park analysis
comparing with these two park master plans, and fill the excel matrix, can leave it blank if there is nothing apply to one section. Total word counts are about one-page double space paper long
COLLIER
PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page i
CITY OF LA MESA
COLLIER PARK
RENOVATIONS PROJECT
MASTER PLAN
JUNE 2014
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page ii
PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS
La Mesa City Council
Art Madrid, Mayor
Kristine Alessio, Vice Mayor
Mark Arapostathis, Councilmember
Ernest Ewin, Councilmember
Ruth Sterling, Councilmember
Master Plan Team
David E. Witt, City Manager
Yvonne Garrett, Assistant City Manager/Director of Community
Services
William B. Chopyk, AICP, Community Development Director
Mike Pacheco, Community Services Manager
Chris Jacobs, Senior Planner
Käaren McElroy, Management Analyst
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………….. Page 1-1
1.2 Purpose of the Master Plan ………………………………………………… Page 1-4
1.3 Plan Goals……………………………………………………………………….. Page 1-5
1.4 Location and Neighborhood Demographics ………………………….. Page 1-5
1.4.1 Location …………………………………………………………………. Page 1-5
1.4.2 Demographics ………………………………………………………… Page 1-5
1.4.3 Residential Population Density ………………………………….. Page 1-6
1.5 Site History ………………………………………………………………………. Page 1-9
CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Collier Park Background ………………………………………………….. Page 2-13
2.2 Spring House …………………………………………………………………. Page 2-14
2.3 Collier Park Features ………………………………………………………. Page 2-15
2.4 Natural Resources ………………………………………………………….. Page 2-17
2.5 Historical Resources ……………………………………………………….. Page 2-17
CHAPTER 3 POLICY AND PLANNING PROCESS
3.1 Existing Policies ……………………………………………………………… Page 3-19
3.2 Health and Wellness ……………………………………………………….. Page 3-20
3.3 Citywide Parks Master Plan ……………………………………………… Page 3-21
3.3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………… Page 3-21
3.3.2 Vision Statement and Overall Goal ………………………….. Page 3-21
3.3.3 Policies Related to Collier Park ……………………………….. Page 3-22
3.3.4 Existing Park Service Area Analysis of Collier Park ……. Page 3-23
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page iv
CHAPTER 3 POLICY AND PLANNING PROCESS (continued)
3.4 Water Conservation Ordinance …………………………………………. Page 3-26
3.5 Planning Process ……………………………………………………………. Page 3-26
3.5.1 Key Elements – Community Workshops …………………… Page 3-27
3.5.2 Key Feedback on Collier Park – Parks Master Plan
Community Sensing ………………………………………………. Page 3-28
3.6 Recreation and Open Space …………………………………………….. Page 3-29
3.7 Consideration of an Off-Leash Dog Run at Collier Park ………… Page 3-29
CHAPTER 4 DESIGN AND CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
4.1 Overview …….. ……………………………………………………………….. Page 4-30
4.2 Panhandle Phase 1 Design ………………………………………………. Page 4-32
4.3 History Hill …… ……………………………………………………………….. Page 4-35
4.4 Collier Club House ………………………………………………………….. Page 4-36
4.5 Spring House . ……………………………………………………………….. Page 4-37
4.6 Environmental Impact Report ……………………………………………. Page 4-39
CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Review and Approval Process ………………………………………….. Page 5-40
5.2 Potential Revenue Generation ………………………………………….. Page 5-41
5.3 Implementation Recommendations ……………………………………. Page 5-41
5.3.1 Spring House ………………………………………………………… Page 5-42
5.3.2 Site Water …………………………………………………………….. Page 5-42
5.4 Future Funding ……………………………………………………………….. Page 5-42
APPENDICES
A – Aerial View of Collier Park ……………………………………………………………… Page 43
B – Phase II Site Plan …………………………………………………………………………. Page 44
C – Potential Funding Sources …………………………………………………………….. Page 45
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-1
1 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of La Mesa is 9.2 square miles in area and is located 14 miles inland
from the Pacific Ocean. It is immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the
City of San Diego, along both sides of Interstate 8, and 11 miles from downtown
San Diego. The City also shares borders with the cities of El Cajon and Lemon
Grove, and an unincorporated section of San Diego County. Natural scenic
resources such as Mt. Helix and Mt. Nebo define the geography of the City and
surrounding areas, and major transportation corridors divide the City; Highway
125 (north/south) and Interstate 8 (east/west). There are also two light-rail trolley
lines running through the City making La Mesa a destination easily accessible
from all areas of the County. Known as the Jewel of the Hills, La Mesa boasts
tree-lined neighborhoods, a downtown village, and a history of family generations
growing up in the community.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-2
REGIONAL PROJECT LOCATION MAP
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-3
Over its first 100 years, along with the rest of the region La Mesa has
experienced a substantial transformation, evolving from a primarily semi-rural
bedroom community to its current status, described in the City’s 2012 General
Plan as an east county urban sub center. From the original 700 citizens who first
formed the City, La Mesa has grown to more than 58,000 according to the 2010
census. That number is expected to increase by 13% in 2030 and 33% by 2050
according to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) population
forecast. As the population has grown, so has neighborhood and commercial
development, and La Mesa is now considered built-out, lacking open space for
any future large-scale development. Since incorporation, ensuring the health and
safety of La Mesa’s citizens and maintaining the quality of life in the community
have been long standing goals. The community goal of preserving that quality of
life in La Mesa’s various neighborhoods has remained consistent over the City’s
first century with a policy of land use and urban design that calls for preservation
and enhancement of residential neighborhoods and open spaces. In surveys
contributing to the 2012 General Plan Update, citizens ranked safe
neighborhoods and public spaces, and parks and recreation facilities as the top
two healthy community topics important for La Mesa’s future. The challenge for
City leadership is in preserving its historical values while making those
progressive improvements necessary to sustain a viable community.
In a built-out community such as La Mesa, revitalizing our neighborhoods
requires a continuous reinvestment in infrastructure maintenance and
improvements. Without this reinvestment, systems and facilities will deteriorate
over time. It is critical to conserve our limited resources and reuse, repurpose,
and renew our existing resources to continue to meet changing public demands.
The number of acres of open space in La Mesa has declined over the last 100
years while the population has increased and the City has become more
urbanized. These changes have created conflicting demands for the City’s limited
recreational open space. A citywide Parks Master Plan completed in 2012
established goals for enhancing the parks and recreational facilities in La Mesa
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-4
and increasing access to existing parks and open space. Additional details
concerning the elements of the Parks Master Plan are provided in Chapter 3 of
this document. The Parks Master Plan includes the suggestion to create a
master plan for renovation of Collier Park, citing the need to improve safety and
visibility within and into the park, increase access points into the park, and
replace the aging restroom and play attractions in the oldest of the City’s 14
parks.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN
This Master Plan contemplates a phased approach to renovate an existing
portion of Collier Park and provides for future development on currently
undeveloped and under developed portions of the park. The plan reflects the
community’s desire for the construction of updated and enhanced recreational
amenities in the park. The Master Plan includes a site history, description of the
existing site conditions, the public input and planning process, concept designs
for areas within the park, considerations for the Spring House, improvement
phasing recommendations, and potential funding sources. For the purposes of
phasing future improvements to Collier Park, the park site has been divided into
four concept segments: the Panhandle area, situated in the southern and
western portions of the park; the History Hill area, situated in the southeastern
underdeveloped portion of the park; the Collier Club House area, located in the
northern undeveloped portion of the park; and the Spring House, situated
adjacent to the Panhandle area of the park in close proximity to Pasadena
Avenue. This master plan is intended to encourage more active recreational use
of the park by residents in the neighborhood.
1.3
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-5
1.3 PLAN GOALS
The following goals were established for the Collier Park Master Plan:
• Create a safer, more active use park
• Preserve the historical aspects of the site through overall design, renovation,
and interpretation
• Create an environmentally friendly facility with energy and water conservation
considerations central to the design elements
• Improve and increase neighborhood connections to the park
• Evaluate the existing historic Spring House in Collier Park and make
recommendations for restoration or modification
• Research and identify viable sources of funding for park improvements and
historic preservation
• Support the implementation of the citywide Parks Master Plan
1.4 LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD
DEMOGRAPHICS
1.4.1 Location
Collier Park is located at 4401 Palm Avenue. According to the City’s park
definitions, it is a Neighborhood Park, which is defined as a park, typically 1 – 15
acres, serving a relatively small population within a geographic area of the City.
This type of park contains both passive (open space) and active (i.e., tennis
court) recreation elements. The park property lies between Palm Avenue and
Upland Street, to the north of Spring Street and to the south of La Mesa
Boulevard, approximately one-half mile south of the downtown La Mesa Village.
A segment of Pasadena Avenue bisects the park and is used as a through street
between Palm Avenue on the western border of the park and 4th Street and
Upland Street on the eastern border of the park to access surrounding
residences. Pasadena Avenue provides the only vehicular access to the existing
parking lot, located in the southwestern portion of the park. An aerial view of the
park and surrounding neighborhood can be found in Appendix A.
1.4.2 Demographics
The park is situated in a neighborhood setting. As evidenced in the following
chart, there are just 2,800 households within one-half mile, and 7,300
households within one mile. A three-mile diameter ring, which extends beyond
the incorporated city limits of La Mesa, contains a significant population, nearly
61,000 households with 157,000 residents. Median household income is
relatively lower in these areas when compared with San Diego County as a
whole ($64,890). Similarly, residents in the vicinity of Collier Park tend to be older
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-6
than their counterparts Countywide; i.e., median ages of 36-38 years in the three-
mile ring compared to 34.5 years in the County overall. Table 1 below shows the
demographic comparison between the .5 mile, 1 mile, and 3 mile ring.
Table 1.
Category 0.5 Mile Ring 1.0 Mile Ring 3.0 Mile Ring
Population 6,511 17,273 156,756
Households 2,769 7,322 60,759
Median Household Income $60,118 $57,104 $58,270
Median Age 36 38 37
Source: Claritas, Inc., 2010 estimates
1.4.3 Residential Population Densities
The following excerpt from a citywide Parks Master Plan, completed in 2012,
analyzed the demographics of La Mesa to evaluate trends in age distribution
adjacent to existing parks and increases in future population densities.
“It is important to understand population densities of various age groups when
planning for parks. Different age groups have different physical abilities,
interests, and coordination skills. All these relate to program elements that may
be part of a park. The population density maps begin to reveal concentrations of
age groups which may be located in a specific area in the City or near an existing
park. It is important that the activities provided in these parks relate to the age of
the user who will most likely take advantage of the recreational opportunity. This
can assist in developing a program for individual parks. Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.7
shows the population densities for six key age groups. The darker areas have the
greater concentration of a specific age group.”
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-7
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-8
1.4.4
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-9
According to the population growth analysis in the citywide Parks Master Plan the
total population of La Mesa is expected to increase 13.36% and the population
density within a 15-minute walk of Collier Park is expected to increase 24.96% by
2030. Residents in the 20 to 44 years of age category will represent the highest
age category (32.28%) within that projected total population.
The plan states, “Enhancing existing parks and access to those parks will be the
most realistic way to provide residents with adequate recreational opportunities
that attempt to achieve the goals and objectives of this plan.” This analysis is
helpful to recommend park facilities and program elements related to specific age
groups for the park. Based on the percentage of increase in population growth
anticipated in the vicinity of Collier Park both activities that appeal to families with
young children (i.e., playgrounds), as well as amenities that would be attractive to
those age 45 and up,( i.e., tennis or performance space), should be considered
in the park planning.
1.5 SITE HISTORY
Collier Park is the oldest of La Mesa’s fourteen parks. The natural springs,
located in what is today Collier Park, were first utilized by the Kumeyaay Indians
for whom the springs were a seasonal stopping place because of their medicinal
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-10
qualities, and were thereafter known as Indian Springs. During the Spanish
Period, the land surrounding the springs was part of the once-extensive grazing
lands of Mission San Diego, established in 1769 by Spanish Franciscan
missionaries. With the secularization of the missions by the Mexican government
in 1832, extensive land grants were given to loyal Mexican citizens. In 1846,
roughly 60,000 acres of ex-Mission land were granted to Santiago Arguello, a
former commandant of the San Diego Presidio. In 1868, Robert Allison
purchased 4,282 acres of land from heirs of Arguello, which included what is now
the downtown area of La Mesa and present-day Collier Park. Allison used the
springs as a source of water for his family’s sheep herds.
In 1905, Colonel David C. Collier purchased a substantial portion of land in
southern La Mesa, including the area known today as Collier Park. Collier played
an influential role in the development of La Mesa. He initially purchased Allison’s
property with the intention of building a country estate for himself; however, his
plans shifted to develop the land in other ways, which included capitalizing on the
area’s natural springs by erecting a bottling works from which he would sell the
water. In late 1907, the bottling works was completed, the remains of which is
known today as the Spring House. The bottling works contained a storage
reservoir into which the
spring water was
pumped. The bottling
works was constructed
with locally quarried
squared stones, with
cement mortar and
framing plastered in
cement rubble.
In 1910, Collier donated
five acres of land to the
people of La Mesa for
the establishment of a
park, primarily west of
Palm Avenue and south of Pasadena Avenue. Later that year, the Collier Park
Association was incorporated for the purpose of acquiring additional land and
improving that already donated by Collier. Only the northwestern corner of the
current park, east of Palm Avenue, is part of Collier’s donation. It is likely that this
section of the park was the original location of an early well that drew on the
spring water to irrigate the park’s landscaping and supply the park’s fountains. It
was initially hoped that this well could also supply other city parks as they were
created.
Collier sold the springs and the remaining portions of what is now Collier Park to
the Union Title and Trust Corporation at some point prior to 1914. The La Mesa
Springs Corporation purchased the 14-acre parcel surrounding the springs in
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-11
January of 1914. That same year, the City of La Mesa called for a special bond
election to purchase that land for “water purposes.” The bond passed, and the
City acquired the land on March 22, 1915. Shortly after the acquisition of the
springs by the City, the water was piped to a drinking fountain 0.25-mile away in
downtown La Mesa at the corner of La Mesa Boulevard and Spring Street. The
City also began plans at that time to further develop the “park adjoining the
springs,” although further improvements to the landscape were not undertaken
until 1920. At that time, plans were announced that the City would be undertaking
landscaping and the construction of driveways, restrooms, and a pool. Funds
were raised by community events, and the Spring House was converted into
dressing rooms for the pool. The pool, at the southwest corner of the park, was
completed in 1921, and tennis courts were built directly east of the pool in 1922.
The pool was plagued by walls that caved in repeatedly after heavy rains, and its
use was discontinued by the mid-1930s. Although the City pursued the
construction of a new pool through the Works Progress Administration, those
plans did not materialize. The pool was eventually filled in and replaced by new
tennis courts in the late 1940s. At one time the park contained a caretaker’s
residence erected in 1924 east of the Spring House.
By the 1930s, the name Collier Park applied to the entire area currently referred
to as such, including eight undeveloped acres east of 4th Street that were
eventually sold in 1945. The sale of that parcel was the last change in the
boundaries of the park, which today is visibly defined by Palm Avenue to the
west, 4th Street to the east, and the neighborhood development that has since
been erected to the north and south.
By the mid-1940s the United States had been involved with World War II on two
fronts and large numbers of the maintenance workforce left employment with the
City to support the war efforts. The condition of the park deteriorated, with the
Spring House falling into disrepair and the landscape becoming overgrown with
weeds. A group of 25 female gardening students, inspired by a Better Homes
and Gardens magazine contest, received approval from the La Mesa City
Council to undertake a beautification project to revitalize the then aging park.
Taking their name from the old bottling works building, the Spring House Garden
Club, with assistance from the City, began renovation in 1948. The group
renovated the Spring House as a meeting space and added a pergola covered
with bougainvillea. Landscape improvements included new flower beds and
plantings, specifically succulents, on the hillside east of the springs. The roads
were graded and a new restroom was constructed. The park was rededicated on
September 19, 1948, and the Spring House Garden Club’s success was
acknowledged with a third place award in the Better Homes and Gardens contest
for its division (towns with a population of 10,000 to 100,000). A bronze plaque
was placed on the interior wall of the Spring House. The Spring House received
a new roof, suspended ceiling, new floors, and new glass panes during the
beautification project, and shortly thereafter a fireplace was added to the east
wall. A portion of the wall and foundation were also reconstructed at this time.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 1-12
The park particularly served La Mesa’s school-age population. A large
playground was erected at the park in the late 1940s. Prior to the Spring House
Garden Club’s improvements, the City had already undertaken plans to move a
building to the southeastern corner of the park for use as a Boy Scout camp,
dedicated as the Wa-di-ta-ka La Mesa Boy Scout Memorial Camp in 1948. The
building was demolished sometime post 1960. Perhaps in response to the boy’s
camp, the women of the Spring House Garden Club included a campfire circle for
the local Campfire Girls as part of their overall 1948 park improvements. Grass
was planted throughout the park at some point past 1952.
The drinking fountain erected in 1915 to bring spring water to downtown La Mesa
was threatened by a street-widening project in the 1960s. In response to
community support and donations, the City Council moved to disassemble and
reconstruct the fountain in Collier Park, just south of the Spring House. The
original roof framing and tiles were preserved, while the stucco base was
replaced with brick. The relocated fountain was completed in July 1965.
The Spring House continued to be used as a meeting place for a variety of
community and youth groups until its deteriorating condition forced closure to the
public in 1981. Resolution No. 15191 was adopted by the City Council on
October 22, 1985 designating Collier Park and La Mesa Spring House as a local
historical landmark. The La Mesa Historical Landmark Nomination Form
describes the bottling works (known as the Spring House) as having concrete
rubble walls rising above a high foundation of locally quarried stone with an
inside storage reservoir into which the spring water was piped.
The 1940s playground equipment was replaced during the 1990s and the park
has continued in its original function as a recreation space for the residents of
La Mesa.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 2-13
CHAPTER 2
2.1 COLLIER PARK BACKGROUND
The present Collier Park is approximately 7.7 acres in size and is the oldest
municipal park in the City of La Mesa, dating back to 1915. The park’s
recreational use is centered in the currently developed Panhandle, the most level
area of the park. The irregularly-shaped flat terrain of the Panhandle area is
composed of a grass lawn with scattered old-growth trees such as eucalyptus
and various types of palms. The two existing buildings, restroom and Spring
House, are located on this relatively flat terrain within the Panhandle area.
Currently, the park consists of open green space, one lighted tennis court, a tot
lot playground, several picnic tables with barbeques, the Spring House building,
a water fountain, a restroom building, parking for 25 cars, and a variety of mature
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 2-14
trees in varying stages of health. Pasadena Avenue bisects the park and is a
thoroughfare to homes in the neighborhood. The northern portion of the park,
consisting of approximately 2.2 acres, is entirely undeveloped.
2.2 SPRING HOUSE
The Spring House was originally constructed in 1907 by D. C. Collier and was
used as a bottling works to sell water from springs on the site. On the south side
of the building a concrete walkway leads to the main entrance. The west
elevation consists of one window. On the north elevation, there are no window
openings. All windows have moderate casings and wood lintels. Historic
photographs from 1949 show the windows were once one-over-one double hung
sashes. There is a red brick chimney located on the east elevation exterior.
According to a historic photograph from 1949, the south elevation roof was
extended to include a pergola feature that extended over the walkway and was
supported by wood posts. This is no longer in existence. Landscape features
include mulch and bushes along with a stone garden located adjacent to the
building. Mature trees surround the building and offer shade to the surrounding
landscape.
The primary entrance to the Spring House on the south side leads to one room
that spans the entire building interior. The building interior is an open truss
system. On the northwest section of the interior, there is a raised cistern, the top
of which is accessed by concrete steps. Surrounding the perimeter of the cistern
are metal poles and chain ropes. Atop the cistern at the west end of the building
is a door which leads to the exterior. Also inside at the east end of the building is
a fireplace opening.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 2-15
2.3 COLLIER PARK FEATURES
A water feature element is located east of the Spring House and consists of a
concrete-lined drainage channel with a concrete rubble bridge and stairway that
connect the eastern portion of the park (History Hill area) to the western portion
of the park (Spring House and Panhandle areas). Other small-scale landscape
features that have been added to accommodate this general recreational use
area include picnic benches and tables, grills, trashcans, and water fountain.
Decorative elements such as large boulders and smaller stones also follow the
circulation patterns and border small pathways. The circulation route of
Pasadena Avenue follows the natural curves of the hillside terrain and separates
the Panhandle area from the rest of the park. The circulation route of Palm
Avenue is situated next to the western elevated section of the park and bordered
by vegetation on the western hillside. The western hillside slopes down from
Palm Avenue to the flat terrain within the Panhandle area. The vegetation on the
western hillside is bordered by small wood fences that line the landscape,
containing the general recreational use area to the more central portion of the
park.
A drinking fountain in the central area of the park was constructed in 1915 and
has features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. It is an approximately 8-foot
structure located southeast of the Spring House. The fountain is a brick structure
with two tapered columns adjoined in the center where the drinking fountain is
located. Underneath the fountain is a pipe system accessed by a small opening
in the brick façade. The structure is covered by a side gable roof that has a wood
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 2-16
truss system with exposed rafters and is clad in red clay tiles. The drinking
fountain was previously located on Spring Street and was moved to Collier Park
in 1965 as part of a conservation effort in response to a road-widening project.
An existing tennis court was constructed sometime in the 1950s and has
remained a tennis court to date. It is located in the southwestern portion of the
park and is the standard size and shape of a contemporary tennis court. In the
last year additional striping has been added to the court to accommodate
Pickleball play. The tennis court is surrounded by a chain-link fence and has
likely been repaved and repainted since its original construction. An earlier tennis
court was located east of the existing tennis court, and there was a pool located
where the existing court currently stands. The pool was demolished sometime in
the late 1940s and the existing tennis court was constructed in its place in the
1950s.
Typical of the hillside topography of La Mesa, the grade of the park varies a great
deal from the relatively flat lower developed portions, (i.e., playground area,
Spring House, and tennis court), to the steep undeveloped slopes to the north
and east. From south to north, elevations range from about 500 feet above mean
sea level (MSL) to about 545 feet MSL. Land uses bordering the park site include
an office complex to the south, single-family homes to the east and west, and an
apartment complex to the north. Zoning for Collier Park areas is Suburban
Residential with the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (R1S-P). The Scenic
Preservation Overlay Zone establishes regulations for land use and development
within recognized scenic areas of the City to preserve the aesthetic value of
those areas. The La Mesa General Plan designates Collier Park as a
Neighborhood Park Recreation Use. The classification of Neighborhood Park is
further defined in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.1.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 2-17
Pedestrian access to Collier Park is provided via sidewalks along Palm Avenue
and 4th Street. It is noted that there are missing segments of these sidewalks on
the western side of 4th Street, south of Pasadena Avenue and on the eastern
side of 4th Street, north and south of Pasadena Avenue. Pedestrian circulation
within Collier Park is provided by several sub-standard paved and unpaved
pathways.
2.4 NATURAL RESOURCES
A biological resources field survey was conducted as part of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). That survey covered the entire park and extended
approximately 100 feet beyond the park property boundary. The EIR notes
significant disturbances to existing biological resources that are attributed to park
use or development near the park and include: encroachment into undeveloped
areas, litter, exposure to pets, non-native plant species, and water runoff. No
special status vegetation or wildlife species were observed in the survey, nor was
any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities observed.
The park site contains natural
underground springs that have
contributed to the historical
use of the park site. A spring
under the Spring House
discharges into a concrete-
lined drainage channel and
flows into an underground
storm drain to a catch basin at
the southern boundary of the
park. Public input concerning
the underground springs within
the park indicated a strong
community desire to utilize this
natural water source, if possible, as a conservation measure for park irrigation.
The EIR determined that due to the configuration of the drainage channel and
storm drain within the park, the runoff does not discharge into any navigable
waterway and; therefore, does not fall within any regulatory jurisdiction.
Additionally during the community input phase of this master plan process,
workshop participants placed particular importance on preservation of the large
ficus tree located in the Panhandle area of the park near the drinking fountain.
2.5 HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Resolution No. 15191 was adopted by the City Council on October 22, 1985
designating Collier Park and La Mesa Spring House as Local Historical
Landmark #3. The La Mesa Historical Landmark Nomination Form prepared at
that time describes the bottling works (know as the Spring House today) as
having concrete rubble walls rising above a high foundation of locally quarried
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 2-18
stone. Inside was a storage reservoir into which the water was piped. By 1912 a
fountain, covered by a hipped roof, had been constructed to the west of the
bottling works for the convenience of those who came to get water. Other
planned improvements apparently were never carried out. The Spring House
continued to be used as a meeting place for a variety of community and youth
groups through the Park and Recreation Department until its deteriorating
condition forced its closure to the public in 1981.
The Spring House is structurally damaged from a series of events, including:
fires, being hit by cars, water damage, and vandalism. Due to the advanced
deterioration of the building, a stop-gap measure of 2×4 posts was installed in the
interior to stabilize the collapsing roof. The Building Official closed the building for
occupancy in 1981. A structural assessment was conducted in 1988 and
structural improvements
were made to the Spring
House in 1989 to
stabilize the building at
that time.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-19
CHAPTER 3
3.1 EXISTING POLICIES
In 2006 and again in 2011, the City of La Mesa conducted citizen surveys to
garner resident satisfaction with city services. Over 90% and 92% of the
residents respectively thought the city was well run, but residents did indicate
that improved community park playgrounds and restrooms would be the best way
to invest limited resources in parks. In December 2006, the non-profit La Mesa
Park and Recreation Foundation requested approval from the City Council to
embark on a $1 million capital campaign to raise funds to renovate five
community park playgrounds. The campaign called “It’s Child’s Play” includes
funding a new playground for Collier Park. The Foundation requested the City to
coordinate with the Foundation for additional improvements and upgrades in the
identified parks to maximize the Foundation’s gifts.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-20
3.2 HEALTH AND WELLNESS
Overweight and obesity has become epidemic at a national level. The County of
San Diego Health and Human Services Agency reports the East Region, which
includes the City of La Mesa, has the highest rates of obesity with 40% of the
adult population overweight, and an additional 23% considered obese. In 2006
the City of La Mesa embarked on a campaign to address this issue on a local
level. Initial dialogue with the La Mesa-Spring Valley School District and other
community partners resulted in the establishment of “ready…set…Live Well”
(Live Well). Live Well is an initiative that extends and integrates efforts to support
healthy eating and physical activity in the community, focusing primarily on
environmental change and policy strategies. The collaborative mission of all
partners is to enhance environments to promote physical activity and healthy
eating. Practices employed in support of this mission include Communities of
Excellence in Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Prevention (CX3), and
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). A CX3 study,
conducted through the La Mesa Park and Recreation Foundation with a grant
from the Grossmont Healthcare District, identified physical barriers to park
access as well as access to healthy food choices at markets in the area
surrounding Collier Park. A representative from the La Mesa Police Department’s
Crime Prevention Unit participated in the public workshops to assist with
incorporation of CPTED elements into the design concepts as a proactive way to
discourage illicit activities and increase safety in the park, as well as improve the
effectiveness of public safety personnel responding to any incident that might
arise.
In 2009 the City received a
$50,000 Kaiser Foundation grant
to incorporate policies related to
health and sustainability into the
General Plan to address new laws
and initiatives related to childhood
obesity and sustainability. The
firm of CityPlace Planning was
retained to assist with drafting a
Health and Wellness Element for
incorporation into the City’s
General Plan. Community input
was solicited through a series of
surveys, walk audits, and public workshops, and a Health and Wellness Element
was added to the 2012 General Plan Update.
The Health and Wellness Element describes the measures that La Mesa will take
to make the health of the community a priority and to achieve its vision of being
the healthiest and most livable city in the San Diego Region. The Health and
Wellness Element offers policy guidance that enables La Mesa residents to
achieve an active lifestyle; have access to healthy food choices; enjoy a safe,
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-21
livable community; and raise healthy, active children. Key objectives and policy
points within the Health and Wellness Element, specifically with regards to parks
and recreational facilities, include:
• Adopt a way finding program to direct those who live and work in La Mesa
to the City’s sites that provide opportunities for health and wellness
programs and activities, such as designated routes for walking and biking,
stairs, and parks and recreational facilities.
• Increase safety and security in public places – such as parks, recreation
facilities, sidewalks, transit stops and facilities, and trails – by providing
adequate lighting, maintaining landscaping to maximize visibility and
reduce hiding places, removing graffiti immediately, removing trash, debris,
weeds, etc. from public areas with ongoing maintenance of those public
areas, and conducting regular police and volunteer (crime watch) patrols.
• Ensure that all City park and recreational facilities are well-marked and
visible from streets, sidewalks, and bike paths.
3.3 CITYWIDE PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.3.1 Introduction
In 2011 a $75,000 Healthy Communities Planning Grant, administered through
the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), was awarded to the City
and provided funding for a citywide Parks Master Plan. The completed Parks
Master Plan enhances the Recreation and Open Space Element in the 2012
General Plan Update. The goals of the citywide Parks Master Plan were as
follows:
• Provide the public outreach and documentation of meaningful public input
through the planning process.
• Evaluate and make recommendations regarding open space, recreation
facility needs, and circulation in and around Collier Park.
• Evaluate the existing historic Spring House in Collier Park and make
recommendations to optimize its value as an historic interpretive center.
• Research and identify viable sources of funding for park improvements and
historic preservation.
• Finalize a master plan for future development of Collier Park to create a
more effective use of open space and recreational opportunities.
3.3.2 Vision Statement and Overall Goal
The Collier Park Master Plan aligns with the following citywide Parks Master Plan
vision statement which supports the City of La Mesa General Plan.
“A City that encourages active and healthy lifestyles by offering a diverse
range of recreational activities and facilities in La Mesa.”
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-22
The Collier Park Master Plan also aligns with the overall goal of the citywide
Parks Master Plan which is the following:
“To create a roadmap for upgrades, expansion, potential additions, and
improved access to the City of La Mesa’s park facilities. This goal includes
the community’s needs for easy access to parks, open space, and urban
respite areas that can contribute to the public’s health.”
Ultimately, the desired outcome of the citywide Parks Master Plan is to create
more access to physical activity by creating new parks where possible,
expanding existing parks, creating more access points to parks, and eliminating
walking barriers to parks.
3.3.3 Policies Related to Collier Park
The following policies from the citywide Parks Master Plan should be considered
as they relate directly to Collier Park:
Policy 1.1.3: Work to develop and improve connectivity to parks.
Policy 1.2.1: Include both passive and active recreational opportunities
within park sites when space allows.
Policy 1.2.2: Design and improve parks to accommodate a community
varying in age, athletic ability, physical agility, and recreational interest.
Policy 4.1.1: Look for opportunities to increase connectivity to parks.
Policy 4.1.2: Park entrances should be well marked with signage, well lit,
easily identifiable, and universally accessible.
Policy 4.2.4: Integrate urban forestry concepts and benefits into walkability
improvements, as well as into park development or renovation activities.
Policy 4.3.2: City park and recreational facilities should be well-marked and
highly visible from streets, sidewalks, and bike paths to assure a safe public
environment.
Policy 5.1.2: Increase safety and security in public parks (including parks,
recreational facilities, walkways, and trails) by providing adequate lighting;
maintaining landscaping to maximize visibility; removing graffiti as soon as
possible; removing trash, debris, weeds, etc. from public areas with ongoing
maintenance of those public areas; and conducting regular police patrols
and providing public safety information.
Policy 6.1.2: Maintain the City’s park and open space in a manner that
encourages the use and enjoyment by residents and visitors while
protecting the long-term aesthetic and environmental quality of these areas.
Policy 6.1.5: Continue to search for opportunities in grants and to
encourage private donations. Identify other effective funding sources for
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-23
park and recreational programs, such as trusts and other fundraising
activities.
3.3.4 Existing Park Service Area Analysis of Collier Park
The following information extracted from the Parks Master Plan identifies an
existing gap in service for residential access to Collier Park:
“The existing park service area analysis was completed using GIS modeling. The
[previously] adopted General Plan [1996] includes a policy that park facilities
should be situated so that no residential unit is more than one mile from a
recreational facility. The City is currently meeting this policy.” (See Figure 4.1)
According to Active Living Research, a national program of the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, “Regular physical activity increases longevity, well being,
helps children and adults maintain a healthy weight, and can reduce the risk for
obesity and its related health consequences. Parks and playgrounds provide a
wide variety of opportunities for physical activity and they have the potential to
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-24
help many Americans lead a more active lifestyle.”¹ In the research synthesis
prepared by Active Living Research quoting a study by Kaczynski and
Henderson, “Park proximity is associated with higher levels of park use and
physical activity among a variety of populations, particularly youth.”1
A goal of this study is to convert the one-mile policy into a 15-minute walk to
parks policy. Based on existing walking facilities and connections, both a one-
mile distance and a 15-minute walk time distance has been calculated from
existing parks to residential areas. Non-residential land uses are not included in
the analysis, since the policy is based on residential access to parks. The
resulting service areas take into account all access to parks via the existing
walkway network, including any trails, or access across major paved areas open
to the public, such as large parking lots. The road networks in neighborhoods
that by current policy have been approved without the requirement for sidewalks
were included in the access study. The analysis assumes that individuals in
these neighborhoods commonly walk in the street and would continue to do so.
Through this analysis, gaps in service areas are quickly revealed (see Figure 4.2
below)1.
¹ Parks, Playgrounds and Active Living. (February 2010). Active Living Research
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-25
As part of the analysis of the citywide Parks Master Plan, it is recommended that
access points into the parks be added, obstacles in existing sidewalks be
removed, and new sidewalks be added. The diagram below from the citywide
Parks Master Plan shows potential additional entry points that would improve
pedestrian access to Collier Park from the surrounding neighborhood.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-26
3.4 WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE
Ordinance 2009-2805 creating La Mesa Municipal Code Section 14.29 – Water
Efficient Landscape Regulations, was adopted in response to Assembly Bill 1881
(Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006) to address California’s limited
water supply and the need to utilize this limited resource in the most efficient way
possible. La Mesa’s regulations under this section apply to industrial,
commercial, institutional, and multi-family residential landscapes as well as public
agency projects that contain a landscaped area of 2,500 square feet or more.
The area of Collier Park under consideration for renovation exceeds 2,500
square feet; therefore,
making water efficient
landscaping and irrigation a
required consideration
within the master plan. The
potential for use of spring
water, possibly avail-able
on the park site, for
irrigation and water
conservation education
opportunities were
important elements brought
forth during public
workshops.
3.5 PLANNING PROCESS
Based on direction from City Council, a project team was created and a
consultant hired to assist with public outreach and creation of a draft park master
plan. The consultant worked with City staff to compile a cross section of
community stakeholders who were then invited to provide input via a combination
of written surveys, individual interviews, and public workshops. A summary of all
survey and interview comments was compiled and became the starting point for
community workshops. In the preliminary surveys and interviews, the following
items were identified as common issues of concern or desirable concepts to be
considered as part of a master plan for Collier Park:
• Increase feeling of safety to encourage legitimate park use and discourage
homeless encampments and illicit activities
• Provide additional gates and pathways from surrounding neighborhoods for
easier access
• Preserve the historical nature of the site
• Explore the possibility of using onsite spring water to provide or supplement
landscape irrigation and/or a water feature
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-27
3.5.1 Key Elements – Community Workshops
Community workshops were held on March 1, and April 26, 2008, and July 16,
2009. Residents and property owners in the vicinity of Collier Park were invited to
participate in the workshops. Additionally, a general invitation was extended
through the City website to anyone who was interested in participating in the
planning process. Following are key elements that were developed during these
workshops:
• Improve accessibility, walkways, lighting, recreational opportunities, and
divided parking to strengthen the feeling of park safety
• Incorporate a variety of open space and outdoor facilities for individual and
groups into the new design
• Modify the topography of the site to improve drainage and limit the amount of
water that leaves the site
• Emphasize the use of native, low maintenance, and drought tolerant
landscaping
• If feasible, use existing spring water flow for irrigation
• Develop the eastern terraced portion of the site with various forms of native
plant and drought tolerant gardens, accessible paths, and provide for
possible future community gardens
• Retrofit Pasadena Avenue for traffic calming through the park to reduce
vehicle speeds and cut through traffic
• Expand the green space to the northern portion of the park site rather than
consider adding a potential development
• Explore options for the Spring House that would acknowledge the historical
significance of the structure and the entire park site
• Consider including educational activities and interpretive installations for local
history and water conservation
• Explore opportunities for revenue generation to assist with master plan
implementation and ongoing maintenance of the park
During the public input process
there was much discussion
concerning the possibility of a
community garden in the eastern
undeveloped portion of the park,
now referred to as the History Hill
area. Workshop participants
acknowledged that a community
garden would require a significant
amount of management and
supervision and concluded that
unless an organization comes
forward offering to provide such
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-28
services the specifics of such a use should not be included in the Master Plan. It
was further suggested that if a community garden were to become a future
reality, it should emphasize low water and indigenous plantings for food, flowers,
and herbs.
When asked to rank proposed improvements, workshop participants listed
security, Spring House, playground, and new development as the most important
elements they would like to see in a new park design and gave lower rankings to
parking, traffic calming, walking paths, and gathering areas.
3.5.2 Key Feedback on Collier Park – Parks Master Plan
Community Sensing
As a result of input from surveys and community workshops during the citywide
Parks Master Plan process, the community commented on the quality of Collier
Park and provided input concerning potential additions, reuse, and redesign of
the park. Following is a sampling of the feedback comments received during the
Parks Master Plan that are specific to Collier Park:
• Collier Park needs regular policing to be safe for kids and families. Right now
it’s more of an outdoor drug den and homeless shelter
• I used to take my son to Collier Park almost daily but now a bunch of thugs
hang out there drinking and smoking their drugs and yelling foul language it
is no place for children any more
• We live near Collier Park and would use it if there weren’t homeless types
there
• Collier Park [needs] less creepy people hanging out
• I used to play tennis at Collier Park but never felt safe there. It’s too hidden
from the road and if someone were attacked there, it’s possible no one would
hear them
• Collier Park entrance is confusing and easily missed. Plus, driving down that
little road adds to the unsafe feeling of being trapped down there with your
car out of view from the street
• Collier Park [needs to be] safer and updated play equipment
• Collier Park has an unsafe and not family friendly feel due to a lack of
playground equipment and worn out tennis courts
• Collier Park needs a better access path from the south
• Feel unsafe at park (this comment only applies to Collier Park. Other parks
feel safe)
• The nearest park (Collier) has no special attraction and seems unsafe when
transients are present
• Collier Park has the potential of becoming a terrific community park
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 3-29
3.6 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
The mandated Recreation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan
establishes goals, objectives, and policies to meet the City’s current and future
open space and recreational needs. The backbone of the City’s open space plan
is the City’s 14 parks and open space resources provided at school sites located
in La Mesa. In addition, private open space within residential developments and
commercial recreational opportunities are important components of the
recreation and open space resources needed to maintain a high quality of life in
the City. The open space
section of the Recreation and
Open Space Element
establishes policies for
balancing the demands placed
on the City’s parks and open
space areas. There is a close
relationship between measures
needed to conserve natural
resources and those needed to
provide open space to sustain
the quality of life for La Mesa’s
citizens.
3.7 CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF-LEASH DOG
RUN AT COLLIER PARK
On July 27, 2004, the Friends of Canine Corners received City Council approval
of expanding the off-leash area in Harry Griffen Park. During the same City
Council meeting a resident requested that the City Council consider a second off-
leash dog run area at Highwood Park. That request was later denied by the
La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, property owner of the Highwood Park site.
City Staff identified Collier Park as an alternative location and the City Council
directed staff to solicit community input regarding that location.
On January 12, 2005 the Community Services Commission hosted a community
workshop to solicit input on establishing an off-leash dog run in the park. The
people who spoke were against the dog park. Becky Rice, volunteer coordinator
at that time from Canine Corners at Harry Griffen Park, spoke about her
concerns over the financial and volunteer capacity of La Mesa to support two dog
runs. After consideration of public comments, the Community Services
Commission voted unanimously that the City Council should not pursue a
proposed dog run in Collier Park.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-30
CHAPTER 4
4.1 OVERVIEW
An overriding theme gleaned from the public workshops was a community desire
for a design that would create a historically significant park to honor the site’s
history of water bottling through interpretive features. Consideration for potential
revenue generating enhancements was also expressed to help ensure continuing
optimum maintenance of the park.
The following are specific elements that emerged from the workshops:
• Improving accessibility, walkways, lighting, recreational opportunities, and
divided parking would strengthen the feeling of park safety.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-31
• A variety of open space and outdoor facilities for individual and groups
should be incorporated into a new park design.
• The topography of the site should be modified to improve park drainage and
limit the amount of water that leaves the site.
• Emphasize the use of native, low maintenance, and xeriscape landscaping.
• The existing spring water flow (estimated at approximately one gallon per
minute) should be used for irrigation or a water feature if feasible.
• The eastern terraced portion of the park should be developed with various
forms of native plant and xeriscape gardens, accessible paths, and allow for
a community gathering spot.
• Options for the future of the Spring House should be explored that would
acknowledge the historical significance of that structure and the entire park
site. Consider the inclusion of educational activities and interpretive
installations, alternative recreational uses, and possible revenue generation.
The Spring House history as the site of an early water bottling facility was
identified as a unique opportunity to educate the public and promote water
conservation.
• Retrofit Pasadena Avenue for traffic calming to reduce vehicle speeds and
cut through traffic.
• Residents preferred expanding the green space in the northern portion of the
park rather than adding a potential development.
Upon direction from the La
Mesa City Council, the
services of Gary F. Hoyt
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
were retained to design
improvements for the first
anticipated phase of park
renovation in the southern
and western Panhandle area
of the park utilizing
recommendations that
evolved from the various
public input methods utilized.
While the design for the
Panhandle area was being
developed, the services of Keyser Marston Associates were retained to evaluate
the potential for revenue-generating land uses that would be compatible with the
park; and explore options for restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of the
Spring House.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-32
4.2 PANHANDLE PHASE 1 DESIGN
The Panhandle area, situated in the southern and western portions of the park,
has been primarily developed for recreational use with existing facilities such as
a tennis court, playground, restrooms, picnic area, and parking lot. Suggested
improvements in the Panhandle area made during the public input process were:
relocation and reconstruction of the drinking fountain structure; relocation and
replacement of the playground; an updated accessible restroom facility;
replacement of the tennis court; additional parking; and installation of walking
paths, landscaping, improved drainage, and additional security features.
The improvements proposed for the Panhandle area in the Phase 1 design
documents seek to redevelop the existing Panhandle area with similar
recreational amenities and changes the topography to enhance safety and
mitigate drainage and vandalism issues. It includes more accessibility to various
elements within the park and greater visibility throughout the park site to allow for
better proactive enforcement by public safety personnel as well as increase the
feeling of security for park users. The design elements are described below in
further detail.
Drinking Fountain. The existing reconstructed drinking fountain structure would
be relocated to the entrance of the park at the intersection of Palm Avenue and
Pasadena Avenue to serve as an enhanced entry feature focal point to the park.
Preserving as much of the original roof as possible, the drinking fountain
structure would be reconstructed at the new location.
Playgrounds. The existing playground area would be replaced with three
separate, age-specific playgrounds for 2-5 years old, 5-9 years old, and 9-12
years old, respectively. The new playgrounds would be located in the central
portion of the Panhandle area of the park, easily visible from the parking area. A
larger, passive turf area would be constructed east of the new playgrounds. Two
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-33
shade structures would be constructed adjacent to the new playgrounds and
would provide shaded tables for use during special events or group picnics.
Plaza and Restroom. Improvements to the Panhandle area include the
construction of a main plaza area adjacent to the new playgrounds. The plaza
area would be equipped with a new accessible and secure restroom and storage
facility. The plaza would be raised and would allow for a separation of active and
passive activities while also serving as a buffer area to keep children safely away
from the main parking area. The restroom building would be oriented to be highly
visible from all areas of the park including parking areas and surrounding
roadways. This orientation would make it easier for people entering the park to
view current activities and for parents to monitor children’s restroom use while
keeping an eye on children at play.
Walking Paths. Three pedestrian entrances would be constructed along Palm
Avenue, replacing two existing steeply sloped stair/ramp paths. At least one
entrance from Upland Street would be added to encourage pedestrian use by
residents in the neighborhood to the east. Another walking path would be
constructed from the park’s main entrance at the corner of Palm Avenue and
Pasadena Avenue, extending southeast to the new playgrounds. This walking
path would also extend to the Navy housing project adjacent to the south side of
the park. To the extent possible, all walking paths within the park would be
handicap accessible and appropriate for all abilities, and would create internal
park connections for pedestrian circulation throughout the park as well as
connections to surrounding streets.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-34
Tennis Court. The existing tennis court would be removed and replaced with a
new tennis court to the west of the current location closer to Palm Avenue. This
new location allows for greater visibility from the street.
Parking. The existing 25 space parking lot would be removed and replaced with
21 on-site parking spaces distributed throughout the park. The east side of Palm
Avenue adjacent to the park has capacity for an additional 32 on-street parking
spaces. The intent of spreading out the parking spaces throughout the park is to
encourage recreational activity in all areas of the park and improve park security.
Landscaping and Other Enhancements. Excluding turf areas, the Panhandle
area would be landscaped with native vegetation using low water demand
techniques consistent with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (La
Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 14.29). Invasive non-native shrubs, trees, and
other vegetation, as well as dead and dying landscape materials, would be
removed. New plants would require low water and minimal maintenance. Turf
areas within the Panhandle area would be located in the northwestern portion of
the park, along Palm Avenue, and east of the new playgrounds.
Drainage. A large portion of the park would be regraded and replanted to better
manage site drainage and limit the amount of water that leaves the site. Drainage
improvements would include the installation of grass swales and cobble drainage
swales, as well as the replacement of the existing concrete-lined channel with a
proposed bioswale and biofiltration basin. A bioswale is a type of natural storm
water filtration system. There are many types of storm water filtration and
management systems that can be applied to urban environments to remove
storm water pollutants, generally referred to as a “best management practice,” or
BMP. The adoption of BMP, the use of the spring water for park irrigation, and
use of xeriscape landscaping provide opportunities to include educational and
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-35
interpretive displays in the park, and correlates with the public’s desire for
sustainable design elements. Regrading of the Panhandle area would result in
removal of all the trees currently in the park with the exception of one large ficus
as noted in Chapter 2, Section 2.4.
Security Features. The project proposes to enhance park security by creating
activity areas throughout the park, installing plantings that do not block views of
the park from public rights-of-way, installing lighting throughout the park, and
installing new fencing along the southern and eastern boundaries of the park.
Project grading would recontour the natural bowl located in the Panhandle area
of the park to allow for better visibility from Palm Avenue and Pasadena Avenue.
4.3 HISTORY HILL
The area designated as History Hill, situated in the southeastern portion of the
park, currently consists of mostly undeveloped parkland. Proposed
improvements to the History Hill area, which are conceptual in nature and subject
to change, include conversion of undeveloped parkland into a grassy
amphitheater built into the hillside. The natural elevation would be utilized for
“stadium-style” seating, composed of pavers and decomposed granite or other
natural materials, fronted by a flat area for recreation or performances. The
amphitheater would offer casual seating capacity for approximately 50 park
visitors and would be suitable for intimate performances, educational
opportunities, and social gatherings. A small portion of the History Hill area
would be designated as rental space for weddings or similar events. The
amphitheater would be located adjacent to the Spring House, creating an option
for the two features to be used together as a single special events venue.
The entire History Hill area would be terraced and planted with new landscaping
to provide natural spaces for informal gatherings along the unpaved paths
meandering through the amphitheater area. Project grading would lower the
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-36
existing topography of the History Hill area. Three walkways would be
constructed within the amphitheater area. These paths would be composed of
decomposed granite and terraced to accommodate the topography. The
decomposed granite walkways would be interspersed with grass and sandstone
steps. The southern portion of the History Hill area would include a walkway
providing access to the southern portion of the Panhandle area.
4.4 COLLIER CLUB HOUSE
The Collier Club House area, situated in the northern portion of the park,
currently consists of mostly undeveloped parkland. Improvements in this area,
which are conceptual in nature, could include construction of a club house
building, an outdoor event area, a plaza area, and parking, as well as the
installation of walking paths, landscaping, and security features. The Collier Club
House concept addresses the desire to create an ongoing source of revenue to
assist with maintenance of park amenities as well as increased presence of
positive activities in the park that would serve to discourage illicit activities.
Club House. The Collier Club House area could be developed to contain a new
club house building for public use. West of the proposed club house building, an
outdoor event area (including two outdoor seating areas and a ceremony stage)
could be constructed. A plaza area could be located east of the club house
building that would contain benches, an unpaved pathway, and green space. A
water feature, fire pit, and outdoor cooking and dining area would be located
north of the building. Optional passive
exercise areas, such as an oversized
chess game and bocce ball courts or
similar types of activities, could also be
located south of the club house building.
Walking Paths. Two pedestrian
crossings are proposed across
Pasadena Avenue. One crossing would
provide access between the Collier Club
House and History Hill areas near the
intersection of Upland Street and
Pasadena Avenue. The other would
provide access between the Collier Club
House area and the Spring House area
in the central portion of the park. A
concrete sidewalk would be constructed
along the western side of Upland Street
for the length of the park boundary along
this roadway. A connected sidewalk
would extend from Upland Street into the center of the park along the northern
side of Pasadena Avenue, terminating at the pedestrian crossing in the Collier
Club House area. The portion of the sidewalk within the park boundary would
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-37
include a handicap ramp and landing system. A separate, unpaved path would
be constructed between the plaza area, near the intersection of Upland Street
and Pasadena Avenue, and the club house building. Benches would provide
respite spots throughout the Collier Club House area. To the extent possible, all
walking paths would be handicap accessible and appropriate for all abilities, and
would provide connectivity within the park as well as to surrounding streets.
Walking paths would be placed to encourage physical activity and pedestrian
circulation.
Traffic Circulation. A new driveway could be constructed along the northern
portion of the park boundary to provide access from Pasadena Avenue to the
outdoor event area west of the new club house building.
Parking. A parking lot with 34 spaces could be constructed within the
northeastern portion of the Collier Club House area.
Landscaping. Excluding turf areas, the Collier Club House area would be
landscaped with native vegetation using low water demand techniques consistent
with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (La Mesa Municipal Code
Chapter 14.29). One turf area would be located in the western portion of the
Collier Club House area, adjacent to Pasadena Avenue. Another turf area would
be located immediately west of the plaza within the Collier Club House area.
Security Features. Park security would be enhanced by creating activity areas
throughout the park, installing plantings that do not block views of the park from
public rights-of-way, creating more access points to encourage pedestrian entry
into the park, and installing additional lighting throughout the park.
4.5 SPRING HOUSE
The Spring House is situated adjacent to the
Panhandle area of the park with its back in
close proximity to Pasadena Avenue. Over the
years the building has been structurally
damaged and deteriorated from a series of
events, including fires, being hit by cars, water
damage, vandalism, and arson. It was
determined to be uninhabitable and closed to
the public in 1981. Resolution No. 15191,
adopted by the City Council on October 22,
1985, designated Collier Park and the La Mesa
Spring House as a local historical landmark.
On February 27, 2007 the City Council
requested the Spring House to be referred to
the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
The HPC discussed the potential options and
concepts for recognizing the historic value of
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-38
the Spring House that could be incorporated into any future designs for
improvements to Collier Park. The HPC acknowledged the serious physical
deterioration of the structure and the economic feasibility of a complete
restoration. It was the recommendation of the HPC, if funds were not available
for complete restoration, that City Council direct that the stone walls around the
base of the building, the cistern, and related accoutrements be maintained and
preserved to serve as an interpretive center with a professionally designed
display chronicling the significance of the springs in the early settlement and
development of La Mesa.
It should be noted that the Draft EIR completed in January 2013 addressed a
worst-case scenario alternative in order to evaluate the maximum adverse impact
to existing conditions that could occur in a final design. The “Spring House Partial
Deconstruction Alternative” was stricken from the recirculated Draft EIR in
response to public concern. A number of scenarios are contemplated and
discussed here. The following scenarios do not represent any decision or
recommendation made or pending on the disposition of the Spring House at this
time. In addition, the phasing of the proposed park development could allow the
park to be upgraded around the Spring House until such time as funding and/or a
determination on the Spring House can be made.
Alternative #1 – Spring House Restoration
The Spring House would be restored to accurately depict the form, features, and
character of the structure as it appeared during the early 1900s, the period of
time in which it was used as a bottling works (“restoration period”).
Alternative #2 – Spring House Rehabilitation
This alternative would rehabilitate the Spring House for use as an indoor
(enclosed) interpretive center. Rehabilitation could involve repairs, alterations,
and additions to the building to allow for an efficient contemporary use while
preserving the structural features that represent its historical value to the site.
Alternative #3 – Reduced Development Alternative
Under this alternative the existing Spring House and Panhandle improvements
would remain, but the proposed improvements to History Hill and Collier Club
House areas would not be implemented.
The La Mesa General Plan (City of La Mesa 2012) defines adaptive reuse as
follows: “The reuse of a building or structure, usually for a purpose different from
the original. The term implies that certain structural or design changes have been
made to the building in order for it to function in its new use.” Selection of this
alternative would require adherence to the “Procedure for Permit to Demolish a
Historic Landmark or Contributing Structure within a Historic District” described in
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 4-39
La Mesa Municipal Code Section 25.03.060. Prior to demolition, historical
documentation of the Spring House would be completed.
At the time of drafting of this master plan, no funding for which this phase of the
project might qualify has been identified. Should funding become available in the
future, the City will draft specific plans for the Spring House. City staff will
continue to explore various options with regard to the existing structure that may
include restoration, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse or a repurposing for
alternative use as either an indoor facility or partial demolition and replacement
with an outdoor interpretive facility.
4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The consulting services of Atkins were retained to draft an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the proposed improvements to Collier Park. Preparation of the
EIR included community input as well as input from a variety of public agencies
as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A draft EIR (SCH # 2011101051, City
File # CR-09-04) was completed
January 24, 2013 at which time City
staff published a public Notice of
Availability providing a 45-day public
review and comment period for the
document. Atkins also prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA)
required to evaluate potential impacts
on the environment for improvements
funded by the U. S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). The purpose of the EA is to
facilitate interagency coordination and consultation, and to support a Finding of
No Significant Impact for proposed improvements in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 5-40
Chapter 5
5 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
A draft Collier Park Master Plan was presented to the City Council August 11,
2009 at which time City Council unanimously voted to direct staff to proceed with
completion of the Master Plan and conduct the environmental review as required,
review the plan through the City’s Boards and Commissions, and bring it back to
the City Council for final authorization. At the August 11, 2009 meeting, City
Council also unanimously voted to approve hiring a consultant to investigate the
financial viability of developing a portion of Collier Park to support upgrades and
maintenance costs.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 5-41
5.2 POTENTIAL REVENUE GENERATION
A report on potential revenue generating development was completed by Keyser
Marston Associates (KMA) on April 8, 2011. KMA was tasked with: 1) exploring
revenue-generating land uses that would be compatible with the park setting;
and, 2) developing options for restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of the
Spring House and creating design concepts for the undeveloped portions of the
park, referred to as History Hill and Collier Club House in this Master Plan.
Potential revenue-generating uses identified and explored included: a day care
facility, commercial recreation, a wellness center/spa facility, and meeting/event
venues. Based on anticipated improvements in the park, the KMA study
concluded that the most viable revenue-generating uses would be a multi-
purpose club house structure that would be available for rent for meetings or
special events, and outdoor recreational facilities such as picnic pavilions,
barbecues, an open-air amphitheater, or other event space that could be
reserved for a fee. Both options would require the addition of staffing for
continuing facility management and assessment of revenue potential indicated
some limited potential to cover operating costs but not sufficient to amortize
development costs.
5.3 IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to compile a project containing sufficient detail to make proposed
improvements eligible to apply for capital grant funding opportunities, this Master
Plan reflects a recommended phased approach to improvements with the first
phase of construction occurring in the Panhandle area, and future phases
(History Hill, Collier Club House, and Spring House) presented in concept.
Following are specific recommendations for initial implementation as plans are
completed for the first phase of improvements.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 5-42
5.3.1 Spring House
It is recommended that the Spring House be mothballed in the short term.
Mothballing is the process of closing and protecting a building from weather and
vandalism. This would stabilize and protect the building from further deterioration
while, in the long-term, research on grants and other funding opportunities can
be pursued for restoration or rehabilitation of the Spring House. Mothballing the
Spring House would not result in any new environmental impacts not already
addressed in the Draft EIR. Improvements to other portions of Collier Park could
occur without a specific determination on the Spring House.
5.3.2 Site Water
Based on significant public comment regarding the desire to include use of the
underground spring water present at the park site, as well as the increasing need
for water conservation in our region, use of existing water on the site is
recommended to be included in a project design feature. Further research may
be needed to determine the amount of water available and a feature could
include the proposed bioswales, a small fountain, or included in restoration of the
Spring House cistern for irrigation of landscaping in the park. Any such use
provides the opportunity to incorporate educational or interpretive information
regarding water conservation and pollution.
5.4 FUTURE FUNDING
Implementation of this master plan requires identification of funding for
improvements and increased maintenance. There is currently no City funding
identified to cover either phased design beyond the first phase, capital
construction costs, or the anticipated increase in operation and maintenance
costs as a result of improvements. These factors dictate a need to develop
creative ways to obtain funds to cover the cost of initial construction and ongoing
revenue sources to cover continuing maintenance costs. Some potential funding
opportunities are identified in Appendix B. Additional funding opportunities will be
researched and evaluated as they become available.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 43
Collier Park Master Plan APPENDIX A
AERIAL VIEW OF COLLIER PARK AND SURROUNDING AREA
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 44
Collier Park Master Plan APPENDIX B
PHASE II SITE PLAN
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 45
Collier Park Master Plan APPENDIX C
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The following is a list of grants that may be available to support the capital
campaign for the Collier Park Master Plan. A complete binder was provided to
City staff with further suggestions. Note that some of this information is more
than 6 months old:
1. Land and Water Conservation Fund Program – California Department of
Parks and Recreation
Federal funding allocated to states provides matching grants for the
acquisition or development of lands and facilities that provide or support
public outdoor recreation. The next application deadline is February 2014.
New grant program guidelines were under development at the time of this
master plan and are expected to become available in October 2013.
2. Save America’s Treasures – National Trust for Historic Preservation
Provides grants for preservation of the nation’s most endangered cultural
treasures. This legacy includes the built environment as well as
documents, artifacts, and artistic work.
3. Cap and Trade Funding
Cap and Trade is a market based regulation designed to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and encourage investment in clean
technologies by facilities subject to the cap. AB 32 has established goals
to reduce GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020 with
reduction to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. Facilities subject to the GHG cap
will be able to trade their allowances for GHG emissions and revenue
received will be managed by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).
The California ARB is currently developing methods for distribution of the
revenues collected and there is potential for some of this revenue to be
made available for enhancement of green spaces in urban environments.
4. Sustainable Communities and Resources Grants
A number of sustainable communities grant programs are available in
California. Some may be applicable to elements of this project such as
efficient use of the onsite spring water, or for energy efficient and green
building proposals.
COLLIER PARK RENOVATIONS PROJECT MASTER PLAN Page 46
Collier Park Master Plan APPENDIX C
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES – continued
5. Park In Lieu and Impact Fee Funds
Specified fees collected from developers are placed in the Park In Lieu
and Impact Fee Funds for the purpose of parkland acquisition and
improvements of park facilities. These impact fees are designated for
single and multi-family residential developments to mitigate the impact of
new development on existing facilities and infrastructure. The fees
developed were based on population and growth projections, facility
standards, amount/cost of facilities required to accommodate growth and
total cost of facilities per unit of development. The use of the fees must be
tied to new park amenities or acquisition and cannot be used for
maintenance of parks. Funds that may be collected as a result of future
development(s) in the City can be directed toward the park if appropriate
findings are made by the City Council.
6. Private Funds and Potential Naming Rights through the La Mesa Park and
Recreation Foundation
The La Mesa Park and Recreation Foundation supports the City of
La Mesa through its mission to facilitate quality projects and programs that
provide activities that strengthen community and family bonds as well as
foster pride in La Mesa and in its parks. In support of this mission the
Foundation leverages its ability as a non-profit to provide private funding
to augment public funds used for park and recreational facility
improvements.
- 1 Chapter 1
- 5 6.0 implementation
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Purpose of the Master PlaN
1.3
1.3 PLAN GOALS
1.4 Location and Neighborhood Demographics
1.4.1 Location
1.4.2 Demographics
1.4.3 Residential Population Densities
1.4.4 According to the population growth analysis in the citywide Parks Master Plan the total population of La Mesa is expected to increase 13.36% and the population density within a 15-minute walk of Collier Park is expected to increase 24.96% by 20…
The plan states, “Enhancing existing parks and access to those parks will be the most realistic way to provide residents with adequate recreational opportunities that attempt to achieve the goals and objectives of this plan.” This analysis is helpful …
1.5 SITE HISTORY
2 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Collier Park Background
2.2 Spring House
2.3 Collier Park Features
2.4 NATURAL RESOURCES
2.5 Historical Resources
3 4.0 POLICY AND PLANNING PROCESS
3.1 EXISTING POLICIES
3.2 Health and Wellness
3.3 CITYWIDE PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.3.1 Introduction
3.3.2 Vision Statement and Overall Goal
3.3.3 Policies Related to Collier Park
3.3.4 Existing Park Service Area Analysis of Collier Park
3.4 WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE
3.5 PLANNING PROCESS
3.5.1 Key Elements – Community Workshops
3.5.2 Key Feedback on Collier Park – Parks Master Plan Community Sensing
3.6 Recreation and Open Space
3.7 CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF-LEASH DOG RUN AT COLLIER PARK
4 5.0 DESIGN AND CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
4.1 OVERVIEW
4.2 Panhandle Phase 1 Design
4.3 History Hill
4.4 Collier Club House
4.5 Spring House
4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.1 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
5.2 POTENTIAL REVENUE GENERATION
5.3 IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.3.1 Spring House
5.3.2 Site Water
5.4 FUTURE FUNDING
AERIAL VIEW OF COLLIER PARK AND SURROUNDING AREA
PHASE II SITE PLAN
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES – continued
Sheet1
| Renovated Park | Similarity to Poway Park | Difference with Poway Park | Current Usership | Equipment cost | Amenities Comparison | Programs Comparison | Revenue | Cost | Participation Data |
POWAY COMMUNITY PARK STUDY
November 13, 2
0
07
Prepared by:
RBF CONSULTING
Prepared for:
City of Poway
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Analysis of Existing and Future Community Park Facilities
2.1 Existing Park Facilities
2.2 Growth: Demographics and
Land Uses
2.3
Comparison with National and Local Park and Recreation Standards
2.4
National Park and Recreation Trends
2.5
Analysis Conclusions
3. Community Park Survey
3.1
Survey Description
3.2 Survey Findings
3.3
Survey Conclusions
4. Community Workshop
4.1
Workshop Description
4.2 Workshop Findings
4.3
Workshop Conclusions
5.
Recommendations
Poway Community Park was built 2
8
years ago, prior to City incorporation. The Park currently offers public space, pathways and a variety of recreational and event facilities. Now the community is exploring the creation of a Town Center in the heart of Poway, incorporating commercially zoned land, city property, Valley Elementary School and the Community Park. The Town Center is envisioned as pedestrian-oriented with wide sidewalks, outdoor cafés, unique shops, offices, housing, cultural, and/or civic uses. Public input in the Town Center planning project has indicated that it is important for the community to retain and improve the public spaces and facilities in Community Park. At the same time, the Town Center project has presented Poway with an opportunity to re-orient these existing uses to use the available space more efficiently, emphasize pedestrian connections with the park’s surroundings, and seek joint-use opportunities. As these two projects move forward, if the Town Center project is delayed or determined not to be currently feasible, the Community Park Master Plan will proceed forward as a separate project.
The City initiated the Poway Community Park study in the summer of 2007 and sought to:
· Identify potential future park facility and program needs;
· Get a better understanding of who is using Community Park and how;
· Identify future programs and facilities to meet the recreational needs of residents; and
· Define programs and facilities that can fit into Community Park without losing existing parkland.
The study consisted of three parts: a forecast of Poway’s future facility and program needs based on anticipated demographic changes and recreation trends, a survey about current and future use of Community Park, and a community workshop to solicit more detailed public input. Over
500
residents and park users participated in the survey between July and October. These 500 residents represented approximately 1,300 family members’ opinions and thoughts. In addition, over 60 people participated in the workshop sessions in September.
This section considers the current facilities in Poway’s parks, with a close look at the facilities in Community Park; anticipates the changing needs of Poway’s population; and makes recommendations for Community Park that will help accommodate those needs.
Poway has distinguished itself as the “City in the Country” and is characterized by lush, mature landscaping; rolling foothills; nearly 150 miles of hiking, riding and jogging trails; and over
5,000
acres of dedicated open space. It has many recreational facilities, including 17 parks for all to enjoy. In Poway’s parks, residents enjoy popular recreation amenities and community events. Open space and “heritage lands” provide scenery, education opportunities and other values.
Unique recreational experiences are offered at Lake Poway, the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve, the Kumeyaay-Ipai Interpretive Center of Pauwai and Old Poway Park. Lake Poway provides fishing, boating, and camping. Residents can learn about local history at the Kumeyaay-Ipai Interpretive Center and Old Poway Park. Trails in the 700-acre Blue Sky Ecological Preserve allow exploration of the natural landscape near Lake Poway. Just outside Poway, further wilderness experiences are possible on miles of trails in Goodan Ranch and Sycamore Canyon Open Space Reserves.
Existing Park Facilities
Poway Community Park is a
22
.3 acre community-serving park with a combination of active and passive uses. It is located southwest of the Poway Library and the Sheriff’s Station. On the east side of the park is Valley Elementary School, whose multi-use field is a joint-use facility. The Boys & Girls Club is located to the south of the school on the park’s east side and adds another 4.3 acres, for a total of 26.6 acres. Two creeks flow through the park: Poway Creek, along the southern edge; and Rattlesnake Creek, along the west side, emerging from its channel to run through the northwest portion of the park. The East Parking Lot provides 161 regular parking spaces and 12 handicapped spaces, while the West Lot provides an additional 63 regular spots and 4 handicapped spaces. A designated handicapped lot provides an additional 11 handicapped parking spaces. The Boys & Girls Club parking lot provides overflow capacity for the park with 124 regular spaces and 5 handicapped spaces. Combined, Community Park can accommodate 380 parked vehicles.
Athletic/Game Facilities
Ball Fields
Facilities – Two Junior/Senior ball fields. Night lighting. Only three ball fields in Poway have night lighting, including Poway High School baseball field, which is not a joint use facility.
Hours – 8 a.m. to
10
p.m. Can be reserved.
Use – During the spring and summer, used by 13,14 and 15 year olds to play Junior/Senior League baseball; by Poway Youth Soccer for summer camps; by Cub Scouts Summer Camps; and by City of Poway Day Camps. In the fall and winter months, it is used by Pop Warner football.
Basketball Court
Facilities – One basketball court. Night lighting.
Hours – 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Use – The basketball court is heavily used after 5 p.m. on weekdays and all day on weekends by youth and adults.
Bocce Ball Courts
Facilities – Two bocce ball courts. Night lighting. These are the only bocce ball courts in Poway.
Hours – 8 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. Can be reserved.
Use – The bocce ball courts are primarily used during the weekday evenings and weekends by the two local bocce ball clubs.
Skate Park
Facilities – The park features 1
2,500
square feet of pool-style concrete bowls along with invert and street elements. Unsupervised; safety gear required. Bathrooms. Night lighting. The Poway Teen Recreation Club helped to raise funds for the construction of this park. The Poway Skate Park was rated among the “Top 20” skate parks in Southern California by www.socalskateparks.com.
Hours – 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. daily.
Use – The park is heavily used by youth during afternoons and older skaters generally in the early and late evenings. The City provides monthly Freestyle Skate Days for youth 14 years old and younger. At other times, children under the age of 14 must be supervised by an adult.
Multi-Use Field
Facilities – Valley Elementary Field, a joint use facility. Community Park staff monitor the field and schedule the leagues that play at the school. Night lighting. Only three soccer fields in Poway have night lighting; two of them, Poway High School football stadium and the Meadowbrook Middle School field, are joint use facilities.
Hours – Year-round: Monday through Friday, 5
-1
0 p.m. Days when school is not in session: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Can be reserved. The field is closed for sixty days each summer for turf maintenance by the school district.
Use – This field is heavily used every afternoon and evening by youth and adult soccer leagues.
Swim Center
Facilities – 50-meter by
25
-yard pool with attached diving well and shallow children’s area. One-meter and three-meter diving boards, open swimming areas, lap swimming lanes. Eighteen-inch deep wading pool. Shower and dressing area. Daily admission for residents: $2 for adults (18+), $1.50 for children and seniors (60+). Season and yearly passes available. This is the only public pool in Poway.
Programs – Learn to swim programs, swim team practices, open recreation swimming, lap swimming and birthday parties for all ages.
Hours – Vary by activity (e.g. classes, open swim, lap swim), season and day—as early as 5 a.m. and as late as 10 p.m. The 50-meter pool is open 11 months out of the year; the separate wading pool is closed in the winter.
Use – Typically utilized 8 a.m. to closing time, daily. Staff estimates that the Swim Center is used in the summer by as many as 2,000 people per day, morning to night. Staff also reports that swim lessons are routinely sold out and they are struggling to meet demands for competitive swim.
Tennis Courts
Facilities – Two tennis courts. These courts are the only public tennis courts in Poway that have night lighting.
Hours – Sunrise to 10 p.m. To allow more people to use the court, reservations are no longer accepted, as of August 2007.
Use – The tennis courts are generally filled with City lessons during the day in the summer and in the late afternoons in the fall, winter and spring. The courts are filled with singles and doubles tennis players every evening of the week.
Other
Recreation Facilities
Dog Park
Facilities – This 1.75 acre park provides three fenced off-leash areas, one each for small, medium and large dogs. Drinking water for dogs, picnic tables. Volunteers raised funds to install night lighting. In 1998, the park earned two awards: second place in the state for innovative facility design from the California Park and Recreation Society, and first place in the county for facility design from District 12 of the San Diego Park and Recreation Society.
Hours – Sunrise to 9:30 p.m. Can be reserved for events.
Use – The Dog Park is highly used during the evenings and weekends and is also the location for the annual Poway Dog Day Celebration.
Adventure Playground
Facilities – Large themed playground above Rattlesnake Creek with rubberized ground surface that is wheelchair-accessible from the path. Three canopied structures that include slides, bridge, suspension bridge, and metal climbing features. Two swing sets, set of metal gymnastic rings, rocking spring animals. Boulders. Ground surface includes compass feature.
Hours – Sunrise to sunset. Not lit for evening use.
Use – Playground is heavily used throughout the day and into the evening hours.
Upper Playground
Facilities – Playground between Senior Center and Swim Center. Sand, wood chip and sculpted ground surfaces. Two structures that include slides, bridges, climbing features. Swing set, rocking spring animals.
Hours – Sunrise to sunset. Not lit for evening use.
Use – Playground is heavily used throughout the day and into the evening hours.
Picnic Facilities
Facilities – A total of 52 picnic tables and 11 barbecues. Seven picnic tables and six barbecues are located in the northeast corner of the park, around Adventure Playground. Five picnic tables and one barbecue are inside the fenced bocce courts; park staff can unlock the area for other users by request. Other picnic tables are located in the center of the park, near the basketball courts, ball fields, and buildings. This includes a cluster of seven tables with two barbecues that is shaded by trees. There is one picnic table with a shelter, by the upper playground.
Hours – Sunrise to sunset. Not lit for evening use.
Use – Picnic areas are most heavily used during weekends and summer weekdays by day camps and the general public.
Trails/Paths
Facilities – Cement path around the perimeter of the park that connects to Poway Creek Trail via bridges at the southwest and southeast corners of the park. Path also connects to Buckley Street via bridge across Rattlesnake Creek, and connects to sidewalks on Slack Street, Tarascan Drive, Civic Center Drive, and Bowron Road.
Hours – Sunrise to sunset. Not lit for evening use.
Use – These trails and paths provide access to the park.
Program/Event Facilities
Community Park hosts the annual Community Day Celebration, a day-long festival for all Poway residents, as well as the annual Spring Egg Hunt; Youth Day hosts hundreds of children each June at the Swim Center. The park also accommodates a variety of City recreation programs and private events. City classes and other programs are held in the available rooms as well as on the tennis courts, in the swimming pool and in other outdoor locations. The Community Center Auditorium and Senior Center have several spaces that are used for recreation programs and are also available for rent by groups or individuals. These rooms can accommodate from 10 to 250 people. In addition, the Swim Center offers a birthday party service that includes the use of the poolside picnic area for two hours, pool use for up to 25 people, and games with a lifeguard. The Community Services department processed 1,390 requests in fiscal year 2006/2007 which led to 4,607 facility reservations. Staff estimate that three quarters of the 10,313 phone calls the front desk received that year were directly related to facility reservations.
Community Center Auditorium
Facilities – This 3,000 square foot facility holds 200 people in a banquet-style arrangement and includes a stage and kitchen. Built in the 1970s, it has had cosmetic upgrades to the walls, ceilings and floors. The electrical system has not been upgraded and according to staff there is no fire suppression system. The facility is in constant use, and in the opinion of staff, the wear on the building is evident. Round tables, banquet tables, and chairs are provided for rental clients for their set up. The auditorium also has a small room, originally intended as a dressing room, that has become the Youth Activity Room. Otherwise, classes and meetings, regardless of their space needs, occupy the entire auditorium because there are no dividers to create smaller rooms. The department staff estimates that each day it turns away 2
-4
requests to rent the auditorium because activities are already scheduled there, close to 500 per year.
Hours – Available daily from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Use – The Auditorium is used on a daily basis for recreation programming and community rentals. The Auditorium is available for group meetings and workshops, and is rented out for anniversaries, wedding receptions, birthday parties and cultural celebrations throughout the year. Recreation classes held in the Auditorium include children’s dance classes, yoga classes, and various training classes. The Youth Activity Room is used for activities/camps for young children such as Discovery Time and Ooey Gooey Science. The auditorium is used by the Teen Recreation Club for activities that cannot be accommodated in their club meeting room (see Senior Center below). This can result in incompatible uses, such as indoor dodge ball.
Senior Center
Facilities – A 16-passenger handicapped-accessible bus is available for transportation to and from the Center. The Senior Center has the following rooms available for rent, Sunday through Friday, from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m.:
Bill Bond Hall – The hall is divided into 3 separate rooms: 1 large banquet size, and 2 smaller meeting rooms separated by a movable wall. The 3,200 square foot main room is the largest rentable space available at Community Park and can accommodate 200 people in a banquet-style arrangement. It has a small stage and direct access to interior restrooms. Each of the smaller rooms has a 53-person capacity; room users must go around the exterior of the building to access the public restrooms. Chairs and banquet tables are provided.
Nutrition Room – This facility is used during the day for Senior Lunch program, and is set up with banquet tables and chairs at all times. In the evening, it is available for use and can accommodate 100 people. It has direct access to interior restrooms.
Activity Rooms – These rooms consist of a carpeted space divided by a movable wall; no food or drink is allowed. The rooms hold 31 and 37 people, respectively. Restroom access is within 20 feet of the facility. Tables and chairs are provided. Due to the lack of permanent walls, and the resulting noise quality issues, staff are reluctant to rent out the rooms for separate functions. The Activity Rooms are not rented out when the large banquet room in Bill Bond Hall is reserved, for the same reason.
Conference Room – This room has a conference table and 16 chairs at all times. No food or drink allowed. Restrooms are directly outside the door to the room.
Hours – Senior Center programs: Weekdays 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with afternoon and evening events on Saturdays. Senior Center facility available for other public use until 10 p.m.
Senior Use – The Senior Center provides a range of programs serving Poway’s seniors. Activities include daily exercise classes, games (including bingo twice a week), arts and craft activities, educational programs and dances. Lunch is provided Monday through Friday at the Senior Center and delivered to homebound seniors and people with disabilities. Multiple health screenings are offered. The Center provides information about numerous services in the community for seniors and their families, as well as arranging for hospital and in-home visits. It also operates programs to assist low-income households with food, utilities, and health insurance. Volunteers staff many programs of the Senior Center, and the Center is governed by a volunteer board of directors.
Other Use – Classes for Senior Center members are held during Center hours. In the evenings, the City uses the facility for Taekwondo classes.
Teens – The Senior Center is also home to the Poway Teen Recreation Club (PRTC). The teens helped fund, equip and furnish a library space (roughly 600 square feet) known as the intergenerational lounge, which they have permission to use one evening a week. The PTRC is focused on creating fun, educational, and leadership opportunities for teens (13-17 years). It is actively involved with drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs and a variety of community service projects. Membership is free. Monthly special events for members and friends are generally held in the auditorium, including karaoke nights, casino nights and dances. Monthly teen-only recreation nights cannot be accommodated at Community Park and are held at the joint-use gymnasiums instead. Other teen recreation programs are held at the Poway Branch Library.
Boys & Girls Club
The Sulpizio Family Branch of Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater San Diego is a facility operated by a private nonprofit organization to serve children, on a membership basis, weekdays until 5 p.m. Inside, the 22,000 square foot facility includes a full-size gymnasium, dance studio, art studio/classroom, activity room, computer lab, Head Start child care room, kitchen, and rooms for staff. Outside, there is a playground and enclosed football field. The land is leased from the City for $1 per year. There is currently no joint use agreement between the organization and the City for the use of these facilities.
Other Park Facilities in Poway
Some of the facilities at Poway Community Park are unique, while others are available at the other parks and recreation areas in Poway. There are several recreational facilities on school grounds available for City use, as well as a privately operated sports complex; these will be described in the next section.
As noted above, Community Park offers the only public pool, lighted tennis courts, and bocce ball courts in Poway. In addition, there is only one other junior/senior sized ball field with lights available for City use, and two other soccer fields with lights—the joint use facilities at Meadowbrook Middle School and Poway High School.
The Senior Center and Community Auditorium are facilities with unique characteristics, but there are meeting/multipurpose rooms at Lake Poway and Old Poway Park, and in two joint-use gymnasiums. These rooms and gyms are used for City recreation programs.
Lake Poway Rooms
Facilities – A 900-square foot building known as the Pavilion. Kitchen, tables and chairs, restrooms, attached outside patio, and barbecue. A large shaded group picnic area is included in the facility rental.
Use – Rented for receptions, parties and meetings. The City holds day camps here. With the recent installation of a heating/air conditioning system, more programs may be scheduled in this facility.
Old Poway Park Rooms
Facilities – Templars Hall, a historic hall that can accommodate parties of up to 100 people. The hall has a stage with lighting, and air conditioning. Great Room, which has a maximum capacity of 45 people. Porter House Parlour, a historic room with maximum capacity of 25 people. Tables and chairs may be provided for all three facilities.
Use – Templars Hall is rented year-round for wedding receptions, parties, dances and large meetings; the smaller rooms are rented for meetings. The City schedules several arts-related day camps and classes in the Old Poway Park facilities.
The following Community Park facilities are also found at other parks: ball fields, basketball courts, picnic tables and shelters, playgrounds, soccer fields, tennis courts, and trails. Horseshoes and volleyball are available only outside of Community Park. Figure 2 shows the locations of recreation facilities.
Figure 2. Recreation facilities in Poway parks. Source: “City of Poway Parks and Facilities,” July 2005.
Joint Use and Partnerships
In addition to the facilities that it produces and maintains on its own, the City has sought to expand recreational facilities in partnership with the Poway Unified School District, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector.
Joint Use With the Poway Unified School District
According to an agenda report dated June 12, 2007, the City has made joint use arrangements with the Poway Unified School District for years. Generally, the City provides funds to build or improve recreational facilities on school campuses, and the District maintains those facilities. The report described facilities that this partnership has made possible: “two gymnasiums, soccer and multipurpose fields (some lighted), and most recently an all-weather track and artificial turf football field at Poway High School.” In June 2007, the City of Poway signed an updated agreement with Poway Unified School District that established terms for all joint use facilities except the Poway Center for the Performing Arts. The agreement carries a term of ten years, with three five-year extensions. The recreational facilities and their availability for City use are outlined below.
Valley Elementary (Adjacent to Community Park)
Facilities – Multi-use field, lighted.
Available to City – Year-round: Monday through Friday, 5-10 p.m. Days when school is not in session: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. The field is closed for sixty days each summer for turf maintenance by the school district.
Midland Elementary
Facilities – Softball field.
Available to City – Up to 20 Saturdays per year; fee for additional days.
Meadowbrook Middle School
Facilities – Gymnasium.
Available to City – When school is in session: Monday through Friday, 5-10 p.m. When school is not in session: year-round, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
City Use – The City makes the gym available for open play sports including basketball, volleyball, and badminton. Other recreation programs held here include teen recreational tournaments and youth volleyball.
Facilities – Soccer field, lighted.
Available to City – Year-round: Monday through Friday, 4-10 p.m. Days when school is not in session: 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Pomerado Elementary
Facilities – Two fields.
Available to City – Up to 20 Saturdays per year; fee for additional days.
Poway High School
Facilities – Stadium with artificial turf football field, all-weather track and lighting.
Available to City – Year-round: Saturdays and Sundays, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Weekdays when school is not in session: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. All day on July 3-5 for Fireworks and Community Concert. Priority use is planned for Pop Warner Football from August to December, and Youth High School Lacrosse from March to June.
Tierra Bonita Elementary
Facilities – Little league baseball field.
Available to City – Up to 20 Saturdays per year; fee for additional days.
Twin Peaks Middle School
Facilities – Gymnasium.
Available to City – When school is in session: Monday through Friday, 5-10 p.m. When school is not in session: year-round, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.
City Use – The City makes the gym available for open play sports including basketball, volleyball, and badminton. Other recreation programs held here include girls basketball camps, youth volleyball camps, ballet (youth and adult), youth basketball, youth badminton, adult volleyball, and adult basketball.
Facilities – Soccer field, football field.
Available to City – Up to 20 Saturdays per year; fee for additional days.
Partnerships With Nonprofit Organizations
The contributions of volunteer organizations to Community Park have already been noted above: their efforts helped to fund the Dog Park, Skate Park, and the Poway Teen Recreation Club facility in the Senior Center. In 2005, the City’s partnership with the Poway Girls Softball League produced Aubrey Park, an 8.5 acre facility with four youth softball fields and a picnic area. The league contributed materials and labor toward the construction of the park, and maintains a portion of the playing fields under an agreement with the City. According to the agreement, the park and fields remain available for use by the general public. The Poway Girls Softball League uses the fields from late January into late October, with a short break in August.
Private Sector Partnerships
The City has entered into contract agreements with the private sector to operate and maintain recreational facilities. Poway Sportsplex is a privately operated facility with three softball fields, a roller hockey rink, a soccer field, and four slow pitch softball batting cages. This facility was designed primarily for organized adult sports, so that City and joint-use fields could be dedicated to organized youth sports. The City also utilizes the private sector to operate concessions at Lake Poway.
Planned Park Facilities
Poway is still acquiring land to expand the park and recreation system. According to the “City Council Long-Term Priorities,” May 2007:
· The City is working with Sunroad Enterprises, developer of The Heritage, to acquire 8 acres at the corner of Espola Road and Old Coach Road for use as sports fields.
· The City is looking for a suitable location along Oak Knoll Road for future development of a mini-park, to address neighborhood concerns that park land is lacking in that area.
Unfortunately, the development of additional new parks, especially those of any sizeable area, is limited because Poway is approaching build-out and little vacant land is available for parks.
Sports Field Demand
The City of Poway is aware of a need for additional sports fields. According to “City Council Long-Term Priorities,” May 2007: “There is unmet demand for active recreation facilities for youth and adults. Available land to construct additional athletic fields is extremely limited.” The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee has recommended extending the use of existing fields through the installation of artificial turf and lights. Artificial turf can accommodate more intense, uninterrupted use and is often more environmentally sound. The Poway High School football field has had artificial turf since
2004
. Lighting can also enable existing fields to be used for more hours.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee completed a Sports Facility Needs Assessment in 2005 that identified a need for sports fields. Lacrosse is a growing sport in Poway and the four lacrosse youth leagues all placed a priority on additional facilities, including lighted fields. The Youth Soccer League and Pop Warner Football identified practice fields and lighted fields as greatest needs. Practice fields were also identified as a need for the National Little League, Junior and Senior Big League Baseball, Mustangs Baseball Academy Travel Team and Power Baseball Travel Team. In contrast, the Youth Basketball League identified volunteers as its greatest need.
The demand for soccer fields should not be underestimated. The Youth Soccer League is the largest sports league in Poway, reporting 1,333 participants for the 2005 study (1,137 in the fall and 196 in the spring). In addition, because the aforementioned study only surveyed formal sports leagues, it did not measure informal participation in soccer games.
Growth: Demographics and Land Uses
In 2006, SANDAG made growth and demographic projections for Poway in the years
2020
and 2030, based on the currently adopted plans and policies of the City and the most recent information from the County of San Diego’s general plan update (GP 2020). These projections include total population, housing units, age distribution, and ethnic diversity.
The total population of Poway is expected to increase from an estimated 50,534 in 2004 to 54,035 in 2020, reflecting a 6.9% growth rate over that period (.43% each year). By 2030, the population is expected to reach 57,474, a 14% increase from the estimated 2004 population.
Age Distribution
As shown below, the current (2004) population distribution has peaks around the 10-19 age range and 45-49 age range, and a low point in the 25
-3
9 age range. This low point suggests a relative absence of families with very young children, and instead more families with pre-teens, teenagers and college-aged children. Adults 55 years and older are a significant part of the population as well.
The age distribution in 2020 has a similar shape, but with a new bulge explained mostly by the aging of baby boomers—people born between 1946 and 1964—who in 2020 will be 56 to 74 years old. In Poway, the number of people 55 and older is expected to increase by 56% from 10,177 to 15,866—moving from 20% to 29% of the total population. Meanwhile, the number of adults under 55 will decline 6% from 26,666 to 25,104, and will become a smaller portion relative to other groups, decreasing from 53% to 46% of the total population. The 25-39 age range will increase 5% in absolute numbers but remain 14% of the population. Children 17 years old and younger will become a slightly smaller portion of the population, shifting from 27% to 24%. This is mostly due to an 8% decrease in the number of children between ages 10 and 17 from 7,720 to 7,101. This shift in the age distribution towards older adults is reflected in the median age of the population, which is projected to increase from 37.3 years in 2004 to 41.1 years in 2020.
Age Distribution in 2004 and 2020
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0-45
-9
10-1415-1920
-2
425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-84
85+
Age group
Number in each group
200
4
2020
Figure 3. Age Distribution of Poway’s population in 2004 and 2020.
Source: “2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update: City of Poway,” SANDAG, September 2006
Older Adults
With this shift in mind, Poway should continue to plan for the recreational needs of residents of all ages, but with increasing attention to the needs of older adults. There are a number of national policy initiatives that are aimed at helping older adults to become more physically active. According to the Surgeon General in 1996, “no one is too old to enjoy the benefits of regular physical activity.” In fact, “there is no single segment of our society that can benefit more from regular exercise and improved diet than older adults,” asserted researchers in their 2001 article “Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Quality of Life in Older Adults,” published in the Journals of Gerontology. For older adults, physical activity has been linked to such health advantages as delaying the onset of disease and disability or reducing their effects, enabling a person to live independently, preventing falls, improving the quality of sleep, and reducing depression.
Many older adults are failing to reap the benefits of exercise. Although there is concern about the lack of physical activity in all age groups, older adults tend to be more sedentary than others. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) fact sheet “Promoting Active Lifestyles Among Older Adults,” “CDC surveillance data show that about 16.7% of adults aged 45–64, 23.1% of adults aged 65–74, and 35.9% of adults aged 75 or older are inactive, meaning they engage in no leisure time, household, or transportation physical activity.”
One prominent report published in 2001, “The National Blueprint on Physical Activity Among Adults Age 50 and Older,” came out of a partnership between AARP, American College of Sports Medicine, American Geriatrics Society, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute on Aging, and The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It asserts that “in order to assist in the maintenance of physically active lifestyles, it is essential that policies and programs build on older people’s preferences and interests and that a variety of physical activity options are made available.” In addition, the report identifies the following hurdles to engaging older adults in physical activity:
· Many older adults do not know how to start a safe and proper home-based physical activity program.
· Many facilities that offer physical activity for older Americans do not provide adequate training and monitoring for those who want to begin a physical activity program but lack skills.
· Many facilities that offer opportunities for physical activity for age 50 and older Americans do not take into account that audience’s preferences or needs for specific types of programs or services.
· Many older adults serve as caregivers for others, which can restrict their opportunities for regular physical activity.
· Many older adults are overweight and have chronic disease or disability, which can restrict their opportunities for regular physical activity.
· Many older adults may be isolated and lack transportation to community physical activity facilities and programs.
Locally, some older adults are engaging in recreational activities, as shown in the San Diego County Aging and Independence Services Survey of Older Americans conducted in 2003. This survey of San Diego County residents aged 60 and older found that 18% of respondents from the Second Supervisorial District engaged in athletic activities “often” and 15% “occasionally.” Their participation in senior center/dining center programs was similar, with 17% reporting “often” and 13% “occasionally.” A smaller number were involved in the Feeling Fit club, a program offered at the Poway Senior Center and other locations throughout the county: 7% of respondents participated “often” and 8% participated “occasionally.” The survey did not inquire more broadly about levels of physical activity, beyond athletic activities and the Feeling Fit club. However, 23% of respondents in the district reported “minor difficulty” with walking and 10% reported “serious difficulty,” suggesting that they would also have difficulty engaging in physical activity.
Besides the Feeling Fit club, the Poway Senior Center offers other free or low-cost programs that encourage physical activity: walking groups, dancing, tai chi, and yoga. An innovative program offered at the Senior Center is “A Matter of Balance: Managing Concerns About Falls,” an 8-week class that addresses the problem of older adults limiting their activity because they are afraid of falling. This class was created in Maine and featured as a model program in a 2004 publication by the National Council on Aging. A combination of education, discussion and exercise helps class participants to avoid risky behavior while engaging in more activity.
Childhood Obesity
The City Council has expressed concern about childhood obesity rates. A 2006 report by the County of San Diego reported child overweight rates in the county as 31.8% for boys and 19.4% for girls in 2004. This report, “CALL TO ACTION: San Diego County Childhood Obesity Action Plan,” presented many strategies to prevent childhood obesity, to be carried out by the public, private and nonprofit sectors. The following strategies involved parks and recreation:
· Increase quantity, quality and accessibility of parks and natural open spaces in order to encourage physical activity among youth.
· Sponsor and promote opportunities for children, youth and their families to engage in physical activities, with focus on the following:
· A large and varied selection of activities (i.e., competitive and non-competitive; individual and team; separated genders and mixed) that attract persons of various cultures so that any individual is likely to regard one or more as “fun”
· Activities that are likely to meet needs of people with various abilities and body types
· Activities that lend themselves to life-long participation
· Activities that are located in low-income areas and areas with high rates of obesity-related conditions
Poway is committed to engaging its youth in physical activity. As a member of the Greater San Diego Recreation and Park Coalition for Health and Wellness, Poway is actively seeking ways to enhance residents’ health and wellness through recreation. This Coalition hosts an annual “Go Play, Get Fit” day for youth, and approximately 600 Poway summer day camp participants took part in 2007.
An article in the Fall 2007 edition of Poway Today described year-round efforts to provide Poway youth with opportunities for recreation. It indicated that over 2,600 children, including 100 with special needs, participate in the City’s recreation activities each year. In addition, the City facilitates field use by the Poway Youth Sports Association, which involves more than 3,000 youth. The City’s Mobile Recreation Program brings games and sports directly to children in their neighborhoods, and the City has come to annual school events with fitness activities and health education.
Monthly Teen Only Nights are held at Meadowbrook Gymnasium to encourage this hard-to-reach audience to be active. Staff reports that these events are well attended, typically by more than 75 youth. The Swim Center offers swim lessons three seasons out of the year, going beyond what staff reports as the more current standard of summer-only swim programs. The annual Lake Poway Summer Day Camp has operated for more than forty years and encourages outdoor recreation, combining Lake Poway’s natural opportunities with Community Park and the Swim Center. Each week of the camps is typically at capacity. City staff is incorporating physical fitness opportunities into educational school trips to Old Poway Park through warm-up exercises and games. Besides the opportunities provided by parks, Poway’s trail system of nearly 150 miles allows children to walk or bike to school and throughout the City.
Ethnic Diversity
Looking at the four largest ethnic groups identified in the SANDAG projections (Hispanic; and non-Hispanic white, black, and Asian), it is clear that there will be a demographic shift between 2004 and 2020. White non-Hispanic residents will be a smaller part of the population, with all other groups becoming a larger part of the population. Hispanic residents are expected to become 16.4% of the population in 2020, from 11.6% in 2004. Asian residents, 8.3% of the population in 2004, are expected to make up 11% of the population in 2020. White non-Hispanic residents, 74.6% of the population in 2004, will remain the largest ethnic group in 2020 as 63.2% of the population.
Diverse Preferences in Park Use
To serve all residents, Poway should be aware of possible ethnic differences in preferences for the park. Although it is impossible to make generalizations about everyone within an ethnic group, studies do indicate that different ethnic groups can have different expectations about park use. California Park and Recreation Society devoted the Spring 2005 issue of its magazine to explorations of cultural preferences in recreation. The lead article gave examples of communities that have succeeded in involving diverse youth in recreation programs. One such example was Detroit, which started a basketball league for youth under 6 feet tall, opening the sport to participants from many cultures.
An article in this issue called “Latinos and Public Lands” drew from a 2002 study in southern California that discovered Latino preferences for shaded areas as well as amenities such as flush toilets, larger-sized picnic tables, barbecue grills, and water faucets. The article pointed out that lunch in a picnic basket may not be what a Latino family plans for a picnic. Instead, “picnicking may be an all-day activity for Latinos, literally beginning as soon as a site opens and finishing when the site closes. Multiple meals may be cooked throughout the day, and many foods are made from scratch on-site.” In addition, the family at the picnic may include multiple generations and what non-Latinos might think of as “extended” family members—a group that is not comfortably accommodated at a small picnic table typically seating 6-8 people. The article stated that several studies found an average group size of 15 for Latino park users, and suggested either using larger tables or placing small tables close enough together to accommodate such groups. Rather than trying to guess what Latinos want, the author suggested an approach she called “invite, include, involve”: inviting Latinos through better communication, including them in recreation planning, and involving them in management.
Race and Ethnicity in 2004 and 2020
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
25,000
27,500
30,000
32,500
35,000
37,500
40,000
WhiteHispanicAsianTwo or More
Races
BlackAmerican
Indian
Hawaiian/
Pacific
Islander
Other
Number of People
2004
2020
Figure 4. Race and ethnicity of Poway’s population in 2004 and 2020.
Source: “2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update: City of Poway,” SANDAG, September 2006
Researchers have sought to identify reasons that some members of ethnic minority groups might not be participating in recreation activities or using parks, as described in “Research Update: Recreation Across Ethnicity” in the October 2006 issue of Parks & Recreation. The article suggested some cultural barriers to participation resulting from lack of experience with certain types of activities and a hesitance to participate in activities that are not seen as culturally appropriate for their ethnic group. Some people may even feel unwelcome. According to “Reaching Out to Hispanics in Recreation” in the March 2005 issue of Parks & Recreation: “Many Hispanics have identified three barriers to their participation in recreation: the perception of discrimination, the fear of not being liked and the possibility that workers will not be Hispanic.” This article cited the “invite, include, involve” approach and suggested that language barriers can be overcome with bilingual staff, board members or volunteers.
While it is difficult to find research on Asian preferences for park use, at least one of the recommendations for other ethnic groups may apply: by including members of Asian groups in planning for parks and recreation, Poway will have a better chance of meeting the needs of these residents.
Land Uses
Existing and future land use adjacent to Community Park have an affect on who uses the park, how often they use it, and how it is used.
Neighboring Uses
People who live near the park will be more likely to use it as a destination for a walk or bicycle ride. There are many residents who live within walking distance of Community Park, in the following neighborhoods:
· Mobile home park immediately south of the park, connected by bridge across Poway Creek.
· Single-family neighborhood immediately west of the park, connected by pathways behind Adventure Playground and bridge across Rattlesnake Creek. The neighborhood extends south of Poway Creek, connected to park by path along creek.
· Multifamily residential complexes on the east side of Bowron, directly north and south of Civic Center Drive.
· Small single-family neighborhood south of the multifamily complexes.
These neighborhoods are connected to Community Park by paths and bridges, making it possible for residents to walk or ride bicycles there. Additionally, most of these neighborhoods provide housing for families with a modest or low income. These residents may be less likely to be members of fitness clubs or even to own cars, so Community Park provides important and affordable recreation opportunities.
Proposed Town Center Uses
The City of Poway is exploring the creation of a Town Center in the heart of Poway that would be pedestrian-oriented with wide sidewalks, outdoor cafés, unique shops, offices, housing, cultural, and/or civic uses. The project area under exploration is in the vicinity of Poway Road, immediately east and west of Civic Center Drive, incorporating Community Park, and east of Bowron Road (see Figure 5). The focus is primarily south of Poway Road, but will also explore long-term planning options for the northern side of the street.
The Town Center could intensify use of the area surrounding the park by introducing more high density residential, commercial, and office uses. Community Park has been included in the Town Center planning process for the purpose of creating linkages between the park and the new uses. Thus, the Town Center’s increased activity would likely lead to an increase in park users.
Figure 5. Illustration of Town Center Planning Area.
Comparison with National and Local Park and Recreation Standards
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) has produced standards for parks and recreation facilities that many American communities have used as a baseline for determining how many facilities are needed to serve their populations. According to the Poway General Plan, the City has adopted the NRPA standards, noting, however that “they should be adjusted to meet socioeconomic conditions and variables present in each area to be served.” This section describes the NRPA standards and also provides a snapshot of park standards and existing facilities in comparable cities in San Diego County.
NRPA – Moving Away from National Standards
The standards that NRPA published in 1983 and 1990, while understood to be general guidelines that should be adapted to local conditions, still provided formulas for the number of people that could be served by a sports facility or a park. For instance, the 1983 guidelines indicated that one outdoor basketball court serves 2,000 people. The Poway General Plan was adopted in 1991, apparently with the 1983 guidelines in mind.
However, NRPA took a new approach with the 1996 book Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines. This approach encourages more citizen participation and results in unique standards for each community, according to the article “The New NRPA Guidelines for Open Space,” which appeared in the 1997 March/April issue of Illinois Parks and Recreation. Through a participatory process, a community can determine its own “level of service” standards for each facility type, based on measurements of local demand. In the article’s example, a community determines a level of service of .46 acres of tot lots per 1,000 people (seen another way, a one-acre tot lot is capable of serving 2,171 people).
Although it is over 10 years old, Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines is the latest attempt by NRPA to suggest planning guidelines. The “Frequently Asked Questions” page on NRPA’s website advises people who are seeking guidelines to buy the book. However, the book is out of print, suggesting that there is little demand for it, or that NRPA has moved away from promoting standards.
Older NRPA Standards
It is worth considering the older standards in relation to the facilities at Community Park, for two reasons. First, planners still find the standards useful as a rough indicator of how many people are being served by parks and recreation facilities. Second, the apparent intent of the Poway General Plan was to use the NRPA standards. City staff periodically compare Poway’s facilities to the 1983 NRPA standards. Figure 6 shows the October 2005 comparison to these standards, focusing only on the recreation facilities found in Community Park. There is no NRPA standard for some facilities in Community Park, such as bocce ball courts and dog parks.
Recreation Facility
1983 NRPA Standard Per
Number of Residents
1983 NRPA Standard For Poway’s Population
(50,000)
Total Facilities in Poway
Poway Facilities Compared to Standard
Baseball (Adult &HS)
1 Field/10,000
5 Fields
2 Fields
–
3
Baseball (Youth)
1 Field/6,000
8 Fields
16 Fields
Basketball (Outdoor)
1 Court/2,000
25 Courts
47 Courts
2
2
Basketball (Indoor)
1 Court/5,000
10 Courts
6 Courts
Football Fields
1 Field/10,000
5 Fields
3 Fields
Picnic Shelters
1 Shelter/2,000
25 Shelters
12 Shelters
-13
Playgrounds
1 Playground/2,000
25 Playgrounds
24 Playgrounds
–
1
Soccer Fields
1 Field/4,000
13 Fields
13 Fields
0
Softball Fields (Adult)
1 Field/3,000
15 Fields
4 Fields
-11
Softball Fields (Youth)
1 field/5,000
10 Fields
18 Fields
8
Swimming Pool (50m)
1 pool/20,000
2.
5
1 Pool
-1.5
1 court/2,000
47 Courts
Wading Pool
1 pool/5,000
1 Pool
Figure 6. Comparison of Community Park facilities to 1983 NRPA standards, October 2005.
Poway far exceeds NRPA standards in the availability of certain facilities: trails, indoor basketball courts, youth softball fields and adult baseball fields. In other areas, Poway’s population may be underserved—for example, the standards recommend 11 more adult softball fields and 3 more adult baseball fields.
Community Park contains some of the facilities that may be in short supply. According to the standards, a 50-meter pool serves 10,000 people and a wading pool serves 5,000. A city of Poway’s size should have at least one more 50-meter pool and nine more wading pools. To meet the standards, Poway would also need twice as many picnic shelters.
Community Park itself is smaller than NRPA recommended in 1990, using a standard of 5-8 acres of community parks per 1,000 residents. This would indicate a need for at least 50 acres of community park land in Poway, while Community Park is 28 acres.
It is possible that the NRPA standards do not reflect the types of recreation facilities that Powegians actually demand. For instance, according to the 1983 standards, Poway has exactly the right number of soccer fields. However, the City has identified a need for more sports fields in Poway, including soccer fields. The open space that surrounds Poway may also fulfill recreation needs that in other cities can only be met with urban parks. Nevertheless, the standards indicate a need for more swimming facilities, and this is supported by the experience of City staff that swim lessons are routinely sold out and they are struggling to meet demands for competitive swim.
Facilities and Standards in Other Cities
In analyzing the Poway Community Park facilities, it is also informative to look at the facilities of other cities. The discussion below considers facilities in the cities of Encinitas, San Marcos, Santee, and Arcadia— giving an overview of their park systems, indoor spaces for community programs, and programs for seniors and teens. For a summary, see Figure 7, after the city discussions.
Encinitas
Encinitas, with a population of 58,014 in 2000, is 12% larger than Poway is projected to be in the year 2020. The 1999 median household income, at
$63,954
, was lower than Poway’s
$71,708
but closer than the comparison cities below. Its coastal location provides residents with a built-in recreation facility, but it lacks the extensive open space that surrounds Poway. The city maintains approximately 30 miles of trails, including many trails through open space areas. According to the Encinitas General Plan, the City aims to provide 15 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, with more specific park land standards for each type of park: mini, neighborhood, community, and special use. The Encinitas standard for community parks is 5 to 8 acres per resident, with each park 10 to 25 acres in size.
Encinitas has 16 developed city parks, as well as city beaches, ocean viewpoints, a golf course, and open space areas. There are also six recreation facilities maintained by the state and county—beaches, ecological and marine reserves, botanical gardens, and a park. Facilities include playgrounds (including one with a climbing rock), picnic facilities, ball fields, athletic courts, bocce courts, skateboard features, an off-leash dog area, and athletic fields. Encinitas appears to rely on the ocean for swimming opportunities, offering surf lessons and a Junior Lifeguard program, but not swimming programs. However, the Encinitas
YMCA operates an aquatic center.
Encinitas built a new community center in 2002. The Encinitas Community and Senior Center is a 39,000 square foot facility that accommodates a variety of activities for residents of all ages, as well as Senior Center programs. According to the City’s website, it includes the following rooms, which are available for rental use: “a banquet hall and kitchen, gymnasium/auditorium, arts/crafts room, activity and meeting rooms, conference rooms, dance/activity room.” It also includes the non-reservable “senior game room, senior library/computer room, senior citizen outreach offices, a community information counter and administrative offices.” Many of the City’s recreation programs are offered in the community center, including dance, fitness, arts and educational classes, and classes for seniors.
Encinitas offers several recreation programs for teens—for instance, classes, trips, open gym and an “open mic” night—but seems to have no designated spaces for teen recreation activities.
San Marcos
The City of San Marcos reports its 2005 population at 73,054; the 1999 median household income was
$45,908
. It is bordered by several large open space areas but has more urban neighbors than Poway. San Marcos counts 20 miles of trails, some of which traverse open space areas. It is aggressively expanding its recreational facilities, planning 5 new parks in the near future which would bring the total to 17 neighborhood or community parks, and 12 mini-parks. Facilities include ball fields, practice fields, playgrounds, picnic facilities, athletic courts, and off-leash dog areas. The City operates several pools: two 25 meter pools, a 30′ x 40′ diving pool, an 18′ diameter wading pool, and a shallow water area. The swim areas also include a sprayground and water slide.
According to the City website, San Marcos has a 30,000 square foot community center with indoor and outdoor stages, a youth area, crafts center, full kitchen, exercise and dance rooms, meeting rooms, and outdoor patios. The youth drama program presents performances in the community center. Many of the City’s recreation programs are also offered there, including dance, fitness, arts and educational classes.
Near the community center, the city operates a 27,000 square foot gymnasium with a community room and three sport courts; drop-in gym users are charged a small fee. A recreation center is located in one of the City’s other parks, San Elijo. Many of the City’s recreation classes are held there.
The City has a Senior Center near the community center that can accommodate 297 people; it has a main room with kitchen access, and community rooms. It offers a variety of programs including dance, fitness, trips, education, health services and social events. Next door, the City provides space for a private nonprofit operation called the Panorama Teen and Family Resource Center, which offers a variety of after-school activities for teens including a music studio, media studio, computer lab (also used by the Senior Center) and recreation.
Santee
The City of Santee cites its population as
54,700
, approximately the size of Poway’s expected population in 2020. Unlike Poway, however, Santee has only developed half the land within its boundary so far. The median household income in 1999 was
$53,624
. For now, Santee enjoys a natural setting which the City places importance on preserving. Positioned on the opposite side of the Sycamore Canyon area from Poway, Santee enjoys similar access to open space. Local recreation areas include Goodan Ranch, Mission Trails Regional Park and Santee Lakes.
There are 7 city parks; facilities include a skate/BMX park, game courts, sports fields, playgrounds, picnic facilities, trails, and an exercise course. The new City of Santee Aquatics Center has a 25 meter by 25 yard training pool, an activity pool with a play structure, a water slide, and a water exercise area.
Santee is currently developing a Town Center with office, high-density residential, and commercial uses that will be built around the San Diego River. As part of this project, Santee is creating a new 55-acre community park featuring creek improvements and recreational facilities. So far, 25 acres have been completed, including the City of Santee Aquatics Center which is operated by the YMCA. Phase II will add a sports complex to be operated by Sportsplex USA, playgrounds, and an entertainment venue.
Santee Civic Center consists of two buildings adjacent to City Hall. Building 7 has a tiled room with a capacity of 200 for meetings and an attached kitchen. Building 8 can be divided into two rooms, one carpeted and one tiled, with a combined capacity of 270 people for meetings. All rooms in the Civic Center are available for rent. Recreation classes are held in more than a dozen locations besides the Civic Center, including schools, park buildings, and the Boys & Girls Club. There does not appear to be a public facility for indoor performances.
Santee operates an after-school teen center at Santee Lakes where games and activities are offered daily except Sundays. Teens under 18 can take buses to the center directly from school, for a fee. Starting fall 2007, the Boys & Girls Club has a drop-in center for older adults on Wednesday mornings, when computer classes are offered there. Other programs for older adults are provided in different locations.
Arcadia
The City of Arcadia, at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County, identifies itself on its website as an “upper-middle class community of approximately 54,000 people” with a “primarily residential nature” that places an emphasis on maintaining green space and trees within the community. Arcadia thus shares some qualities with Poway that make comparisons potentially valuable: population size, residential nature, policy emphasis on natural space, and its location near a large wilderness area. The 1999 median household income of
$56,100
is within the range of the other comparison cities, while still below Poway’s.
There are 20 city parks in Arcadia including a privately-operated golf course and a wilderness park; facilities include a dog park, skate park, ball fields, tennis courts, and one multi-purpose athletic field. The County of Los Angeles also operates four recreation facilities in Arcadia, including an Olympic-size swimming pool. Two 25-meter swimming pools at Arcadia High School are joint-use facilities and the City operates them in the summer.
The City offers after-school programs at Arcadia schools, including Arcadia High School, where on Mondays through Thursdays the cafeteria becomes “The Apache Pit,” a drop-in program for students providing games and a snack shop.
In 2006, Arcadia’s Recreation and Community Services Department produced a Strategic Plan that assessed the community’s recreation facilities and programs and made recommendations for the future. The Strategic Plan describes the Arcadia Community Center as a 18,000 square foot multi-purpose facility built in 1991 with offices, a kitchen, meeting/assembly rooms and classrooms. Senior programs are held in the center during weekdays and recreation classes are held on evenings from Monday through Thursday. The center is available for rent to community groups on Friday evenings and weekends. According to the fall 2007 brochure of recreation programs, classes are held in the Community Center in rooms identified as the “Dance Room,” “Ballroom,” “Craft Room,” and “Activity Room”; cooking classes are held in the kitchen. Special events are held in the community center as well.
According to the Strategic Plan, Arcadia has joint-use agreements with the school district and is exploring the use of more volunteers to expand recreation programs. Having identified a need for more indoor facilities, the plan also contains the following recommended action:
“1. Improve existing recreation facilities and develop new parks and facilities/buildings that meet the community’s needs. Look for creative and cost-effective ways to provide recreation activity space.
1.1 Develop facilities that are multipurpose and flexible to insure maximum use efficiency. Proposed facilities should include
lighted fields, a gymnasium, multipurpose center/youth activity center, and additional activity/classroom space
. Facilities should be wired for cable and the Internet. Include a
limited catering kitchen
and use of
soundproof, movable wall partitions to divide large rooms for flexibility
to expand activity opportunities. [emphasis added]
…
B. Identify
operational and maintenance costs
of each facility prior to development to adequately plan for future budget considerations. The plan should address
staffing, operations and maintenance costs
as well as fee schedules to cover overhead and direct program costs…” [emphasis added]
From these comparisons, it appears that Poway lacks the large indoor recreation facilities enjoyed by other communities of a similar stature, with the exception of Santee. The smallest community center in the other three cities is Arcadia’s, at 19,000 square feet—and the strategic plan suggests that additional indoor facilities are needed. San Marcos maintains 30,000 square feet of community center space, and 27,000 square feet of gym space. The Encinitas community center includes a gym, for a total of 39,000 square feet. Besides the joint-use gymnasiums, Poway Community Park offers the two largest indoor spaces in the city: 3,000 square feet in the Community Center Auditorium, and 3,200 square feet in the Senior Center Bill Bond Hall.
The Arcadia recommendations for movable walls could apply to Poway’s auditorium, which unlike Bill Bond Hall has no such dividers and can only be used by one class at a time. However, the experience in Bill Bond Hall is that dividers do not provide adequate sound buffering between the separated rooms.
The Arcadia plan brings up another issue in its recommendations for expanded facilities, which is staffing. At present, Poway finds space for its indoor recreation programs in three parks, two joint use facilities and the library. Santee is an even more extreme example, holding classes in over a dozen locations. While this is perhaps an efficient use of available space for the two cities, the tradeoff is increased staff time spent traveling to the various locations to prepare the facilities, monitor activity, and transport items like tables and chairs. A larger facility that combined several recreation spaces could allow more efficient use of staff time.
|
Poway |
Encinitas |
San Marcos |
Santee |
Arcadia |
|
|
Population |
54,035 in 2020 (estimated) |
58,014 (2000) |
73,054 (2005) |
54,700 |
53,054 (2000) |
|
Median Household Income (1999) |
$71,708 | $63,954 | $45,908 | $53,624 | $56,100 |
|
Indoor Recreation Facilities |
3,000 square foot Auditorium, 3,200 square foot Bill Bond Hall and smaller rooms in Senior Center; 900 square foot building at Lake Poway, Templars Hall, two joint-use gymnasiums |
39,000 square foot community and senior center |
30,000 square foot community center and 27,000 square foot gymnasium |
Two buildings with combined capacity of 470 persons. Recreation programs held in over a dozen locations. |
18,000 square foot senior/ community center |
|
Aquatic Facilities |
50 meter x 25 yard pool with diving well and shallow children’s area. Wading pool. |
YMCA operates an aquatic center. |
Two 25 meter pools, 30 foot x 40 foot diving pool, shallow water area, 18 foot diameter wading pool, water slide, sprayground. |
25 meter x 25 yard training pool, activity pool with play structure, water slide, water exercise area. |
County operates Olympic-size swimming pool. Two 25 meter joint use swimming pools at Arcadia High School. |
|
Teen Recreation |
Designated space in Senior Center available for teen club one evening a week. Recreation programs held in auditorium, joint use gyms and library. |
No designated space for teens. Recreation programs include classes, trips, open gym, “open mic” night. |
Nonprofit center for teens and their families. Center provides music and media studios, computer lab, recreation. |
After-school teen center at a City park, operating daily except Sundays. Bus service available to center. |
After-school teen center operated by the City at a high school, Monday through Thursday. |
|
Senior Recreation |
Senior Center has programs on weekdays and Saturday evenings. Programs include lunch, exercise, games, arts and crafts, education, dances, services. |
Designated spaces in community center for seniors: game room, library/ computer room, outreach offices. |
Senior Center accommodating 297 people. Programs include dance, fitness, trips, education, health services, social events. |
Drop-in center Wednesday mornings at Boys & Girls Club. Programs held in various locations. |
On weekdays, community center serves as senior center. |
Figure 7. Comparison of Poway facilities to those of cities with similar populations and settings.
Considering swimming pools, more pool space is offered in San Marcos, Santee and Arcadia than Poway’s 50-meter pool and wading pool, but Poway operates its pools for a longer season than Arcadia. By adding a second, smaller exercise pool to the existing Swim Center, Poway would be in the same range as these cities. Poway could also enhance its aquatic facilities with play equipment in the wading pool area. It may be worth investigating the benefits that Santee enjoys from its partnership with YMCA.
By offering a designated space for teens as well as teen programming, Poway compares favorably to other cities. However, other cities have found ways to offer such spaces on a more regular basis, which provides teens with the security of having a place to go after school every day as well as the opportunity to benefit from the programming there. The Arcadia model provides City staff for programs in school facilities, while the Encinitas model relies on a private nonprofit that receives City support. Santee is putting the most resources into its teen center among all the cities, staffing a City facility 6 days a week; transportation is provided on a fee basis through a partnership with the school district.
In contrast to its programming for teens, Santee has the least developed offerings for older adults, using the Boys & Girls Club once a week as a designated space and providing a small number of classes targeted to that audience. The other comparison cities show different levels of integration between their spaces for seniors and community center spaces. San Marcos operates a separate senior center near the community center, Arcadia operates the entire community center as a senior center during designated hours, and Encinitas has designated senior spaces within its community center. All appear to offer a similar mix of programs for seniors. Poway compares very favorably to these cities by designating a space that is primarily a senior center and secondarily available to the rest of the population, and having a variety of recreation programs for this population including those designed to increase physical activity. However, the Encinitas model provides more opportunities for seniors to interact with people of different ages when they come to the community center. It is possible that this provides more benefits than designating an entire building for use by older adults.
National Park and Recreation Trends
Poway can anticipate the future demand for recreation facilities and programs in part by considering national and regional trends in recreation.
Recreation Management’s 2007 “State of the Industry” Report
The 2007 “State of the Industry” report by Recreation Management published the results of a survey of their readers in the managed recreation industry, including hundreds of parks and recreation departments and publicly-owned community recreation or sports centers. The report described the facilities and programs that these respondents currently offered and planned to offer. While not necessarily representative of all agencies, the survey results give an indication of current trends in public recreation.
Results for Parks and Recreation Departments
Growth:
· Expect increased demand for facilities by 2008 – nearly 75% of departments
· Planning new facilities – 41.5%
· Planning renovations – 57.8%
Current amenities:
· Playgrounds – nearly 90% of departments
· Park structures (e.g. shelters, restrooms and concession buildings)– over 75%
· Trails and open spaces (e.g. gardens and natural areas) – over 75%
· Outdoor sport courts, bleachers and other seating, natural turf sports fields and concession areas – over 50%
· Community and multipurpose centers – over 50%
· Outdoor aquatic facilities – over 50%
· Fitness centers – less than 30%
Planned amenities:
· Top three amenities that departments are planning to add within the next three years: park structures, trails and open spaces, and playgrounds.
· Other top choices: community centers, fitness centers, and indoor sports courts.
Current programming:
· Holiday and other special events – 78.9% of departments
· Team sports for youth – 72.7%
· Team sports for adults – 62.8%
· Arts and crafts – 68.7%
· Active older adults – over 50%
· Fitness and mind/body balance programs (e.g., yoga, tai chi) – over 50%
· Swimming – over 50%
· Sport training – over 50%
· Sport tournaments and races – over 50%
· Teens – over 50%
· Departments were also likely to report that they offer day camps, summer camps, and educational programs.
Top 10 programs that departments are planning to add within the next three years:
1. Environmental education
2. Fitness programs
3. Teen programming
4. Mind/body balance programs
5. Performing arts
6. Educational programs
7. Active older adults
8. Holiday and other special events
9. Day camps and summer camps
10. Trips
Poway’s recreation facilities and programming compare favorably to these trends for parks and recreation departments. Recreation programming offered by the City in the summer and fall of 2007 included all of the categories offered by the majority of such departments, as well as the programming that many departments are planning to add. Poway’s parks also include all the amenities offered by the majority of departments—and many of these amenities are found in Community Park. Like other departments, Poway is planning new facilities (parks). However, many departments are planning community centers, fitness centers, and indoor sports courts. This is an area where Poway risks falling behind.
Connecting Kids to Nature
Nationally, concern is growing about children’s dwindling contact with nature. This concern comes in part from findings in a 2005 book by Richard Louv called Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. The book argues that many of today’s children will miss out on potential health benefits linked to contact with nature, and that as adults they will probably be indifferent to the loss of environmental resources. The U.S. Forest Service has responded with “More Kids in the Woods,” a $500,000 pilot program that provided matching funds to 24 programs in May 2007, including overnight wilderness experiences, outdoor science programs, watershed protection and trail maintenance, and school field trips. Most projects are held on national forest land and target urban and underserved youth.
The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) reported in July 2007 that the Senate and House of Representatives have either held or are planning hearings on this issue. NRPA, which has testified at one such hearing, surveyed its members to find out “how they connect kids to the outdoors,” publishing the results in the July 2007 issue of Parks & Recreation in the article “Advocacy Update: Returning to Nature.” It found that about two thirds of public park and recreation agencies were providing nature programs or facilities, and 61% had “nature-based parks and facilities, such as nature centers, outdoor classrooms or self-guided nature trails.” Other preliminary findings included the following:
· “Of the public park and recreation agencies that provide nature programs, naturalist-led hikes were largest type of nature program (82 percent) and 69 percent of programs were nature arts and crafts activities, 63 percent were fishing related and 63 percent of agencies held nature-based summer camps.
· The most successful nature-based programs by agency measures were nature based education programs in cooperation with local schools, followed by nature-based summer camps.
· More than 74 percent of public park and recreation agencies used public and private partnerships to provide nature activities, and 53 percent had partnerships to manage and operate facilities.”
NRPA’s own response is “Teens Outside,” an eight-week “outdoor skills and activities program designed to get teens involved in outdoor recreation activities, such as mountain biking, kayaking, hiking and rock climbing.” The County of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department is one of 20 agencies participating in the 2007 pilot program, enhancing the Outdoor Adventures Program that the County operates through the Lakeside and Spring Valley Teen Centers. The program introduces “at-risk” youth to San Diego’s parks, recreation and wildlife areas.
Poway is rich in natural areas, but their presence does not mean that the city’s youth are actually experiencing them. Just as Poway has developed the Mobile Recreation Program to ensure that children are exposed to physical activity, it can ensure that children are exposed to nature through targeted outreach programs. There is already some recreation programming of this kind in Poway. For instance, the City has used Lake Poway and Blue Sky for many years to offer day camps for children, short evening nature hikes for all ages, and family campouts. Indoor programs for smaller children encourage connections to nature in a classroom setting. More programming could be developed to target children and teens, perhaps in partnership with Poway’s schools.
Analysis Conclusions
The preceding section presented an overview of Community Park facilities, along with identifying specific shortfalls in the City’s park system and a number of opportunities to accommodate future users. The following provides a summary of the observations gleaned from the review and research.
· All facilities in Community Park appear to be very well used.
· The Community Center is limited in the type and array of services that it can provide, specifically as it relates to seniors, teens, and recreation classes. The center’s small size, lack of modern amenities, and space arrangement contribute to its deficiencies. The City of Poway is behind other cities of similar stature in the provision of indoor community facilities.
· Successful joint-use agreements are in place with local school facilities. Exploring a similar agreement with the Boys and Girls Club could augment the provision of services in Community Park.
· There appears to be a citywide need for additional athletic fields and the presence of lighted sports fields and activity areas are limited in Poway.
· When comparing City facilities to the 1983 NRPA standards, the city appears to fall short in the provision of baseball fields, indoor basketball facilities, football fields, softball fields, picnic shelters, and pool facilities.
· In its General Plan, Poway looked to the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) to assess the community need for park and recreational facilities. However, NRPA no longer supports accepted national standards and, as such, the City of Poway should explore establishing new standards that more specifically meet its park priorities and vision.
· Poway’s 2020 population will include a higher number of seniors, increased ethnic diversity, and potentially more children struggling with obesity. Recreational facilities and programs will need to respond to this changing demographic.
· For the health of older adults, Poway will need to expand programming while continuing to offer a range of activities for people with different physical capabilities and fitness levels, increasing the activity levels of seniors at all ages.
· To meet the needs of multiple ethnic groups, members of different groups should be included in planning recreation facilities and programs, and the City should be willing to accommodate their needs with adjustments such as increasing the size of some picnic areas for use by extended families.
· Poway has a strong foundation for engaging its youth in recreational activity, with after-school activity for teens as an area for future growth.
· The park is surrounded by “built-in” users who can easily walk or bike to the park from their residences. With the potential new residential development in the Town Center project, the nearby users of the park will likely increase, strengthening the need for improved facilities.
· Environmental education, specifically with youth, is a nationwide movement in the park and recreational world. This trend provides many opportunities for Poway as Community Park is improved and enhanced.
Survey Description
A survey was created to understand how Poway residents use the Community Park now and how they would like to use the park in the future. Personal information was collected to determine whether respondents represented a cross-section of the total population or whether some demographics were underrepresented.
The online survey was launched the first week of August and remained available until October 7, 2007. 533 people submitted survey responses and the following section summarizes the survey results. Not everyone responded to each question and some questions required more then one answer. Percentages presented below were derived from total number of answers for each particular question. A complete copy of the survey and all responses are available for review in the Appendix of this report.
Survey Findings
Who Took the Survey
A map of the city (see Figure 8) was used as a guide for individuals to identify where they live in Poway. Only a few respondents indicated that they were not residents of Poway. Residents were distributed throughout the three areas.
· Area 1: 40%
· Area 2: 37%
· Area 3: 29%
63 percent of respondents were female compared to 37 percent male. All races participated in the survey. White Non-Hispanic individuals made up the vast majority of respondents at 88 percent, followed by responses from Hispanics (5 percent), Asians (4 percent), African American/Blacks (0.6 percent) and others (2.55 percent). Some other races identified were Native American/American Indian, Italian American, and Filipino.
The majority of respondents were between the ages of 18 and 54 (78 percent). Individuals in the 55-64 age group and 65 + group also participated. Ten respondents were individuals under 18; however parents were asked questions pertaining to their children. Participants were asked to identify all other park users in the family by age. Families had from zero to 3 children per family with a total of 828 children identified. Families identified 568 adults other than themselves who also use the Community Park.
The majority of respondents indicated their household income was $75,000 and above. 12.5 percent of respondents had household incomes up to $44,999 and the remaining 16 percent of households were in the $44,999-74,999 range.
Existing Park Use
When do respondents and/or their children typically go to the community park? Responses indicate the park is most heavily used on weekday evenings.
· During the workweek: most popular answer from respondents was evening (47%).
· On weekends: most popular use during the afternoons (42%).
· Children use: most popular during the weekday afternoon and weekday evening (39%; 44%).
· Least use: during the weekend evenings (12%).
The Community Park provides a variety of uses for different people; respondents indicated what park functions were most important to them. See Figure 9 for a chart showing the number of responses for each option provided. Among these, the most popular responses were as follows.
· Facilities for sports (53% of respondents)
· Swim and/or recreation classes, community events, and child play (32%-36% of respondents for each)
· Dog play, exercise, and green space (17%-22% of respondents for each)
· Other (10% of respondents)
Ten percent of respondents chose “other” and written explanations varied including football, bocce ball, classes, and library use. The Appendix provides detailed results and a complete list of other uses identified by participants.
Figure 9. Answers to “What are the most important functions that Community Park provides for you and/or your children (choose up to 3)?”
How often do individuals and/or their children use facilities at the park? Respondents report using all facilities in the Community Park; the majority of facilities are used primarily on a “sometimes” basis. See Figure 10 for a chart showing the facilities used by the greatest number of people, who report using them at least sometimes. These facilities include the following:
· Swimming Pool (416 respondents and their children)
· Soccer fields (366 respondents and their children)
· Picnic facilities (323 respondents and their children)
· Dog Park (266 respondents and their children)
Figure 10. Most popular answers to “How often do you and/or your children
use the following facilities at Community Park?”
The soccer field and dog park are used more than other facilities on a daily basis. The baseball fields and playground are used the most on a weekly basis. Note that these responses may include football players using the soccer and baseball fields. Respondents’ children use the fields and courts more frequently than respondents.
Are people visiting the Community Park as often as they would like? Only 31 percent of respondents indicated they used the Community Park as much as they would like to. The majority of respondents indicated they did not. The most common reasons for not using the park were as follows:
· Lack of time (30% of respondents)
· Lack of desired park features/facilities (21% of respondents)
· Crowded facilities (11% of respondents)
· Safety concerns about the park (11% of respondents)
· Other (10% of respondents)
Figure 11. Answers to “Are you visiting Community Park as often as you would like?”
and reasons cited for not visiting the park more often.
In their written comments, participants cited the lack of fields or lighted fields (particularly soccer and football), need for park maintenance, and safety concerns among other reasons for not going more often.
Future Park Use
Respondents were asked for the top 5 new or improved facilities or amenities they would like to see at the Community Park in the next ten years. Overall, there is a desire for all facilities/amenities to be improved or added, but the following list identifies particular interests.
· Improved sports fields (50% of respondents)
· More trees (43% of respondents)
· Enhanced creek areas (34% of respondents)
· Outdoor exercise/fitness course (32% of respondents)
· More/improved picnic areas, convenient access to food, more open lawn areas, playgrounds (20% to 23% of respondents for each)
Figure 12. Most popular answers to “What new or improved facilities or amenities would you like to see in Community Park in the next 10 years? Please identify your top 5 choices.”
An outcry for lighting and space for league football use was expressed through the written comments. Community garden plots, lacrosse fields, and restrooms were additional suggestions from participants.
How would respondents and/or their families use Community Park 10 years from now? Only 25% of respondents expected to use the park the same way in 10 years. Respondents expected to use the following facilities the most in 10 years:
· Facilities for sports (44% of respondents)
· Community events, exercise, swim and/or recreational classes (23%-25% of respondents for each)
· Green space and child play (18%-22% of respondents for each)
· Dog play (15% of respondents)
· Picnicking (11% of respondents)
Respondents again stated a need for football and soccer when describing other 10 year uses.
If it were convenient, respondents would walk to and from the Community Park and the following:
· Home (60% of respondents)
· Dining (63% of respondents)
· Shopping (42% of respondents)
· Arts/culture (35% of respondents)
· Personal services (15% of respondents)
· Work (11% of respondents)
The survey asked how participants get to the park. Currently, approximately 82 percent of respondents drive to Community Park, followed by a small 14 percent who walk. It takes the majority of respondents from five to 15 minutes to arrive at the park by their chosen mode of transportation, and 79 percent are only 10 minutes away from the park.
Other Comments
The last question on the survey asked for additional comments or thoughts from survey respondents, many of which focused on the Town Center. There were mixed reviews about adding shops, dining, residential, cultural, and civic activities to create a “Town Center” as noted in the individual comments added by respondents. Concerns stemmed from the fear of commercializing the rural nature of the city and increased traffic in the area, while other people felt that such a project is not needed, and others looked forward to a Town Center.
The largest volume of comments had to do with sports fields: participants asked for new fields, more field maintenance, and lighted fields. Many referred specifically to soccer but most wrote generally about sports fields. Users of the dog park and bocce ball courts also spoke up, asking that these facilities not be displaced. A few wanted more tennis and basketball courts. Participants asked for creek improvements, more shade and trees, and more green space. A few comments suggested upgrades and expansions of indoor facilities. Some people mentioned a need for restrooms in new locations. Some participants expressed safety concerns and suggested more lighting on the walkways to the dog park, a security presence in the park, and supervision of the skate park. Some comments suggested better connections to trails and handicapped parking closer to the senior center.
Survey Conclusions
The survey was able to extract some key desires and concerns of the community. While the breakdown of who took the survey does not precisely mirror the gender breakdown and ethnic diversity within the City, valuable information was gathered that can be used in conjunction with research and workshop results in planning the future of Community Park.
· Overall, the majority of the respondents seem to support Community Park improvements and would like to see resources dedicated towards improvements to existing facilities and amenities, including improvements to existing fields, riparian habitat, trees, trails, playground, and other out-door and in-door facilities.
· Providing additional features and amenities may encourage more use of Community Park. In addition to athletic fields, respondents cited a desire for increased trees, improvements to the creek, the addition of a fitness course, and enhanced safety.
· A variety of park facilities and functions serve all community needs but it is also important to recognize that some facilities receive more daily wear and tear than others. As indicated in the survey, fields, playgrounds, and the dog park experience a high daily and/or weekly use. This connects to the repeated requests for additional and upgraded year-round lighted fields throughout the survey – specifically for soccer fields and an individual or designated field for football.
· Concerns exist regarding Town Center. However, 60 percent of respondents indicated they would walk to dining, shopping, and/or art/cultural amenities if it were convenient. Survey respondents who have concerns may accept the Town Center if it preserves and enhances community character, provides for small businesses, has a pedestrian friendly environment and increases arts/culture activities—without sacrificing green space and existing park facilities.
Workshop Description
Two community workshops focused on Community Park were held on Thursday, September 27th, one from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. and the other from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. More than 60 people participated in the workshops and represented a wide array of interests, with the majority of participants identifying the following as their priority:
· Bocce ball courts
· Dog park
· Open space
· Sports fields
· Trees
Workshop participants participated in five different small group dialogues, each focused on a different topic related to the park. Each group spent 10-15 minutes discussing a topic before moving on to the next one where they were able to freely talk about the new topic, while also seeing the highlights of the discussion that took place in other groups. In their final group, participants assisted the facilitator in summarizing the key themes that emerged throughout each of the five rounds of dialogue.
Workshop Findings
This section summarizes the key themes that emerged from the group discussions during the two community workshops. Detailed comments from each individual group, along with remarks submitted via comment cards are included in the Appendix.
Open Lawn, Trees, Picnicking and Play
Provide additional trees and shade. Especially at playgrounds, sports fields, picnic areas and perimeter of park. Participants identified a preference for shade created by low maintenance trees, such as evergreens.
Provide passive open space. Participants stressed the importance of passive open space, identifying a desire to protect existing passive areas by not building on them and providing open areas for kids to play. A key point of disagreement amongst the groups was about whether or not to expand the park to increase the amount of open space.
Provide additional picnic areas and seating. The groups agreed that more benches at playgrounds and around sports fields were needed. They also frequently cited a desire for additional picnic areas with shade and barbeques.
Provide new park amenities. A number of new park amenities were identified by the groups, including the addition of dog-friendly features, a sprayground or water feature for the youth, and a community garden. Restrooms and trash cans near bocce ball courts were also stressed.
Increase park maintenance. A key theme also emerged regarding park maintenance. Specifically, groups noted that unsightly features should be removed, Rattlesnake Creek should be cleaned up and trash cans should be better located in the park.
Sports & Athletics
Focus on multi-purpose fields. Groups agreed that there should be a focus on providing multi-purpose fields, possibly by reconfiguring the baseball fields or even expanding the park. Courts and fields for open play were also identified as a need. The group liked the idea of having more lighted multi-purpose fields for all sport groups to share, but also noted that with more field capacity comes a need for more efficient parking.
Improve and address existing facilities. Participants highlighted a need to improve existing facilities and retain the bocce courts and baseball fields. Many cited the elimination of the shuffle board court as a possibility.
Add a fitness course. Participants identified a need for a “traffic-free fitness loop” or fitness trail through the park. It was noted that school and walking groups would also utilize such a facility.
Explore alternate field surface. Groups agreed that alternative surface materials (e.g. synthetic grass) for new and improved fields should be explored.
Creek Enhancement & Trails
Restore creek to natural state. Nearly all participants agreed that the trail should be restored to its natural state, encouraging wildlife, introducing native plants, and removing the concrete riverbed. A different opinion that also surfaced was that the existing creeks should be cleaned and the funds used for other areas, rather than restoration.
Create paths with a woodsy, natural character. Groups liked the idea of creating natural paths and trails with a “secluded” feeling and increasing the “wooded” areas for both creek and trail areas.
Add creek trail amenities. Lights, more trees, benches, and signage were identified as needs along the trails.
Ensure creek maintenance. Maintenance of creek was noted as being extremely important (trash, mosquitoes), including the addition of garbage cans. Groups noted that service clubs should be incorporated into a maintenance program.
Focus on trail connections. Groups suggested that trails should connect to the overall system, even if this means adding more trails. They discussed a need for enhancing and increasing trails, including widening for multi-use paths.
Indoor Facilities
Modernize facilities. Groups identified the modernization of the park’s dated facilities as a priority. Specifically, at the swim center, they noted improved lockers and showers, a larger women’s area, and family areas. For the other facilities, a priority on soundproofing, adding divisible spaces, natural lighting, and larger meetings spaces were identified.
Develop a multi-use facility. Groups also identified the potential for creating a new multi-use auditorium with classrooms, a fitness area and a 30,000 to 50,000 square foot Banquet Hall. They discussed a new facility relocated closer to Poway Road to increase visibility and improve access, while providing more green space in the park itself. Relocating the senior center versus keeping it where it is now was a point of disagreement.
Provide for senior and teens. Whether a new facility or modernized facility, teens and seniors were identified as a priority. Groups noted that teen and senior areas should be a focus – having a true teen center and making all facilities senior “friendly”.
Explore a joint-use facility. Groups recommended the use of the school (joint use) to augment the facilities available for use.
Provide additional restrooms. Consistent with discussions on other topics, more restrooms were identified as a need, specifically more restrooms near playgrounds & in park.
Safety & Security
Provide additional lighting. Lighting was a need identified throughout all discussion groups, but specifically improved lighting for baseball, decorative, unobtrusive lighting on paths, and better lighting at the south side of park and dog park area.
Increase security presence. Skateboarders were discussed from both a personal safety perspective and risk/liability to City and a larger security presence was requested in the skate park. Groups also identified a need for increased supervision in park by City staff, not just law enforcement, as well as the addition of more surveillance cameras and signage. Some felt homeless were an issue in the park, while others did not see as an issue at all.
Improve safety of bicycle, pedestrian, and auto circulation. Participants felt that protected, dedicated traffic ways for different users (pedestrians, skaters, people on bikes, vehicles/traffic ways, parking, etc.) should be a priority.
Workshop Conclusions
The two community workshops helped to elaborate on some of the survey findings and delve further into what is most important to residents regarding Community Park. Here is a look again at the key themes emerging from the community dialogues:
· Provide additional trees and shade, along with passive open space for picnicking and seating.
· Provide new park amenities, such as a water feature and pet-friendly details throughout the park, as well as new restrooms and lighting.
· Focus on multi-purpose fields, including the improvement of existing fields and courts, as well as possibly providing room for additional fields. Explore alternative field surfaces for the facilities.
· Increase overall park maintenance and ensure creek maintenance.
· Restore creek to natural state and create paths with a woodsy, natural character while adding creek trail amenities. Also focus on trail connections and explore the possibility of adding a fitness course through the park.
· Develop a new multi-use facility and/or modernize existing facilities to better provide for seniors and teens and recreational classes/events. Explore the possibility of a joint-use facility to accommodate the need.
Increase security presence in the park and improve the safety of bicycle, pedestrian, and auto circulation throughout the park.
This section presents a summary of key Community Park recommendations based on the park system analysis, community survey, and community workshop results. Recommendations consider specific shortfalls in the City’s park system and present areas of opportunities to accommodate existing and future users.
1.
Respond to a Changing Population
· Future recreational facilities and programs should consider the future’s growing populations: seniors, overweight and obese children, and ethnic diversity.
· For the health of older adults, Poway will need to expand programming while continuing to offer a range of activities for people with different physical capabilities and fitness levels, increasing the activity levels of seniors at all ages.
· To meet the needs of multiple ethnic groups, members of different groups should be included in planning recreation facilities and programs, and the City should be willing to accommodate their needs with adjustments such as increasing the size of some picnic areas for use by extended families.
· Continue to engage youth in recreational activity, and explore the growth of additional opportunities with after-school activity for youth.
· Explore grant opportunities specifically dedicated towards funding childhood obesity-related projects and programs.
· The City should consider the existing “built-in” park users who can easily walk or bike to the park from their residences and plan for increased use from new residential development in the Town Center project when planning for future improvements.
2.
Improve and Enhance the Creek
· Restore the creek back to its natural state and create paths with a woodsy, natural character while also adding creek trail amenities.
· Collaborate with neighboring educational institutions and/or local environmental non-profit organizations to restore the creek, reducing costs through the use of volunteers.
3.
Increase Availability and Quality of Indoor Community Space
· Provide for new, expanded, and enhanced recreational and social opportunities through the provision of more indoor community space (classrooms, banquet facilities, auditorium, weight room, gym, teen center, improved senior center, etc.).
· Explore a joint-use agreement with the Boys & Girls Club.
· Explore, jointly with the School District, the use of artificial turf on Valley Elementary field in order to extend the number of days it can be used.
· Explore the feasibility of a new multi-use facility and/or significantly redeveloping the existing indoor facilities based on new recreation standards for the city (see final recommendation).
4.
”Go Green”
· Incorporate opportunities for environmental education, specifically with youth, into park improvements, programs and maintenance activity.
· Explore the long-term cost benefit of installing solar lighting systems (i.e. street lights, lawn lights, field lighting, pool heating).
· Explore the feasibility of using alternative field surfaces for facilities.
5.
Improve and Augment Open Space and Athletic Fields
· Increase passive open space areas for picnicking and seating in the park if expansion of the park to the north is possible. If park expansion is not feasible, optimize passive recreation space without sacrificing the quality of the area.
· Prioritize improvements to highly used facilities which would benefit the greatest amount of users, such as year-round lighted fields and/or activity areas (i.e. soccer fields and football area).
· Pursue opportunities to acquire steady funding for athletic field maintenance and field/area lighting.
· If the Community Park cannot fully accommodate the future recreational needs of the community, explore offsite opportunities where programs and/or facilities could be relocated; this may include the ability to light and utilize other sports fields.
· Focus on multi-purpose fields (sharing), including the improvement of existing fields and courts to foster multiple uses.
6.
Provide Additional Park Amenities
· Explore the feasibility of adding additional restrooms in the park.
· Provide additional trees and shade structures within the park and increase the number and quality of picnic areas.
· Explore the feasibility of providing new park amenities, such as a water feature and pet-friendly details (e.g. water, waste bags) throughout the park.
7.
Promote Increased Physical Activity
· Focus on creating connections to regional and city trails.
· Explore the possibility of adding a fitness course through the park.
8.
Focus on Park Maintenance and Safety
· Facilities that receive more daily wear and tear than others (i.e. fields, the playground, and dog park) may warrant increased maintenance and attention.
· Enhance personal safety by improving the relationship between bike, pedestrian, and auto circulation throughout the park (increased signage, redesign of circulation systems, relocation of parking areas, etc).
· Increase lighting throughout park, concentrating on walkways, paths, and area near dog park.
9.
Update Park Policy and Standards
· Establish city-wide park and recreation standards in the General Plan that specifically meet Poway’s park priorities and vision (reflecting the revision of NRPA standards). These standards may rely in part on measuring current levels of demand for parks and other facilities.
INTRODUCTION
1
Figure 1. Poway Community Park.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE COMMUNITY PARK FACILITIES
2
2.1
Swim Center
Tennis Courts
Dog Park
Upper Playground
Foot Bridge
Community Center
Senior Center Dining Room
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.2
COMMUNITY PARK SURVEY
3
3.1
3.2
Figure 8. Survey Areas.
3.3
COMMUNITY PARK WORKSHOP
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
5
Poway Community Park Study
Page 1