add restroom by northerly play area 4. Introduce interpretive learning and art opportunities and creek renovation to activate the creek 5. Provide fitness equipment / exercise stations along the trail 1.4.3 CONSIDERATIONS: OPERATIONS These considerations are going to be tied to the operations or processes of the City. 1. Invest in additional marketing to create greater awareness of park offerings 2. Focus on maintenance Improvements • Enhance existing landscape • Relocate maintenance yard • Add dedicated staff / contract support 3. Ensure consistency in branding and aesthetics 4. Determine consistent hours of operations 8 of 60 3 pros~,';> consuttiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY 5. Utilize technology to enhance the user experience • Wi-Fi in park • App for accessible maps / parking counts / workout trackers etc. 1.4-4 TOP PRIORITIES 1. Shade (shade structures/sails and trees) -Create more shaded areas around the park and trails as well as around amenities where people congregate. 2. Accessible Trails and Connectivity -Connect pedestrian loops and make the trails more universally accessible. Provide bike access through the park with adequate bicycle parking. 3. Signage and Park Visibility -Enhance visibility (e.g., reduce tennis court fencing, relocate operational yard) and signage into and throughout the park, for awareness, directional, and educational purposes. 4. Park Amenities and All-Abilities Playground -Improve play areas to include all-abilities playgrounds and introduce pickleball and adventure amenities such as zip-lines, obstacle courses etc. to expand the park's usability. 5. Additional Resources for Awareness and Maintenance (Staff and/or Contract Support) -Invest additional resources to keep up with the park maintenance as additional amenities are added; also grow marketing and communication efforts to create greater awareness about the offerings particularly at the community recreation center (e.g., website App). 1.5 CONCLUSION This Assessment is meant to be a needs assessment as the City continues to plan its future to meet the needs of its growing and very engaged population. As the area grows, Community Park will require a higher level of service for indoor and outdoor offerings while creating enjoyable, safe spaces for community members of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds to recreate comfortably. City leadership can take this Assessment into consideration for future CIP projects and/or consider funding for specific park designs and/or a park master plan. The City's staff is a group of passionate, skilled professionals, and their dedication to the community's well-being is apparent. The Consulting Team is confident that staff in conjunction with the City's leadership will do everything in their power to ensure Community Park meets the needs of the Poway community in the years to come. 9 of 60 4 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT CHAPTER TWO -PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT The planning process incorporated input from City key leaders, stakeholders and residents through a variety of mediums. This included: • Series of key leader and stakeholder interviews and focus user group discussions • Two (2) virtual public meetings • Key leader site tour • An online survey • Crowd-sourcing project website www.plancommunitypark.com. The public outreach program included a designated website (plancommunitypark.com) with information about community park, key findings, and ways to participate (e.g., notification sign-ups, comment cards, forthcoming surveys, and public meetings). The outreach for surveys and public meetings included: 1. Notifications on the City website and the PlanCommunityPark.com website 2. A banner image on the homepage directing potential participants to the PlanCommunityPark.com page 3. Postings on most of our social media channels (e.g., Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter, and lnstagram) 4. Electronic email notifications (Eblast) to 14,516 recipients 5. Direct notice to interested registrants and prior stakeholder, user group, and public meeting participants using a consolidated list 6. Posters at Community Park in English and Spanish 7. Flyers for PeachJar (Poway Unified School District email list) distribution 8. Flyers that Community Park staff to hand out at the Summer Movies in the Park event 9. Printed Surveys provided at Cafagna Center in English and Spanish The following sections summarize and highlight the key findings from each stage of the extensive public input process. These mediums helped engage 1300+ participants representing a broad cross section of interests Citywide. 10 of 60 5 pros~,';> consulf i[)g January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY 2.1 KEY STAKEHOLDER AND USER GROUPS SUMMARY Over the course of three days in 2021, the consulting team convened the following groups to gain insight into the current strengths, opportunities and priorities for Community Park, and to better understand future recreational needs of its users. I Stakeholders and User Groups City of Poway Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Poway City Council Trail Advisory Board Poway Valley Senior Citizen Corporation SD Skate Life Board of Directors Valley Elementary Poway Sports Association Note: The Stakeholder and User Group list above excludes recreational instructors and organizational representatives (e.g., baseball, tennis, soccer, lacrosse, flag football, rugby, dog trainer, water aerobics, swim) and reserve park rangers who also participated. Invitees included Poway Kiwanis, Poway Rotary Club, Poway Bocce Club, Poway Library, Poway Boys & Girls Club, Pacific Swim, and Poway Unified School District representatives. 2.1.1 STRENGTHS Based on feedback from key stakeholder and user group interviews, common themes arose in many conversations related to the strengths of Community Park. These themes included the knowledge and quality of City of Poway staff, the facilities / amenities, overall aesthetics, and the variety of activities provided at Community Park. STAFF Stakeholders noted that staff's knowledge, service and passion contributed greatly towards providing an exceptional user experience. Many stakeholders highlighted the exemplary service and communication provided by staff. Others stated that quality leadership played a key role in high employee morale, noting the passion and Figure 1: Word Cloud of all comments collected for "strengths" enthusiasm of City employees. Sentiments shared regarding the strengths of staff include: • "Communicative and professional" • Customer service by staff including the recreation supervisor at Community Park • Highly organized 11 of 60 6 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT • Staff addresses issues that are brought forward and stay current on community's needs FACILITIES AND AMENITIES Community Park offers a diverse array of amenities and facilities, with activities for all ages. Many see the park as a resource that reflects a sense of community and brings people together. Stakeholders are generally supportive of the facilities and amenities at Community Park and mentioned the following components contributing to the park's uniqueness: • "Beautiful pool" • "Best dog park in San Diego area" • Baseball fields • New Community Center • Picnic areas • Playgrounds • Skateboard Park • Tennis courts • Walking paths, trails, and pathways OVERALL AESTHETICS Many stakeholders communicated their appreciation of the overall aesthetics and layout of Community Park. Residents enjoy the space and natural beauty the park provides and appreciate the effort put forth to maintain it. Comments and specifics mentioned by stakeholders regarding the aesthetics and layout of Community Park include: • "Flagship of our park system" • "Keep the Creek -inspires a lot of play and kids really enjoy it" • "Love the pathways in the park and how they look" • "Picturesque, pretty and attractive" • Built in a way to attract more people • Facilities are generally clean and taken care of • Family Friendly • Improved view corridors • Location • Nice open space • Park accessible from multiple sides • Park maintenance • Spacious • Trees • Walkability VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES The vast amount of recreation options was continuously mentioned as a strength in the focus groups. Stakeholders praised the variety of programs, services, and opportunities available to users of all ages. Highlights of their comments include: • "Diverse recreation opportunities" 12 of 60 7 pros-;,';> consulti[lg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY • Activities for low-income families • Adventure Playground • Events and Activities • Great programs including senior programs • Mix of uses • Offerings for kids / teens (kids / teen hang out) with opportunities to hang out and make new friends • Summer programs • Wide variety of activities 2.1.2 OPPORTUNITIES Stakeholder and user groups shared their perspectives on the opportunities that could impact the future of Community Park. Opportunities that were listed include parking, public awareness of the park, shade, park layout, and the accessibility and connectivity of Community Park. PARKING The most mentioned opportunity in the focus group and key stakeholder meetings were concerns with the parking. Stakeholders would like to see improvements made to not only to the amount of parking, but to the layout and lighting of the existing lots. Recommendations and comments tied to parking that were provided by stakeholders include: Figure 2: Word Cloud of all comments collected for "opportunities" • "Need more parking especially with some parking areas taken over with new condo development" • Current parking area design and two separate lots being connected is a little confusing • No parking available during tournaments • Poor lighting in the parking lot • Use Boys and Girls Club for parking • Add directional signage to available parking areas PUBLIC AWARENESS Stakeholders stated concerns stated about portions of the population that are unaware of Community Park's facilities, amenities, services, programs, and even the location. Many attendees value the park and want others to be aware of and support the City's efforts. The following ideas and comments to increase the awareness of Community Park included: • "Need ways to make folks more interested in using the park" • "Not much community awareness" • Communication and outreach • Community awareness of park 13 of 60 8 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT • Senior center signage much better than community signage • Wayfinding and Directional Signage • Social Media • Would like an app to track usage SHADE Many stakeholders mentioned the lack of shade as a major concern. The lack of trees and shade structures, especially around high use park amenities, combined with the warm climate has a negative impact on users' enjoyment of the park. Focus groups mentioned the following in regards to the shade at Community Park: • "Better shade for the parking area and vehicles too would be helpful" • "Lack of shade an issue" • Benches with shade • Increased availability of shaded spaces • More shade structures especially around Dog Park and play areas • More shade trees LAYOUT Stakeholders verbalized opportunities within the layout of Community Park. Concerns included space allocation, restroom placement, the park's "first impression", and how areas are utilized. Specific comments and recommendations included: • Closer entrance • Creek serves as natural dividing line between park • Need restrooms on northwest corner • Need walking paths around fields and the park • Public works yard "unsightly" • Space adjustment due to development • Tennis court placement • Additional recreational facilities (e.g., pickleball courts, accessible and inclusive playground equipment, and multi-generational facilities and amenities) Some creative ideas for a new layout included an American Ninja course, batting cages, a BMX pump track, a beginner skate park, a roller skate rink, volleyball courts, water features, trail markers, a walking loop around the park, workout stations, a maze, Wifi-stations, indoor play stations for teens and adults, disc golf, swing and climbing logs, zip lines, ping pong tables, bbq grills, a pedestrian bridge from Oak Knoll Rd to dog park, wayfinding signs, monitoring surveillance systems, joint-use facilities, and a parking lot reconfiguration. ACCESSIBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY Stakeholders had multiple concerns with the accessibility and connectivity of Community Park. "Accessibility" in terms of individuals ability to utilize the park and all its' amenities and connectivity in its' ability to connect users with other parts of the City. 14 of 60 9 prosi,';> consutti[)g January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY The City's ability to keep up with the growth and expanding needs of the community, while remaining accessible to all, were consistent themes. As provided by stakeholders, recommendations and comments for consideration regarding the accessibility and connectivity of Community Park include: • Accessibility for Dog Park • Concern with entrance from creek bed pathway • Create loop around park with mile markers • Disconnect between north and south side of park • Need to look for ways to "open things up" • Park, specifically the playground, is not inviting • Poor access from Poway Road • More trails and trail enhancements 2.1.3 TOP PRIORITY Stakeholders and user groups shared many priorities to enhance Community Park. Those themes that were mentioned the most were improvements to the park entrance / first impression, better trails and connectivity, maintaining usable open space, and adding recreational facilities and shade. PARK ENTRANCE / FIRST IMPRESSION Multiple stakeholders and user groups mentioned Community Park's entrance as a top priority. They would like to see the entrance be more open with better sightlines and believe it would improve the first impression of the park. Many park facilities need to be rehabilitated and enhanced landscape and maintenance were recommended to be prioritized. TRAILS & CONNECTIVITY Figure 3: Word Cloud of all comments collected for "top priorities" More trails and better connectivity throughout the park was another top priority. Participants mentioned wanting more trails, pathways, and walking paths as well as better connectivity to the natural areas. Wayfinding and directional signage and mile markers were also be recommended to be prioritized. OPEN SPACE Stakeholders and user groups were interested in ensuring that there is plenty of open space available at Community Park. They would like to see more space available for unstructured or free activities that allow users to enjoy the natural beauty of the park. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Many participants wanted to see the addition of recreational facilities including pickleball courts, accessible and inclusive playground equipment, and multi-generational facilities and amenities. 15 of 60 10 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT SHADE More shade was a top priority for many stakeholders. They would like to see both shade structures and more trees to make visiting the park more enjoyable. 2.2 PUBLIC INPUT MEETINGS In tandem with the stakeholder and user group interviews, the consulting team also hosted 2 (two) virtual public input meetings designed to further engage residents of the City. The public input meetings spanned two days and provided attendees with a presentation of the project, process, initial demographic findings, as well as an opportunity for residents to off er feedback on the parks system through live polling via Zoom. Throughout the presentation, attendees asked questions and shared feedback to identify the strengths, opportunities, and top priorities they see and envision for Community Park. Close to 30 participants, representing a variety of interests, participated in the public meetings. Each public input meeting is combined and summarized in the following sections that include the live polling, combined results to each question asked, and summarized open discussion of the public input. Both of these meetings were done virtually. LIVE POLLING One key approach for soliciting feedback from June 8, 2021 Virtual Public Meeting #1 -COMPLETED 6.00pm -7.00pm PST June 9, 2021 Virtual Public Meeting #2 -COMPLETED 6.00pm -7.00pm PST attendees of the public forum was through live polling of the audience. Using the responses to focus group and key leadership interview questions, the consulting team developed questions within a PowerPoint presentation to gain an understanding of park needs, barriers to participation, communication preferences and others. 16 of 60 11 pros~';> consultiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY 2.2.1 LIVE POLLING RESULTS This exercise was facilitated using a live polling software that allowed for attendees to share their input in real-time during the meeting. These results were then displayed to the attendees immediately after all the respondents had provided their input. The following is a synopsis of the demographics who participated, and some key findings. The full results are shown in Appendix D and E. • • • • ~ t f Gender: Age: Zip Code: 57%-Female 50% -Ages 55-74 85%-92064 40%-Male 34% -Ages 35-54 15% -92128 3% -Prefer not to answer 11% -Ages 75 + 5% -Ages 18-34 Regularly used amenities: 71% -Trails and pathways st imp a t im rovements: 62% -Expand walking paths/trails 52% -More shade structures/trees 48% -Playground 33% -Dog Park 52% -Innovative, all ability playgrounds 17 of 60 12 -••• IIIIIIP'"-~ Participation: 66%-Alone 29% -One other person 3% -Two other people 2% -Three or more people Preferred communication 55% -Poway Chieftain 45% -Facebook 45%-Email January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2.3 ELECTRONIC SURVEY 2.3.1 METHODOLOGY The consulting team conducted an online survey (powered by SurveyMonkey) to gain a better understanding of the characteristics, preferences, and satisfaction levels of Community Park users and stakeholders. The survey was open for approximately three weeks, from August 12th through September 4th, 2021, and received a total of 1,171 responses, which speaks to an exceptional participation rate among the community. This was one of the highest response rates per capita witnessed amongst similar surveys. 2.3.2 FINDINGS Q1: WHEN DO YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD TYPICALLY VISIT COMMUNITY PARK? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) Weekend afternoons (40%) and weekend mornings (38%) were the most popular times to visit Community Park indicated by respondents. Weekday usage was very evenly distributed between mornings (30%), afternoons (31%), and evenings (31%). Sixteen percent (16%) of those surveyed indicated they do not use Community Park. Park Visitation 18 of 60 13 ■ Weekday mornings ■ Weekday afternoons ■ Weekday evenings ■ Weekend mornings ■ Weekend afternoons ■ Weekend evenings ■ I do not use Community Park pros-;,';> consulti[)g January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY Q2: WHO DO YOU USUALLY GO TO THE COMMUNITY PARK WITH: (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) Over half of survey participants indicated they visit Community Park with kids (54%) or other family members (50%). About one in four (26%) visit the park alone. Who You Visit With ■ Kids ■ Other family members ■ Friends ■ Alone ■ Sports Teams ■■ ■ Other (please specify) Q3: HOW LONG, ON AVERAGE, DO YOU STAY AT COMMUNITY PARK WHEN YOU VISIT? Only 19 percent stated that they stay less than an hour while a majority (61 %) spend between 1 to 2 hours when they visit Community Park. Length of Stay ■ Less than one hour ■ 1-2 hours ■ 2-4 hours ■ 4-6 hours ■ More than 6 hours 19 of 60 14 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Q4: PEOPLE USE COMMUNITY PARK IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD USE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES AND/OR FUNCTIONS OF COMMUNITY PARK REGULARLY BY SELECTING EITHER "YES" OR "NO". Trails and pathways (78%) are the most used amenity by survey respondents and any member of their household followed by playground (68%), swim center (68%), and open space for children to play (66%). Amenity Use -"Yes" Trails and pathways (paved, unpaved, etc.) Playground Swim center Open space for children to play Exercise on your own Dog park Picnic areas Open space for passive recreation Large community events Community center Recreation classes or camps Swim programs Youth programs (e.g., Kids Night Out, In The Park Series) Tennis courts Skate park Meeting new people Athletic multi-use field (e.g., soccer, rugby, lacrosse, football) Basketball court Baseball fields Older adult programs and services (e.g., Line Dancing, Feeling Fit, Mahjong) 45% 40% 34% 30% 28% 25% 24% 24% 18% 18% 16% Private outdoor rental space --11% Bocce courts -11% Pickleball court (overlayed on basketball court) -10% Private indoor rental space -9% Teen programs (e.g., Teen Program Series, Teen Volunteer Program) -9% 20 of 60 15 68% 68% 66% 64% 61% 60% 57% 56% 78% pros-;,';> consultiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15I CITY OF POWA V IF "YES," PLEASE RATE THE OVERALL QUALITY Community center (46%) received the highest percentage of "excellent" votes from respondents who have utilized the amenity. The swim center was next at forty-two (42%). The only amenity with a percentage of "poor" responses over nine percent was the baseball fields (29%), however, they were only indicated to be used by eighteen percent (18%) of respondents. If Yes, Rate Overall Quality Trails and pathways (paved, unpaved, etc.) Playground Swim center Open space for children to play Exercise on your own Dog park Picnic areas Open space for passive recreation Large community events Community center Recreation classes or camps Swim programs Youth programs (e.g., Kids Night Out, In The Park Series) Tennis courts Skate park Meeting new people Athletic multi-use field (e.g., soccer, rugby, lacrosse, football) Basketball court Baseball fields Older adult programs and services (e.g., Line Dancing, Feeling Fit, Mahjong) Private outdoor rental space Bocce courts Pickleball court (overlayed on basketball court) Private indoor rental space Teen programs (e.g., Teen Program Series, Teen Volunteer Program) 21% 53% 22%-42% 49% 22% 57% -19%1 19% 56% 23%~iv: 15% 53% 10% 43% 41% "6% 21% 51% 25%-25% 61% 14%1 46% 38% ■14%■ 34% 55% l0%1 42% 49% 9% 35% 57% 7% % 62% 27%-.-5% 20% 55% •11% ,' 7% 15% 52% 32% 10% 35% 26% -29% 27% 46% •20% .. 7% 8% 67% 21% 5% 13% 47% 7% 40% 32% 53% 1-12% , ■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair ■ Poor 21 of 60 16 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Q5: WHICH FOUR OF THESE AMENITIES AND/OR FUNCTIONS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? Swim center (271 top four selections) was mentioned the most as a top four important amenity or program, even though it received the third most "1st choice" votes (93). Dog park (244 top four selections) received the most "pt choice" votes (113), and Playground was selected as the "1st choice" 107 times. Most Important Amenity/ Program Swim center Dog park Playground Trails and pathways (paved, unpaved, etc.) Open space for children to play Open space for passive recreation Exercise on your own Picnic areas Large community events Community center Recreation classes or camps Athletic multi-use field (e.g., soccer, rugby, lacrosse, football) Tennis courts Older adult programs and services (e.g., Line Dancing, Feeling Fit, Mahjong) Skate park Baseball fields Swim programs Youth programs (e.g., Kids Night Out, In The Park Series) Pickleball court (overlayed on basketball court) Basketball court Teen programs (e.g., Teen Program Series, Teen Volunteer Program) Meeting new people Bocce courts Private indoor rental space Private outdoor rental space ■ 1st Choice ■ 2nd Choice 22 of 60 17 26 25 24 86 79 6 6 70 8 6 122 99 3rd Choice ■ 4th Choice 163 145 207 244 240 37 271 pros~,';> consuttiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY Q6: HOW OFTEN DO YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD USE THE FOLLOWING FACILITIES AT COMMUNITY PARK? Trails and pathways are the most often used facility on a daily (14%) and weekly (27%) basis by survey respondents. Those facilities with the highest percentage of "I do not use" selections were Boys and Girls Club (96%), bocce courts (88%), rooms/halls for rent (87%), and pickleball court (87%), though it must be noted that the current pickleball courts are overlaid on the basketball court (as noted in the choices) and many respondents were not aware the pickleball courts existed. Frequency of Use Athletic multi-use field (e.g., soccer, rugby, lacrosse, football) Baseball fields Basketball court Bocce courts Boys and Girls Club (operated by the Boys and Girls Club of San Diego County) Community center Dog park Pickleball court (overlayed on basketball court) Picnic areas Playgrounds Rooms/halls for classes and/or programs Rooms/halls for rent Skate park Swim center Tennis courts Trails and pathways (paved and unpaved) 9°0 • •· 73% 0 0 0 76% I • 88% ll 96% 0o O 17° 0 1 53% % 17% u O ' 0 0 ~':l 43% I -■ 87% 19% •1 %~ 1 ° 1 ° ~ 32% I O '.:! 87% 0 0 %• 75% 14% 10% 13% 17% 11%1· 30% o o 00 o %l 71% ■ Daily ■ Weekly ■ Monthly ■ At least six times per year ■ Two to five times per year Once per year or less ■ I do not use 23 of 60 18 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Q7: PLEASE CHECK ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS THAT PREVENT YOU OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD FROM USING COMMUNITY PARK MORE OFTEN. (PRE-COVID-19 PANDEMIC) "I am too busy" (37%) was the most mentioned barrier as to why respondents or other members of their household do not use Community Park more often. "I do not know what is offered" (34%), "lack of shade" (29%) and "use of other parks" (25%) were the other options selected by at least one in four participants. Barriers I am too busy I do not know what is being offered Lack of shade Use other parks Lack of parking Lack of amenities in park Lack of restrooms Park does not have right equipment (features/facilities) Facilities operating hours not convenient Too busy/crowded Too far from residence Park is not well maintained Lack of programming I do not feel safe Lack of open space 18% 15% 14% 11% 10% 10% 10% 8% 7% 7% 6% Too expensive -4% Poor signage/direction -4% I do not feel welcome • 2% Other (please specify) 12% 24 of 60 19 29% 25% 37% 34% prosi,';> consulf i!)g January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY QB: PLEASE RATE YOUR LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MANAGEMENT / OPERATIONS OF COMMUNITY PARK? Over sixty-one percent (61 %) of those surveyed were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the management/operations of Community Park. Only seven percent (7%) of respondents indicated a level of dissatisfaction. Satisfaction Level -Management/Operations 1% ■ Very satisfied ■ Satisfied No opinion ■ Dissatisfied ■ Very dissatisfied Q9: PLEASE RATE YOUR LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF COMMUNITY PARK? In terms of park maintenance, over seventy percent (70%) of respondents indicated they were "satisfied" of very satisfied" with the work done by staff. Less than one out of every ten surveyed selected the dissatisfied at some level. 25 of 60 Satisfaction Level -Maintenance 1% 20 ■ Very satisfied ■ Satisfied ■ No opinion ■ Dissatisfied ■ Very dissatisfied January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Q10: HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CURRENT LEVEL OF OVERALL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY FOR USERS OF FACILITIES OR PROGRAMS (ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 5, WITH 5 BEING "FEEL VERY SAFE" AND 1 BEING "DO NOT FEEL SAFE AT ALL")? "Feel safe most of the time" (43%) and "feel very safe" (32%) were the most selected option by respondents in terms of how safe they feel at Community Park. Only one percent (1%) indicated they "do not feel safe at all." 26 of 60 User Security/Safety 1% 21 ■ Feel very safe ■ Feel safe most of the time ■ Neutral ■ Sometimes feel unsafe ■ Do not feel safe at all pros-;,';> consuttiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY Q11: PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FOR THE CITY OF POWAY TO PROVIDE OR IMPROVE THE FOLLOWING AMENITY TO COMMUNITY PARK OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS. "More trees/vegetation" (45%) and "more shade structures" (43%) received the highest percentage of "very important" responses from those surveyed when asked to indicate the level of importance of amenities for Community Park for the next 10 years. This emulates what we heard in the public input process in which the community wants more shade. "Improve/expand walking/biking paths, loop trails, and/or trial markers" (42%) and "improve safety measures (lighting, cameras, patrol, etc.)" (40%) were the other amenities in which at least two out of five respondents deemed "very important." Proposed Action Support More trees/vegetation More shade structures Improve/expand walking/biking paths, loop trails, and/or trail markers Improve safety measures (lighting, cameras, patrol, etc.) Enhance creek area Improve/expand restroom facilities Add innovative all abilities playgrounds Add adventure amenities (obstacle course, rock wall, swing and climbing logs, maze, etc.) Enhance outdoor space for events More parking ....u~ ~ 27 of 60 Improve ADA accessibility ---♦~ Improve/expand open space Improve picnic/outdoor cooking areas ---1~ Add outdoor amphitheater/stage ..-,iw Improve/expand dog park -1 ·. Add indoor fitness facilities (gym, studio, etc.) lllllrt"~ Improve park entrance and "first impression" _..-; · . Improve signage (wayfinding and directional signage and place signage) Ila{~. Provide Wi-Fi access Add outdoor fitness equipment ~ Add BMX pump track Build or upgrade existing baseball/softball fields Add roller skating park/rink Add pickleball courts Add disc golf course Upgrade existing tennis courts Improve/expand indoor space for events Improve/expand skatepark 111:~:I. ••0•1111::::::::::,.~~ Add artificia I turf field Add sand volleyball courts •;Wi Upgrade existing basketball courts Improve/expand indoor gaming and media stations and social areas Add outdoor ping pong table(s) Upgrade existing football/soccer field Add outdoor chess table(s) More loading zones ■ Very important ■ Somewhat important 22 i: .. Not sure ■ Not important w.;. )ffl, Uil"tl -~ \VAi l'i~ •il"111 ::::::lT~. w..-=~ ffr:1111111 v.Blii:lil-fjl"/.111111 C:::11-~'..l:~ :ffl ~~iilll-11'1::V.-... ,:·. January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Q12: WHICH FOUR OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY TO ADD/EXPAND/RENOVATE (RANK IN ORDER 1 TO 4 WHERE 1ST IS MOST IMPORTANT)? Survey respondents indicated that the most important improvements for the City to add, expand, and/or renovate were "add adventure amenities" (206 votes), improve and/or expand walking and biking paths, loop trail, and/ or trail markers (194 votes), and "improve safety measures" (169 votes). Most Important Improvements Add adventure amenities {obstacle course, rock wall, swing and climbing logs, maze, etc.) --------------•====---206 28 of 60 Improve/expand walking/biking paths, loop trails, and/or trail markers 194 Improve safety measures {lighting, cameras, patrol, etc.) 169 Enhance creek area -------IC====---•155 More shade structures 148 More trees/vegetation 123 Add outdoor amphitheater/stage •------=:====--• 123 Add innovative all abilities playgrounds 115 Improve/expand dog park 112 Add BMX pump track ---------=:::::I-107 Improve/expand restroom facilities 98 More parking 96 Add indoor fitness facilities {gym, studio, etc.) •----r.::::::a-86 Improve picnic/outdoor cooking areas 82 Add pickleball courts 80 Add disc golf course 77 Improve ADA accessibility 68 Add outdoor fitness equipment 67 Improve/expand open space -••==::1111■ 66 Add roller skating park/rink 60 Enhance outdoor space for events 59 Build or upgrade existing baseball/softball fields 52 Upgrade existing tennis courts 46 Add sand volleyball courts 44 Improve park entrance and "first impression" 43 Add artificial turf field 42 Improve/expand skatepark •1111:=:1• 40 Provide Wi-Fi access 39 Improve signage {wayfinding and directional signage and place signage) 26 Add outdoor ping pong table(s) 21 Add outdoor chess table(s) 19 Improve/expand indoor space for events 15 Upgrade existing football/soccer field 12 Upgrade existing basketball courts 11 Improve/expand indoor gaming and media stations and social areas 11 More loading zones 1117 ■ 1st Choice ■ 2nd Choice 3rd Choice ■ 4th Choice 23 pros-;',-> consuttif)g January 18, 2022, Item #15I CITY OF POWA V Q13: THE CITY OF POWAY IS COMMITTED TO ENSURING THEIR PARKS ARE INCLUSIVE AND ACCESSIBLE. DO ANY MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE A DISABILITY AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)? Fifteen percent (15%) of survey respondents indicated a member of their family has a disability as defined by the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Households Members with a Disability ■ Yes ■ No Q14: IF YES WAS INDICATED FOR Q13, WHAT TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION IS NEEDED TO SERVE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD (PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)? "More accessible walkways and pathways" (77%) was by far the most selected accommodation to serve those with disabilities. Accommodation Needs More accessible walkways and pathways 77% Adaptive playground equipment -23% Additional staff • 7% Sign language interpretation • 7% Non-verbal assistance (Braille) I 2% Other (please specify) 29% 29 of 60 24 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Q15: IF YES WAS INDICATED FOR Q13, WHAT TYPES OF PROGRAMS ARE DESIRED TO SERVE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD (PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)? Of the options given, "social activities" (29%) were the most selected desired program to serve individuals with disabilities, followed closely by "outdoor adventure program" (28%) and "arts & crafts" (27%). Prefer not to answer Social activities (dances, etc.) Outdoor adventure programs Arts & Crafts Organized sports Other (please specify) 30 of 60 Programs Desired 21% 20% 25 34% 29% 28% 27% pros~,';> consulting January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY 2.3.3 DEMOGRAPHICS Q16: USING THE MAP OF THE CITY AS A GUIDE, WHICH PART OF POWAY DO YOU CURRENTLY LIVE IN? While the smallest in size, Area 2 (37%) was the most represented area in the online survey. Respondent Location Area 1 (generally, north of Twin Peaks Road/Poway Road) Area 2 (generally, south of Twin Peaks Road, west of Community Road) Area 3 (generally, south of Poway Road, east of Community Road) Not applicable Prefer not to answer 31 of 60 26 24% 34% 37% January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Q17: COUNTING YOURSELF, HOW MANY PEOPLE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD ARE AGES ... (INDICATED BELOW)? When compared to 2020 demographics, we see online survey participants (households) were overrepresented substantially in the 0-17 age group and slightly over in 35-54. This indicates a larger than City average amount of families with children filled out the survey. Population by Age Segment ■ 0-17 years: ■ 18-34 years: 7% 27% 26% 19% 21% 2020 Demographics Q18: WHAT IS YOUR AGE (IN YEARS)? The average age of survey respondents was 51, the median age was 48. The youngest respondent was 13 and the oldest was 87. 32 of 60 35-54 years: ■ 55-74 years: ■ 75+: 27 23% Online Survey Results Respondents Age 4% ■ 0-17 ■ 18-34 ■ 35-54 ■ 55-74 ■ 75+ pros~,';> consultiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY Q19: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN POWAY (IN YEARS)? Nearly half (46%) of survey respondents have lived in Poway for over 20 years, with the longest recorded tenure being 66 years. The average length of residence was 19 years. The median of respondents was 17. Years in Poway Q20: YOUR GENDER: Females made up 55 percent of the survey respondents. 33 of 60 Gender 0% 28 ■ Female ■ Male ■ 0-2 • 3-9 10-19 • 20+ ■ Prefer not to answer ■ Prefer to self describe January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Q21: WHAT IS YOUR HOUSEHOLD INCOME? With one in four respondents choosing not to answer, $150,000+ (38%) was the largest household income demographic selected by survey participants. Less than one percent claimed under $30,000 a year. Household Income 1% ■ Under $30,000 ■ Between $30,000 and $59,999 ■ Between $60,000 and $89,999 ■ Between $90,000 and $119,999 ■ Between $120,000 and $149,000 ■ Over $150,000 ■ Prefer not to answer Q22: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES YOUR RACE/ETHNICITY [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]? "White/Caucasian" (72%) was the most represented race by those that filled out the survey followed by "Asian/Pacific Islander" (11%), which is in line with demographic data for the City. 34 of 60 Respondent Race/Etnicity White/Caucasian 72% Asian/Pacific Islander 11% Hispanic -5% Native American I 1% Black/African American I 1% Prefer not to answer 15% Other (please specify) I 3% 29 pros-;,';> consulti,0g January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY Q23: PLEASE INDICATE HOW YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL TO COMMUNITY PARK BY SELECTING EITHER "YES" OR "NO." Nearly all survey respondents utilize a car (97%) to travel to Community Park. A little more than half walk (52%), forty-four percent (44%) bike, and two percent (2%) use the bus. Travel Modes 2% IF YES TO Q23 PLEASE LET US KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES. • Car •Walk ■ Bike • MTS Bus stop located at Ii bra ry Of those who walk to Community Park, only forty percent (40%) live within a 10-minute walk. Seventy-one percent (71 %) of those who drive take 10 minutes or less to get to Community Park. Travel Time Car 30% 41% Walk 17% 23% 17 32% 12% Bike 22% 25% 27% 23% MTS Bus stop located at library 25% 50% 25% ■ Up to 5 minutes ■ 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes ■ 16-30 minutes ■ Over 30 minutes 35 of 60 30 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Q24: HOW WOULD MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD PREFER TO RECEIVE INFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE POWAY COMMUNITY PARK PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)? In terms of preferred ways to receive information about future Community Park programs and services, Email newsletter (64%) was the top selection by respondents and was the only one selected by more than half of those surveyed. Word of mouth (10%), posters and announcements (12%), and lnstagram (13%) were the least popular options. Preferred Marketing Methods Email newsletter Poway Chieftain Poway website Direct mailing notices from the City 35% City of Poway Community Services Guide 34% Facebook 24% Nextdoor 23% lnstagram 13% Posters and announcements 12% Word of mouth 10% Other (please specify) ■ 2% 36 of 60 31 42% 41% 64% pros-;,';> consulf i[Jg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY 2.4 WEBSITE ANALYTICS From June 1, 2021 through December 1, 2021, www.plancommunitypark.com engaged almost 1500 users who accounted for close to 3,500 pageviews in less than 6 months. • Users 200 100 Users 1,493 Jun 2021 at L. ___ _ Number of Sessions per User Avg. Session Duration 00:01 :24 l I • 37 of 60 July 2021 New Users 1,492 __,.,J. L. Pageviews 3,441 ~ Bounce Rate 69.45% ~ ~ Aug,1st 2021 September 202 I Sessions Pages/ Session 1.81 ~ 32 ~ October 2021 November 202.1 ■ New Visitor ■ Returning Visitor January 18, 2022, Item #15I POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT CHAPTER THREE -RECREATION TRENDS AND BENCHMARKING 3.1 RECREATION TRENDS The Trends Analysis provides an understanding of national, and local recreational trends. Trends data used for this analysis was obtained from Sports & Fitness Industry Association's ("SFIA"), National Recreation and Park Association ("NRPA"), and Environmental Systems Research Institute ("ESRI"). All trends' data is based on current and/or historical participation rates and, while it may not all be relevant to a specific site, will shed some insights on future trends that will impact recreation offerings at Community Park. 3.1.1 LOCAL SPORT' AND LEISURE MARKET POTENTIAL The following charts show sport and leisure market potential data for City of Poway residents, as provided by ESRI. Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the probable demand for a product or service within a defined service area. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident will participate in certain activities when compared to the U.S. national average. The national average is 100; therefore, numbers below 100 would represent lower than average participation rates (lower demand), and numbers above 100 would represent above average participation rates (higher demand). For example, an index of 120 implies that demand in the area is likely to be 20 percent higher than the US average; an index of 85 implies a demand that is 15 percent lower. The service area is compared to the national average in four (4) categories -general sports, fitness, outdoor activity, and commercial recreation. The City does not have the ability to meet demand for many of the activities shown (e.g., visiting a museum, theme park, indoor water park or salt water fishing). MPI scores are a tool that the Department can use for consideration of keeping existing offerings at Community Park and/or evaluating modifications and new additions. The market potential gives the Department a starting point for estimating resident attendance and participation for a broad set of recreational activities. Only six total activities assessed (4 of which were General Sports) had MPI scores below the national average, which suggests the local population is very inclined to participate in a variety of recreational activities and are heavily engaged in Fitness and Outdoor activities in particular. The following charts compare MPI scores for 42 sport and leisure activities that are prevalent for residents within the City. The activities are categorized by activity type and listed in descending order, from highest to lowest MPI score. High index numbers (100 or more) are significant because they demonstrate that there is a greater likelihood that residents within the service area will actively participate in offerings provided by the Department. 38 of 60 33 prOS-;',1;> consu/tiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY GENERAL SPORTS MARKET POTENTIAL The General Sports category has some high MPI figures, with three activities well above the national average. The activities that are ranked the highest based on MPI are Tennis (141 ), Golf (133), and Soccer ( 116) which are significantly higher than national averages indicating a high popularity for those activities in Poway. General Sports MPI -Poway -National Average 160 141 140 120 V, C1' 100 ~ 0 ----;89---84 u 80 V) c.. 60 ~ 40 20 0 Tennis Golf Soccer Basketball Baseball Volleyball Softball Football 39 of 60 34 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT FITNESS MARKET POTENTIAL Assessing the Fitness Activity category, every activity has an above average MPI score indicating a high interest for participating in these activities. The top activities based on MPI are Yoga (147), Jogging / Running (135), and Pilates (135), however, there is also high demand for the other Fitness Activity categories shown. Fitness MPI -Poway -National Average 160 147 140 120 "' a, 100 ... 0 u 80 V) 0.. ~ 60 40 20 0 Yoga Jogging/ Pilates Swimming Weight Walking for Aerobics Zumba Running Lifting Exercise OUTDOOR ACTIVITY MARKET POTENTIAL All but one activity in the Outdoor Activity category have above average MPI scores. The top three activities in this category include Hiking (139), Bicycling (road) (138), and Canoeing / Kayaking (136). V, 160 140 120 ~ 100 0 ~ 80 0:: 60 ~ 40 20 0 40 of 60 139 Hiking 138 Bicycling (road) Outdoor Activity MPI -Poway -National Average 136 Canoeing/ Kayaking Bicycling Backpacking Fishing (mountain) (salt water) 35 Horseback Riding 86 Fishing (fresh water) pros~,';> consuttiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY I COMMERCIAL RECREATION MARKET POTENTIAL The Commercial Recreation category also reveals all but one activity have MPI scores above the national average, with 3 activities scoring over 150. Those activities were Went to Museum (155), Attended Classical Music / Opera Performance (152), and Went to Live Theatre (151 ). Commercial Recreation MPI (Last 12 Months) ■ Poway Went to museum Attended classical music/opera performance Went to live theater Went to art gallery Attended sports event Spent $250+ on sports/rec equip Visited an indoor water park in last 12 months Did photography Spent $100-249 on sports/rec equip Attended dance performance Played musical instrument Visited a zoo in the last 12 months Visited a theme park in last 12 months Did painting/drawing Did photo album/scrapbooking Went overnight camping in last 12 months Spent $1-99 on sports/rec equip Danced/went dancing National Average 129 126 126 126 122 120 -120 116 115 114 i 112 106 103 98 155 152 151 149 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 MPI Scores 41 of 60 36 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3.1.2 KEY FINDINGS Based on the information presented in the Trends Analysis, the following key findings are of particular interest and/or have significant implications for Community Park: • Local Participatory Trends: 42 of 60 o Local recreation trends show strong participation across all categories assessed, with only 6 out of 42 activities having MPI scores below the national average. o The high Outdoor Activity scores, coupled with the larger participation rates of fitness activities that could take place outdoors (yoga, jogging / running, pilates, walking for exercise) express potential for multiple programming opportunities as well as trail connectivity that could be utilized within Community Park. o The community's high participation numbers in Tennis, plus the rapid increase in participation numbers for pickleball should be monitored by the City as they indicate potential for the need of additional, and/ or multi-use court space. o These numbers are all very promising for the City, as market potential data suggests that City residents are more inclined to participate in a wide variety of recreational activities related to sports, fitness, outdoor recreation, and commercial recreation. 37 pros-;,'f> consultiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWA V CHAPTER FOUR-STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on an iterative visioning process with staff combined with the community input, benchmarking, and analysis of recreational trends, the Consulting Team identified the following considerations and top priorities. ,4-1.1 CONSIDERATIONS: UPDATE EXISTING The following considerations are tied to updating already existing facilities and/or amenities: 1. Add additional trees and/or shade structures to areas including, but not necessarily limited to: • Tot lots • The Splash Pad • Grass areas • Baseball field areas • Parking lots 2. Improve Signage (Directional/Wayfinding and Informational): • Entrance (e.g., archway, on entry fences/walls) • Amenities • Facilities and Rooms • Trail Information and Mile Markers • Parking 3. Connect Pedestrian loops (e.g., bridges, circle paths) and bicycle paths and enhance ADA accessibility 4. Upgrade/add play structures for all-abilities playgrounds 5. Increase park visibility and safety lighting in and around the park (e.g., reduce fencing, relocate operational yards) 4.1.2 CONSIDERATIONS: NEW AMENITIES The following considerations are for potential new amenities that could be added to Community Park: 1 . Add outdoor adventure elements 2. Add dedicated pickleball courts 3. Add restroom by northerly play area 4. Introduce interpretive learning and art opportunities and creek renovations to activate the creek 5. Provide fitness equipment / exercise stations along the trail 4.1.3 CONSIDERATIONS: OPERA TIO NS These considerations are going to be tied to the operations or processes of the City. 1. Invest in additional marketing to create greater awareness of park offerings 2. Focus on maintenance Improvements • Enhance existing landscape • Relocate maintenance yard 43 of 60 38 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT • Add dedicated staff / contract support 3. Ensure consistency in branding and aesthetics 4. Determine consistent hours of operations 5. Utilize technology to enhance the user experience • Wi-Fi in park • App for accessible maps / parking counts / workout trackers etc. 4.1.4 TOP PRIORITIES 1. Shade (shade structures/sails and trees) -Create more shaded areas around the park and trails as well as around amenities where people congregate. 2. Accessible Trails and Connectivity -Connect pedestrian loops and make the trails more universally accessible. Provide bike access through the park with adequate bicycle parking. 3. Signage and Park Visibility -Enhance visibility (e.g., reduce tennis court fencing, relocate operational yard) and signage into and throughout the park, for awareness, directional, and educational purposes. 4. Park Amenities and All-Abilities Playground -Improve play areas to include all-abilities playgrounds and introduce pickleball and adventure amenities such as zip-lines, obstacle courses etc. to expand the park's usability. Additional Resources for Awareness and Maintenance (Staff and/or Contract Support) -Invest additional resources to keep up with the park maintenance as additional amenities are added; also grow marketing and communication efforts to create greater awareness about the offerings particularly at the community recreation center (e.g., website App). CHAPTER FIVE -CONCLUSION This Assessment is meant to be a needs assessment as the City continues to plan its future to meet the needs of its growing and very engaged population. As the area grows, Community Park will require a higher level of service for indoor and outdoor offerings while creating enjoyable, safe spaces for community members of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds to recreate comfortably. City leadership can take this Assessment into consideration for future CIP projects and/ or consider funding for specific park designs and/or a park master plan. The City's staff is a group of passionate, skilled professionals, and their dedication to the community's well-being is apparent. The Consulting Team is confident that staff in conjunction with the City's leadership will do everything in their power to ensure Community Park meets the needs of the Poway community in the years to come. 44 of 60 39 prOS-;",'1> consultiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY Appendices PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 45 of 60 40 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT APPENDIX A -NON-PARTICIPANT INTEREST BY AGE SEGMENT In addition to participation rates by generation, SFIA also tracks non-participant interest. These are activities that the U.S. population currently does not participate in due to physical or monetary barriers, but is interested in participating in. Below are the top five activities that each age segment would be most likely to partake in if they were readily available. Overall, the activities most age segments are interested in include: Camping, Bicycling, Fishing, and Swimming for Fitness. All of which are deemed as low-impact activities, making them obtainable for any age segment to enjoy. 6-12 Year-Olds Fishing Camping Soccer Martial Arts Basketball 35-44 Year-Olds Fitness Swimming Camping Bicycling Fishing Hiking 46 of 60 , 13-17 Year-Olds I Fishing Camping Working Out w/ Weights Volleyball Running/ Jogging 45-54 Year-Olds Bicycling Fishing Camping Fitness Swimming Hiking 41 18-24 Year-Olds Camping Fishing Martial Arts Volleyball Kayaking 55-64 Year-Olds Bicycling Fishing Fitness Swimming Camping Hiking 25-34 Year-Olds Camping Fitness Swimming Bicycling Fishing Kayaking 65+ Year-Olds Fishing Fitness Swimming Bicycling Birdwatching/Wildlife Viewing Working Out Using pros~,'f> consulti(Jg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY APPENDIX B -NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMING TRENDS Programs offered by Park and Recreation Agencies (Pacific Southwest Region) NRPA's Agency Performance Review 2020 summarize key findings from NRPA Park Metrics, which is a benchmark tool that compares the management and planning of operating resources and capital facilities of park and recreation agencies. The report contains data from 1,053 park and recreation agencies across the U.S. as reported between 2017 and 2019. Based on this year's report, the typical agency (i.e., those at the median values) offers 187 Pacific ■ Southwest Region programs annually, with roughly 64 percent of those programs being fee-based activities/events. According to the information reported to the NRPA, the top five programming activities most frequently offered by park and recreation agencies, both in the U.S. and regionally, are described in the table below. A complete comparison of regional and national programs offered by agencies can be found on the following page. When comparing the Pacific Southwest Region agencies to the U.S. average, team sports, themed special events, social recreation events, and fitness enhancement classes were identified in the top five most commonly provided program areas offered regionally and nationally. -Top 5 Most Offered Core Program Areas (Offered by Parks and Recreation Agencies) Pacific Southwest (% of agencies offering) U.S. (% of agencies offering) • Themed Special Events (91%) • Themed Special Events (88%) • Team Sports (90%) • Team Sports (87%) • Social Recreation Events (90%) • Social Recreation Events (87%) • Fitness Enhancement Classes (89%) • Fitness Enhancement Classes (82%) • Health & Wellness Education (88%) • Health & Wellness Education (81%) 47 of 60 42 January 18, 2022, Item #15I POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT Overall, Pacific Southwest Region parks and recreation agencies are above the U.S. average for many program offerings. When utilizing a discrepancy threshold of +/-5 percent (or more), Pacific Southwest agencies are currently offering Fitness Enhancement Classes, Health & Wellness Education, Aquatics, Safety Training, Martial Arts, Trips and Tours, Performing Arts, Cultural Crafts, and Visual Arts at a higher rate than the national average, while Natural & Cultural History Activities and Running / Bicycle Races are below average. Core Program Areas Offered by Parks and Recreation Agencies (percent of agencies) Themed Special Events Team Sports Social Recreation Events Fitness Enhancement Classes Health & Wellness Education Aquatics Safety Training Martial Arts Trips & Tours Individual Sports Racquet Sports Performing Arts Cultural Crafts Visual Arts Natural & Cultural History Activities Golf Running/Cycling Races 48 of 60 ·.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-91% 88% ·.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.-90% 87% 82% 81% 90% 87% 89% 88% ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::---83% 71% :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::--78% 72% 75% 60% ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::--· 72% 63% ·.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-70% 74% •·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.-70% 67% •·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.--69% 64% ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.--67% 61% ·.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.--64% 59% • ·::::::::::::::::::.■•■ .................. _5-4% 59% -------------46% -------------■ 47% ---------30% ----------35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% ■ Pacific Southwest ■ U.S. 90% 100% 43 pros-J,'f> consuttiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWA V Targeted Programs for Children, Older Adults, and People with Disabilities For a better understanding of targeted programs (programs that cater to a specific age segment, demographic, etc.), NRPA also tracks program offerings that are dedicated specifically to children, older adults (seniors), and people with disabilities. This allows for further analysis of these commonly targeted populations on a national and regional basis. Based on information reported to the NRPA, the top three targeted programs offered by park and recreation agencies, nationally and regionally, are described in the table below, followed by a chart that shows the complete comparison of regional and national targeted program offerings. Top 3 Most Offered Core Program Areas (Targeting Children, Seniors, and/or People with Disabilities) Pacific Southwest (% of agencies offering) r----------------------------------~-----U.S. (% of agencies offering) • Summer Camp (92%) • Summer Camp (83%) • Senior Programs (84%) • Senior Programs (78%) • Teen Programs (82%) • Teen Programs (65%) Agencies in the Pacific Southwest Region tend to offer targeted programs above the national average rate. Pacific Southwest agencies are currently offering Summer Camps, Senior Programs, Teen Programs, After School Programs, Programs for People with Disabilities, Preschool, and Before School Programs at a significantly higher rate than the national average. Core Program Areas Targeted for Children, Seniors, and/or People with Disabilities (precent of agencies) Summer Camp 83% Specific Senior Programs 84% Specific Teen Programs After School Programs Programs for People with Disabilities 49 of 60 STEM Programs Preschool Before School Programs 10% Full Daycare -S¾ 0% 10% 36% 26% 20% 20% 30% 40% ■ Pacific Southwest ■ U.S. 44 49% 50% 57% 54% 54% 60% 78% 82% 65% 71% 69% 62% 70% 80% 90% 92% 100% January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT APPENDIX C -CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION TRENDS GENERAL SPORTS National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends -General Sports Activity Participation Levels 2014 2018 # % # % Basketball 23,067 100% 24,225 100% Casual (1-12 times) 7,321 32% 9,335 39% Core{l3+ times) 15,746 68% 14,890 61% Golf (9 or 18-Hole Course) 24,700 100% 24,240 100% Tennis 17,904 100% 17,841 100% Baseball 13,152 100% 15,877 100% Casual (1-12 times) 4,295 33% 6,563 41% Core (13+ times) 8,857 67% 9,314 59% Soccer (Outdoor) 12,592 100% 11,405 100% Casual (1-25 times) 6,622 53% 6,430 56% Core (26+ times) 5,971 47% 4,975 44% Softball (Slow Pitch) 7,077 100% 7,386 100% Casual (1-12 times) 2,825 40'6 3,281 44% Core(13+ times) 4,252 60% 4,105 56% Football, Fla2 5,508 100% 6,572 100% Casual ( 1-12 times) 2,838 52% 3,573 54% Core{l3+ times) 2,669 48% 2,999 46% Core Age 6 to 17 (13+ times) 1,178 52% 1,578 54% Volleyball (Court) 6,304 100% 6,317 100% Casual (1-12 times) 2,759 44% 2,867 45% Core(13+ times) 3,545 56% 3,450 55% Badminton 7,176 100% 6,337 100% Casual (1-12 times) 5,049 70% 4,555 72% Core{l3+ times) 2,127 30% 1,782 28% Football, Touch 6,586 100% 5,517 100% Casual (1-12 times) 3,727 57% 3,313 60% Core{l3+ times) 2,859 43% 2,204 40'6 Soccer (Indoor) 4,530 100% 5,233 100% Casual {1-12 times) 1,917 42% 2,452 47% Core(13+ times) 2,614 58% 2,782 53% Football, Tackle 5,978 100% 5,157 100% Casual (1-25 times) 2,588 43% 2,258 44% Core(26+ times) 3,390 57% 2,898 56% Core Age 6 to 17 (26+ times) 2,590 43% 2,353 44% Gvmnastics 4,621 100% 4,770 100% Casual ( 1-49 times) 2,932 63% 3,047 64% Core(50+ times) 1,689 37% 1,723 36% Volleyball (Sand/Beach) 4,651 100% 4,770 100% Casual ( 1-12 times) 3,174 68% 3,261 68% Core{l3+ times) 1,477 32% 1,509 32% NOTE: Participation figures are in OOO's for the US o ulation ages 6 and over Participation Growth/Decline llloderale lncNM• (1)11,to25"'> Core vs Casual Distribution More Core Participants (56-74%) 50 of 60 45 % Change 2019 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend # % 24,917 100% 8.0% 2.9" 9,669 39% 3.6% 15,248 61% -3.2% 2.4" 24,271 100% -1.7% 0.1" 17,684 100% -1.2% -0.9% 15,804 100% 20.2% -0.5% 6,655 42% 1.4" 9,149 58% 3.3" -1.8% 11,913 100% -5.4% 4.5" 6,864 58% 3.7% 6.7% 5,050 42% -15.4% LS% 7,071 100% -0.1% -4.3% 3,023 43% 7.0% -7.9% 4,048 57% -4.8% -1.4% 6,783 100% 23.1" 3.Z" 3,794 56% ~ 6.2" 2,989 44% -0.3% 1,590 56'6 0.8" 6,487 100% Z.9" 2.7" 2,962 46% 7.4" 3.3" 3,525 54% -0.6% 2.2" 6,095 100% -15.1% -3.8% 4,338 71% -14.1% -4.8% 1,756 29% -17.4% -1.5% 5,171 100% -21.5% -6.3% 3,065 59% -17.8% -7.5% 2,105 41% -4.5% 5,336 100% 17.8" 2.0% 2,581 48% 5.3% 2,755 52% 5.4" -1.0% 5,107 100% -14.6% -1.0% 2,413 47% -6.8% 6.9" 2,694 53% -20.5% -7.0% 2,311 47% -10.8% -1.8% 4,699 100% 1.7" -1.5% 3,004 64% 2.5% -1.4% 1,695 36% 0.4% -1.6% 4,400 100% -5.4% -7.8% 2,907 66% -8.4% -10.9% 1,493 34% 1.1" -1.1% Mo .. •<•D=•~• ~ (0%10 -25%1 EvenlyDivided(45-55%Core More Casual ::..,~-and CasuaQ Participants (56-74'11,) . i ., ... , pros-J,';> consultit)g January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWA V GENERAL SPORTS (CONTINUED) ----National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends -General Sports Activity Participation Levels % Change 2014 2018 2019 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Track and Field 4,105 100% 4,143 100% 4,139 100% -0.1% Casual (1-25 times) 1,797 44% 2,071 50% 2,069 50% 15.1% -0.1% Core(26+ times) 2,308 56% 2,072 50°/4 2,070 50% -10.3% -0.1% Cheerleadin 3,456 100% 3,841 100% 3,752 100% Casual (1-25 times) 1,841 53% 2,039 53% 1,934 52% Core(26+ times) 1,615 47% 1,802 47% 1,817 48% Pickleball 2,462 100% 3,301 100% 3,460 100% Casual (1-12 times) 1,459 59% 2,011 61% 2,185 63% Core(13+ times) 1,003 41% 1,290 39% 1,275 37% Rae uetball 3,594 100% 3,480 100% 3,453 100% -3.9% -0.8% Casual (1-12 times) 2,435 68% 2,407 69% 2,398 69% -1.5% -0.4% Core(13+ times) 1,159 32% 1,073 31% 1,055 31% -9.0% -1.7% Ice Hockey 2,421 100% 2,447 100% 2,357 100% -2.6% -3.7% Casual {1-12 times) 1,129 47% 1,105 45% 1,040 44% -7.9% -5.9% Core(13+ times) 1,292 53% 1,342 55% 1,317 56% 1.9% -1.9% Ultimate Frisbee 4,530 2,710 100'/4 2,290 100% -15.5% Casual (1-12 times) 3,448 1,852 68% 1,491 65% -19.5% Core(13+ times) 1,082 858 32% 799 35% -6.9% Softball (Fast Pitch) 2,424 2,303 100% 2,242 100% -7.5% -2.6% Casual (1-25 times) 1,158 48% 1,084 47% 993 44% -14.2% -8.4% Core(26+ times) 1,266 52% 1,219 53% 1,250 56% -1.3% 2.5% Lacrosse 2,011 100% 2,098 100'/4 2,115 100% o. Casual (1-12 times) 978 49% 1,036 49% 1,021 48% 4.4% -1.4% Core(13+ times) 1,032 51% 1,061 51% 1,094 52% 6.0% 3.1% Wrestlin 1,891 100% 1,908 100% 1,944 9" Casual {1-25 times) 941 50% 1,160 61% 1,189 .5% Core{26+ times) 950 50% 748 39% 755 0.9% Roller Hockey 1,736 100% 1,734 1,616 -6.8% Casual (1-12 times) 1,181 68% 1,296 1,179 Core(13+ times) 555 Boxin for Competition 1,278 Casual (1-12 times) 1,074 Core(13+ times) 204 Ru by 1,276 Casual (1-ltimes) 836 Core(B+ times) 440 562 36% 557 -0.9% S uash 1,285 100% 1,222 -4.9% Casual (1-ltimes) 796 62% 747 -6.2% Core(B+ times) 489 38% 476 39% -2.7% NOTE: Participation figures are i Participation Growth/Decline Moderate Inc-• Moderate Decrease <O"to~ (0%to -25%) Core vs Casual Distribution Mo re Core Participants (56-Evenly Divided (45-55% Co re 74%) and Casual) 51 of 60 46 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT GENERAL FITNESS I --. --'. National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends -General Fitness Participation Levels Activity 2014 2018 # % # % Fitness Walking 112,583 100°/4 111,001 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 35,694 32% 36,139 33% Core(SO+ times) 76,889 68% 74,862 67% Treadmill 50,241 100°/4 53,737 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 22,525 45% 25,826 48% Core(SO+ times) 27,716 55% 27,911 52% Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights) 56,124 100°/4 51,291 100% Casual (1-49 times) 18,195 32% 18,702 36% Core(SO+ times) 37,929 68% 32,589 64% Running/Jogging 51,127 100°/4 49,459 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 23,083 45% 24,399 49% Core(SO+ times) 28,044 55% 25,061 51% Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright) 35,693 100°/4 36,668 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 18,255 51% 19,282 53% Core(SO+ times) 17,439 49% 17,387 47% Weight/Resistant Machines 35,841 100% 36,3n 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 14,590 41% 14,893 41% Core(SO+ times) 21,250 59% 21,479 59% Elliptical Motion/Cross Trainer 31,826 100°/4 33,238 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 15,379 48% 16,889 51% Core(SO+ times) 16,448 52% 16,349 49% Yoga 25,262 100°/4 28,745 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 14,802 59% 17,553 61% Core(SO+ times) 10,460 41% 11,193 39% Free Weights (Barbells) 25,623 100°/4 27,834 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 9,641 38% 11,355 41% Core(SO+ times) 15,981 62% 16,479 59% Dance, Step, Choreographed Exercise 21,455 100°/4 22,391 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 13,993 65% 14,503 65% Core(SO+ times) 7,462 35% 7,888 35% Bodyweight Exercise 22,390 100°/4 24,183 100°/4 Casual (1-49 times) 8,970 40% 9,674 40% Core(SO+ times) 13,420 60% 14,509 60% NOTE: Participation figures are in OOO's for the US population ages 6 and over Participation Growth/Decline Moderale rnc-e (~to25'6) Core vs Casual Distribution More Core P■rtic1pants (56-74%) 52 of 60 47 % Change 2019 5-YearTrend 1-YearTrend # % 111,439 100% -1.0% 0.4" 36,254 33% 1.6% 0.3% 75,185 67% -2.2% 0.4% 56,823 100°/4 13.1% 5.7" 28,473 50% 10.2% 28,349 50% 2.3% 1.6% 51,450 100°/4 -8.3% 0.3" 19,762 38% 8.6% 5.7" 31,688 62% -16.5% -2.8% 50,052 100% -2.1% L2" 24,972 50% 8.2% 2.3% 25,081 50% -10.6% 0.1% 37,085 100°/4 3.9% L1" 19,451 52% 6.6% 0.9" 17,634 48% 1.1% 1.4% 36,181 100°/4 0.9% -0.5% 14,668 41% 0.5% -1.5% 21,513 59% 1.2% 0.2% 33,056 100°/4 3.9% -0.5% 17,175 52% 11.7% 1.7% 15,880 48% -3.5% -2.9% 30,456 100°/4 Z0.6" 6.0% 18,953 62% 8.0% 11,503 38% 10.0% 2.8" 28,379 100% 10.8" 2.0% 11,806 42% 22.5% 4.0% 16,573 58% 3.7% 0.6% 23,957 100°/4 11.7% 7.0% 16,047 67% 14.7% 10.6% 7,910 33% 6.0% 0.3% 23,504 100°/4 5.0% -2.8"/4 9,492 40% 5.8% -1.9% 14,012 60% 4.4% -3.4% M,a,,..,D~•-• ~ (0%to -25%) Evenly Divided (45-55%Core MoreC•ual lt.~'c.i.-iP~ and Casual) P■rtic1pants (56-74%) • )~~~ ,, ,,, pros~,';> consu/tiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY GENERAL FITNESS (CONTINUED) -: National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends -General Fitness Participation Levels % Change Activity 2014 2018 2019 5-YearTrend 1-Year Trend # % # % # % Aerobics (High Impact/ Intensity Training) 19,746 100% 21,611 100°/4 22,044 100% 1L6% Z.0% Casual (1-49 times) 10,242 52% 11,828 55% 12,380 56% 20.9% 4.7" Core(SO+ times) 9,504 48% 9,783 45% 9,665 44% 1.7% -1.2% Stair Climbing Machine 13,216 100°/4 15,025 100°/4 15,359 100°/4 16.2" Z.2" Casual (1-49 times) 7,679 58% 9,643 64% 10,059 65% 4.3% Core(SO+ times) 5,537 42% 5,382 36% 5,301 35% -4.3% -1.5% Cross-Training Style Workout 11,265 100% 13,338 100°/4 13,542 100°/4 20.2% 1.5% Casual (1-49 times) 5,686 50% 6,594 49% 7,100 52% 24.9% 7.7" Core{SO+ times) 5,579 50% 6,744 51% 6,442 48% 15.5% -4.5% Trail RunninJ[ 7,531 100°/4 10,010 100°/4 10,997 100% 9.9" Stationary Cycling (Group) 8,449 100°/4 9,434 100°/4 9,930 100°/4 17.5% 5.3% Casual (1-49 times) 5,353 63% 6,097 65% 6,583 66% 23.°" 8.°" Core{SO+ times) 3,097 37% 3,337 35% 3,347 34% 8.1" 0.3% Pilates Training 8,504 100°/4 9,084 100°/4 9,243 100% 8.7" 1.8% Casual (1-49 times) 5,131 60% 5,845 64% 6,074 66% 18.4" 3.9% Core(SO+ times) 3,373 40% 3,238 36% 3,168 34% -6.1% -2.2% Cardio Kickboxlng 6,747 100°/4 6,838 100°/4 7,026 100°/4 4.1" Z.7" Casual {1-49 times) 4,558 68% 4,712 69% 4,990 71% 9.5% 5.9% Core(SO+ times) 2,189 32% 2,126 31% 2,037 29% -6.9% -4.2% Boot Camp Style Training 6,774 100°/4 6,695 100°/4 6,830 100°./4 0.8% Z.0% Casual {l-49 times) 4,430 65% 4,780 71% 4,951 72% 1L8" 3.6% Core(SO+ times) 2,344 35% 1,915 29% 1,880 28% -19.8"/4 -1.8% Martial Arts 5,364 100°/4 5,821 100°/4 6,068 100% 4.2" Casual (1-12 times) 1,599 30% 1,991 34% 2,178 36% 9.4% Core(13+ times) 3,765 70% 3,830 66% 3,890 64% 3.3% 1 i% Boxing for Fitness 5,113 100°/4 5,166 100°/4 5,198 100% 1.7" 0.6% Casual {1-12 times) 2,438 48% 2,714 53% 2,738 53% 12.3" 0.9% Core(13+ times) 2,675 52% 2,452 47% 2,460 47% -8.0% 0.3% Tai Chi 3,446 100°/4 3,761 100°/4 3,793 100°./4 10.1" 0.9" Casual {l-49 times) 2,053 60% 2,360 63% 2,379 'II 15,9" (. 1% Core{SO+ times) 1,393 40% 1,400 37% 1,414 37% 1.5% 1.°" Barre 3,200 100°/4 3,532 100°/4 3,665 100°/4 14.5% 3.8" Casual (1-49 times) 2,562 II 2,750 Ill 2,868 -11.9" .::i% Core(SO+ times) 638 782 797 2 ,9" __ 9% Triathlon (Traditional/Road) 2,203 100' 2,168 l00"11t 2,001 100' -.7"/4 Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road) 1,411 100°/4 1,589 100°/4 1,4n 100°/4 4.3% -7.4% NOTE: Participation figures are in OOO's for the US popul tion ag s 6 and over Participation Growth/Decline Modenltelncnae •oa-,o~•n• ~ (°"to25'61 (0%to-25%) Core vs Casual Distribution More Core Partlcrpanta (56-EvenlyDivided(45-55%Core More Casual --~:~ 74%) and Casual) Partrcrpanta (56-74%) ~-• ,. <t;;, ~,. !f 53 of 60 48 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT OUTDOOR/ ADVENTURE RECREATION , National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends -Outdoor/ Adventure Recreation Activity 2014 2018 2019 # % # % # % 36,222 100"/4 47,860 100"/4 49,697 39,725 100"/4 39,041 100"/4 39, Casual {1-25 times) 19,269 49% 20,777 53% 20,796 Core(26+ times) 20,456 51% 18,264 47% 18,592 47% Fishin Freshwater 37,821 100"/4 38,998 100°/4 39,185 100"/4 Casual (1-ltimes) 19,847 52% 21,099 54% 20,857 53% Core(B+ times) 17,973 48% 17,899 46% 18,328 cam in (< 1/4 Mile of Ve hide/Home) 28,660 100"/4 27,416 100"/4 28,183 Cam in (Recreational Vehide) 14,633 100°/4 15,980 100"/4 15,426 Casual {1-7 times) 9,103 57% 8,420 Core(B+ times) 6,877 Fishin (Saltwater) Casual (1-ltimes) 13,179 10,101 8,044 Casual (1-12 times) 3,707 Core(13+ times) 4,336 Arche Casual (1-25 times) Core(26+ times) Fishin (Fl ) Casual (1-7 times) Core(B+ times) 2,204 2,479 36% 2,521 Skateboardin 6,582 100"/4 6,500 100"/4 6,610 Casual (1-25 times) 8 2 % 3,989 61% 4,265 Core(26+ times) 2,700 41% 2,511 39" 2,345 Roller Skatin ln-Une 6,061 100°/4 5,040 100°/4 4,816 100"/4 Casual (1-12 times) 4,194 69" 3,680 73% 3,474 72% Core{13+ times) 1,867 31% 1,359 27" 1,342 2,350 100°/4 3,439 100°/4 3,648 Casual (1-12 times) 1,205 51% 2,052 60% 2,257 Core(13+ times) 1,145 49% 1,387 40% Climbin (Traditional/lce/Mountaineerin ) 2,457 100°/4 2,541 100"/4 2,368 100°/4 2,215 100"/4 Casual (1 times) 1,004 42% 581 26% Core(2+ times) 1,365 1,595 NOTE: Participation fi ures are in OOO's for the U Participation Growth/Decline Moc1eratelncree1e M oder■te Decrease (0..to~ (0%10 -25%) Core vs Casual Distribution MoreCoreP1rticip1nt1 (56-Evenly Divided (45-55%Core 74~) and Casual) 54 of 60 49 2.0% 16.5" -0.8% -11.7% -10.1% -17.2% 1-Year Trend -4.4% -5.6% -5.5% -2.4% pros~'f> consultiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWAY AQUATICS l . -. ;1 National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends -Aquatics Activity 2014 2018 2019 # % # % # % Swimming (Fitness) 25,304 100% 27,575 100% 28,219 100% Casual (1-49 times) 16,459 65% 18,728 68% 19,480 69% Core(SO+ times) 8,845 35% 8,847 32% 8,739 31% Aquatic Exercise 9,122 100% 10,518 100% 11,189 100"/4 Casual (1-49 times) 5,901 65% 7,391 70% 8,006 72% Core(SO+ times) 3,221 35% 3,127 30% 3,183 28% Swimming (Competition) 2,710 100% 3,045 100% 2,822 100% Casual (1-49 times) 1,246 46% 1,678 55% 1,529 54% Core(SO+ times) 1,464 54% 1,367 45% 1,293 46% NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Participation Growth/Decline Core vs Casual Distribution WATER SPORTS/ ACTIVITIES Moderate tnae■1e I°" to 25"1 Moderate Decrease (0% to-25%) More Core Participants (56-Evenly Divided (45-55% Core 74") and Casual) ' National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends -Water Sports/ Activities i Activity 2014 2018 2019 # % # % # % Kayaking (Recreational) 8,855 100% 11,017 100% 11,382 100"/4 Canoeing 10,044 100% 9,129 100% 8,995 100"/4 Snorkeling 8,752 100% 7,815 100% 7,659 100% Casual (1-7 times) 6,935 • 6,321 ■ 6,192 fl Core(B+ times) 1,818 1,493 1,468 Jet Skiing 6,355 100% 5,324 100% 5,108 100% Casual (1-7times) 4,545 72% 3,900 73% 3,684 72% Core(B+ times) 1,810 28% 1,425 27% 1,423 28% Sailing 3,924 100% 3,754 100% 3,618 100% Casual (1-7times) 2,699 69% 2,596 69% 2,477 68% Core(B+ times) 1,225 31% 1,159 31% 1,141 32% Stand-Up Paddling 2,751 100% 3,453 100% 3,562 100% Rafting 3,781 100% 3,404 100% 3,438 100"/4 Water Skiing 4,007 100"/4 3,363 100% 3,203 100"/4 Casual (1-7 times) 2,911 73% 2,499 74% 2,355 74% Core(B+ times) 1,095 27% 863 26% 847 26% Surfing 2,721 100% 2,874 100% 2,964 100% Casual (1-7 times) 1,645 60% 1,971 69% 2,001 68% Core(B+ times) 1,076 40% 904 31% 962 32% Wake boarding 3,125 100% 2,796 100% 2,729 100"/4 Casual (1-7times) 2,199 70% 1,900 68% 1,839 67% Core(B+ times) 926 30% 896 32% 890 33% Scuba Diving 3,145 100% 2,849 100% 2,715 100"/4 Casual (1-7 times) 2,252 72% 2,133 "~I 2,016 74% Core(B+ times) 893 28% 716 •• 699 26% Kayaking (Sea/Touring) 2,912 100% 2,805 100% 2,652 100% Kayaking (White Water) 2,351 100% 2,562 100% 2,583 100% Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,562 100% 1,556 100% 1,405 100% Casual (1-7 times) 1,277 82% 1,245 'ft: 1,112 ~i Core(B+ times) 285 18% 310 .20K, 292 21tl1 NOTE: Participation figures are in OOO's for the US population a es 6 and over Participation Growth/Decline (°"to 25,.. (0%to -25%) 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend 11.5" 2.3" 18.4% 4.0% -1.2% -1.2% 22.7" 6.4" 8.3% -1.2% 1.8% 4.1" -7.3% 22.7% -8.9% -11.7% -5.4% 5-YearTrend 1-YearTrend 3.3" -10.4% -1.5% -12.5% -2.0% -10.7% -2.0% -19.3% -1.7% -19.6% -4.1% -18.9% -5.5% -21.4% -0.1% -7.8"/4 -3.6% -8.2% -4.6% -6.9% -1.6% 3.2" -9.1% LO% -20.1% -4.8"/4 -19.1% -5.8% -22.6% -1.9% 8.9% 3.1" 21.6% 1.5% -10.6% 6.4% -12.7% -2.4% -16.4% -3.2% -3.9% -0.7% -13.7% -4.7% -10.5% -5.5% -21.7% -2.4% -8.9% -5.5% 9.9% 0.8" -10.1% -9.7% -12.9% -10.7% 2.5% -5.8% Core vs Casual Distribution ··--....... ,~-·· ~ MoreCorePartic,pants(56-EvenlyDrv1ded(45-55%Core MoreCasualPartic1pant1 Molli,c.utlP .... 74'111) and Casual) (56-74'111) {11911trtflllln,lt 55 of 60 50 January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT APPENDIX D -PUBLIC INPUT MEETING POLL RESULTS HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE PARTICIPATING WITH YOU IN THIS VIRTUAL MEETING? Three out of every ten participants attended the meeting with at least one other person with them. HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE COMMUNITY PARK? Over half of participants use Community Park at least weekly (52%). Only five percent said they do not use the park at all. Virtual Meeting Participants 70% Just myself One other person Two other people Three or more people Visitation Frequency 52% 1% At least At least At least 6 At least two Once per I do not use weekly monthly times per to five times year or less it year per year DO YOU LIVE WITHIN A 10-MINUTE WALK TO COMMUNITY PARK? Approximately 62 percent of participants indicated they do not live within a 10-minute walk of Community Park. 56 of 60 51 10-Minute Walk ■Yes ■No prOS-i,';> consu/ti,Qg January 18, 2022, Item #15I CITY OF POWA V WHICH PARK AMENITIES DO YOU USE REGUARLY? "Trails and pathways" (71%) were the most regularly used amenity by public input meeting attendees, followed by "playground" (48%) and "dog park" (33%). Regularly Used Park Amenities Trails and pathways Playground Dog Park Swim Center Picinic areas Athletic Fields Sports courts Skate Park Other ------------· 71% 48% 110% 5~ 24r 24'(o i 24% 19% I ! 33% HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL QUALITY OF COMMUNITY PARK AND ITS AMENITIES? More than four out of five attendees rated the overall quality of Community Park and its amenities as "good" or above. Only five percent rated them as "poor." HOW DO YOU TRAVEL TO COMMUNITY PARK? By a substantial margin, "I drive" (71 %) was the most preferred method of transportation to Community Park by attendees. This correlates with the high percentage of attendees who do not live within a 10-minute walk of the park. 57 of 60 Excellent 71% I drive 52 Overall Quality of Park and Amenities Good Fair Poor Travel 19% 19% 0% I do not use I bike, skateboard or scooter I walk I carpool I do not go to I use transit Community Park January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST PREFERRED WAYS TO LEARN ABOUT COMMUNITY PARK'S PROGRAMS, EVENTS, FACILITIES, AND AMENITIES? The top three preferred ways to learn about what Community Park has to offer were the Poway Chieftain (55%), Facebook (45%), and Email (45%). Most Preferred Communication Poway Chieftain Facebook Email Website Community Services Guide Word of mouth lnstagram Nextdoor Other -~ -~5% -; _Jo% I I i 7 19% I ; I 1 i l ! 451 45''-'o ! 41% I 3S% I I I 18% : ! ' I i ! I 55'¼ WHAT IS THE LARGEST BARRIER THAT PREVENTS YOU FROM USING COMMUNITY PARK MORE OFTEN? Lack of amenities (27%) was the most selected barrier by participants, followed by I am too busy (18%), lack of parking (14%), and lack of restrooms (14%). "I do not feel welcome" and "lack of accessibility" both received zero votes. 58 of 60 Largest Participation Barrier Lack of amenities I am too busy Lack of parking Lack of restrooms I do not feel safe Lack of signage Too far from residence I do not feel welcome Lack of accessibility Other 53 -I i 1 ! I ~k% -Is% ! is% 0 10% .J I ' ! l 1f% 1k% i 1 I 14% i i r 18¾ pros-J,';> consultiQg January 18, 2022, Item #15CITY OF POWA V WHICH THREE AMENITIES ARE YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD MOST INTERESTED IN? The top three types of amenities participants and members of their household would be the most interested in are "trails, fitness trails and pathways" (67%), "playgrounds" (52%) and "pool/water features" (38%). Amenities-Most Interested Trails, fitness trails and pathways Playgrounds Pool/Water Features Dog Park Sports courts Picinic areas Skate park Open space Sports fields Other -------· 67% 5~% I :38°0 I I ---29o/y ---2~% 19J , 1•1 I 19% ' WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENTS THE CITY OF POWAY CAN MAKE AT COMMUNITY PARK OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS? The top three most important improvements participants would be interesting in adding to existing parks over the next 10 years are "expand walking paths/trails" (62%), "more shade structures/trees" (52%), and "innovative, all ability playgrounds" (52%). 10-Year Improvements Expand walking paths/trails More shade structures/trees Innovative, all ability playgrounds Improve and expand restroom facilities Improve ADA accessibility New or upgrade sports fields New or upgrade skate park New or upgrade sports courts More parking Improve signage 7 ! .....19% ~ I ~19% bl1~1•¾ 7 r JO% I 29% ' I I i s2r 52% I 62 0 PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE OVERALL VALUE YOU RECEIVE FROM COMMUNITY PARK? Nearly 72 percent of participants were "somewhat satisfied" or above with the overall quality at Community Park. Only five percent were "somewhat dissatisfied" and there were no selections for "very dissatisfied". 59 of 60 54 Overall Satisfaction-Community Park Value 5% -0% 0% Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very Don't Know Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied January 18, 2022, Item #15POWAY COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS ASSESSMENT APPENDIX E -PUBLIC INPUT MEETING CHAT COMMENTS • Love to see gardens added to the park. especially since the community center is there to be able to host or help maintain. • Garden space. but community garden is a good idea too. I know there is a couple garden clubs in Poway that could benefit from a space. • Planting more natives plants and butterfly gardens is great. • Hello, resident here for about 4 years. Looking forward to hearing about the park plans and appreciate you putting this on. • Me, my wife, and my two daughters are participating tonight. My kids are big fans of BMX and would like to see a BMX track in Poway. • I would like to add playing near the creek to activities • Thanks Neelay and David. My family would love to see a BMX track at Community Park or anywhere else in Poway. The sport of BMX is fun, family-friendly and fast-growing. Unfortunately, there are no tracks in North County. Poway residents would be well served with a track in the model of "San Diego BMX" in Kearny Mesa that features programming including racing. • General upgrading and upkeep for the look. Chain link fences are not so nice looking. • ADA accessibility is not just a want, but a must I think. • I think it's really important to differentiate between a skate park, which Community Park already has, and a BMX track. The skate park is a concrete area without organized programming while a BMX track is a dirt track with organized practices, classes, and races. • Would love to make it more upscale to match the aesthetic of the City Hall, Lilac Courtyard, Library 60 of 60 55 pros~,';> consuttiQg