Oceanside Parks Master Plan by KTUA

CITY OF OCEANSIDE

Parks

Recreation Master Plan Final Report 2019

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City Council

KTUA

Peter Weiss, Mayor Jack Feller, Deputy Mayor Esther Sanchez, Councilmember Christopher Rodriguez, Councilmember Ryan Keim, Councilmember

Michael Singleton, Principal Tara Lake, Senior Associate, Project Manager Jacob Leon, Associate Juan Alberto Bonilla, Senior Planner Silvia Fang, GIS Analyst

City Staff Michelle Skaggs Lawrence, City Manager Deanna Lorson, Assistant City Manager Margery Pierce, Neighborhood Services Director Jonathan Borrego, AICP, Development Services Director Hans K. Koger, Public Works Director Mark Olson, Parks and Recreation Division Manager Nathan Mertz, Public Works Division Manager Russ Cunningham, Principal Planner Megan Crooks, Senior Management Analyst Joel Mennard, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Javier Bermudez, Management Analyst Shannon Vitale, Planner II Planning Commission Kyle Krahel, Chair Robyn Goodkind, Vice-Chair Curtis Busk, Commissioner Louise Balma, Commissioner Tom Rosales, Commissioner Tom Morrissey, Commissioner Susan Custer, Commissioner Parks and Recreation Commission Thomas Frankum, Chair Dennis Sisneros, Vice-Chair Richard Blankinship, Commissioner Marc Herman, Commissioner William Loftus, Commissioner Amanda Mascia, Commissioner Genevieve Wunder, Commissioner Kelyn Hsu, Commissioner Diane Strader, Commissioner Jenae M. Alms, Alternate Terri Sottile, Alternate Community Partners Friends of Oceanside Parks and Recreation Save Our Streets (SOS) Friends of El Corazon

Cover photo by Matt Howard

GreenPlay Art Thatcher, Principal RRC Michael Simone, Senior Associate

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction....................................................................................................................................II Key Issues and Themes.............................................................................................................II Recommendations.....................................................................................................................III Overview of the Document....................................................................................................IV

THE MASTER PLAN

1 2 3 4 5

PLANNING CONTEXT

1.1 Intended Uses of the Plan................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Parks and Recreation Division Overview.................................................................... 6 1.3 Previous Planning History for Parks and Recreation................................................7 1.4 Policies, Guidelines, and Recommendations from other Studies.........................7 1.5 Park and Recreation Population Standards................................................................ 8 1.6 Demographic Profile.......................................................................................................... 8 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Existing City Parks and Recreation Facilities.............................................................14 2.2 Park Classifications..........................................................................................................14 2.3 Descriptions of Existing Parks.......................................................................................18 2.4 Geographic Distribution Analysis...............................................................................25 FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.1 Future Parks and Open Space......................................................................................30 3.2 Future Conditions GDA..................................................................................................34 3.3 Future Conditions Population Based Standards (PBS)........................................34 3.4 Future Opportunities.......................................................................................................35 3.5 Potential Opportunities per Park.................................................................................43 COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS

4.1 Key Trends.......................................................................................................................... 96 4.2 Community and Stakeholder Input...........................................................................100 4.3 Program Analysis........................................................................................................... 108 4.4 Summary of Key Findings............................................................................................ 108 RECOMMENDATIONS

109

5.1 General Recommendations.......................................................................................... 110 5.2 Detailed Recommendations.........................................................................................114 5.3 Design and Maintenance Standards....................................................................... 129

TABLE OF CONTENTS

III

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: 2016 Oceanside General Demographic Profile............................................ 8 Figure 1-2: Oceanside Population Growth Trend............................................................. 9 Figure 1-3: Population Age Distribution: 2010 to 2050.................................................10 Figure 1-4: Projected Oceanside Racial and Ethnic Character 2012 to 2050......... 11 Figure 1-5: Racial/Ethnic Character – 2016 City and State Populations.................... 11 Figure 2-1: Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities........................................................15 Figure 2-2: Neighborhood Parksheds.............................................................................. 26 Figure 2-3: Community Parksheds......................................................................................27 Figure 2-4: All Facility Parksheds........................................................................................28 Figure 3-1: Vacant Land in the City of Oceanside...........................................................31 Figure 3-2: Smart Growth Opportunity Areas in the City of Oceanside.................33 Figure 3-3: Projected Neighborhood Park Parkshed.................................................... 37 Figure 3-4: Projected Combined Parkshed......................................................................38 Figure 3-5: Potential New Neighborhood Park Locations...........................................40 Figure 3-6: Council Districts..................................................................................................42 Figure 3-7: Buddy Todd Park Infill/Expansion Potential................................................45 Figure 3-8: Capistrano Park Infill/Expansion Potential.................................................. 47 Figure 3-9: Joseph Balderrama Park Infill/Expansion Potential.................................49 Figure 3-10: Marlado Highlands Park Infill/Expansion Potential..................................51 Figure 3-11: Ron Ortega Park Infill/Expansion Potential................................................53 Figure 3-12: Tyson Street Park Infill/Expansion Potential.............................................55 Figure 3-13: Women’s Club Park Infill/Expansion Potential..........................................57 Figure 3-14: Fireside Park Infill/Expansion Potential..................................................... 59 Figure 3-15: Libby Lake Park Infill/Expansion Potential..................................................61 Figure 3-16: Luiseño Park Infill/Expansion Potential......................................................63 Figure 3-17: Melba Bishop Park Infill/Expansion Potential.......................................... 65 Figure 3-18: Spring Creek Park Infill/Expansion Potential............................................67 Figure 3-19: Buccaneer Park Infill/Expansion Potential................................................ 69 Figure 3-20: Joseph Carrasco Park Infill/Expansion Potential.................................... 71 Figure 3-21: John Landes Park Infill/Expansion Potential............................................. 73 Figure 3-22: Joseph Sepulveda Park Infill/Expansion Potential................................75 Figure 3-23: Lake Park Infill/Expansion Potential........................................................... 77 Figure 3-24: Lions Club Park Infill/Expansion Potential................................................79 Figure 3-25: Oak Riparian Park Infill/Expansion Potential............................................81 Figure 3-26: Palisades Park Infill/Expansion Potential..................................................83

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.) Figure 3-27: South Oceanside School Park Infill/Expansion Potential....................85 Figure 3-28: Alamosa Park Infill/Infill/Expansion Potential...........................................87 Figure 3-29: Mance Buchanon Park Infill/Expansion Potential..................................89 Figure 3-30: Martin Luther King Jr. Park Infill/Expansion Potential.............................91 Figure 3-31: Rancho del Oro Park Infill/Expansion Potential.......................................93 Figure 4-1: City of Oceanside Outdoor Activity Participation..................................... 96 Figure 4-2: City of Oceanside Team Sport Participation..............................................97 Figure 4-3: City of Oceanside Recreational Expenditures..........................................98 Figure 4-4: State of California Outdoor Recreation Economy................................... 99 Figure 4-5: City of Oceanside Generational Breakdown........................................... 99 Figure 4-6: Current Usage – Random Invitation Survey............................................102 Figure 4-7: Importance of City Operated Facilities – Invitation Survey............. 103 Figure 4-8: Importance-Performance Matrix – Invitation Survey............................. 103 Figure 4-9: Top Three Future Facility Priorities – Invitation Survey........................ 104 Figure 4-10: Top Three Future Program Priorities – Invitation Survey...................105 Figure 4-11: Barriers to Participation – Invitation Survey vs. Intercept Survey.....105 Figure 4-12: Current Usage – Intercept Survey............................................................106 Figure 4-13: Top Three Future Facility Priorities – Intercept Survey...................... 107 Figure 5-1: Geographic Gaps in Park Facilities............................................................... 115 Figure 5-2: Area A................................................................................................................... 116 Figure 5-3: Potential Sites A1 and A2.................................................................................117 Figure 5-4: Area B................................................................................................................... 118 Figure 5-5: Potential Sites B1, B2, and B3........................................................................ 119 Figure 5-6: Potential Sites B4 and B5..............................................................................120 Figure 5-7: Potential Sites B6 and B7................................................................................ 121 Figure 5-8: Area C.................................................................................................................. 122 Figure 5-9: Potential Site C1................................................................................................ 123 Figure 5-10: Potential Trail Corridors to be Considered............................................. 125 Figure 5-11: Parkshed Gaps................................................................................................. 127 Figure 5-12: Parkshed Gaps Assuming Future MOUs with All Schools................ 128

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Inventory of Park and Recreation Assets.......................................................16 Table 2-2: Level of Service for Current Population......................................................... 17 Table 3-1: Oceanside Future Project Population.............................................................30 Table 3-2: Future Geographic Park Distribution and Population Served.........34 Table 3-3: Level of Service for 2035 Population............................................................36 Table 3-4: Potential Infill/Expansion Facilities for Existing Parks Summary.............41 Table 3-5: Buddy Todd Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis....................................44 Table 3-6: Capistrano Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis......................................46 Table 3-7: Joseph Balderrama Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.....................48 Table 3-8: Marlado Highlands Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis..................... 50 Table 3-9: Ron Ortega Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.....................................52 Table 3-10: Tyson Street Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.................................54 Table 3-11: Women’s Club Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.............................. 56 Table 3-12: Fireside Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis..........................................58 Table 3-13: Libby Lake Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.................................... 60 Table 3-14: Luiseño Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.......................................... 62 Table 3-15: Melba Bishop Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis...............................64 Table 3-16: Spring Creek Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis............................... 66 Table 3-17: Buccaneer Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.....................................68 Table 3-18: Joseph Carrasco Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.........................70 Table 3-19: John Landes Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.................................72 Table 3-20: Joseph Sepulveda Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.................... 74 Table 3-21: Lake Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.................................................76 Table 3-22: Lions Club Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis....................................78 Table 3-23: Oak Riparian Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis............................... 80 Table 3-24: Palisades Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis......................................82 Table 3-25: South Oceanside School Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis........84 Table 3-26: Alamosa Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis........................................86 Table 3-27: Mance Buchanon Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis.......................88 Table 3-28: Martin Luther King Jr. Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis............... 90 Table 3-29: Rancho del Oro Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis......................... 92 Table 4-1: Water Sport Average Annual Growth............................................................ 96 Table 4-2: Team Sport National Average Annual Growth............................................97 Table 4-3: Nationwide Fitness Activity Trends.................................................................98

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

KEY ISSUES AND THEMES

This Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) provides a guide for the orderly development of future park, recreation, and open space facilities and programs in order to meet the community’s current and future needs. This Master Plan represents the latest update in a series of revisions that the City of Oceanside began in 1974. This plan is intended to provide a realistic view of the City’s parks and recreation system. The purpose of this plan is to develop a vision for the parks and recreation system through 2030. The plan should allow guidance for the prioritization of necessary actions needed to meet Oceanside’s unique needs including demographic changes, future trends, and aging facilities and parks.

Issues regarding parks, recreation facilities, and programs were identified using various tools, including a review of existing plans and documents, random invitation community surveys, intercept surveys, pop up events, stakeholder meetings, inventory of existing facilities, geographic distribution analysis, and community workshops and presentations.

In order to accomplish these goals, the Master Plan update includes: A recreation needs assessment Program recommendations Park and facility improvement recommendations A trail development plan A prioritized plan and schedule for implementation Recommendations for funding The Master Plan supports the implementation of the General Plan as it relates to parks, recreation facilities and recreation service programs. This plan supports the general plan by providing an in-depth analysis of existing park geographic distribution and trends, while at the same time identifying future park needs. As a result, the Master Plan can assist in the development of initiatives to enhance the existing parks and recreation system while fulfilling the needs of the community today and in the future.

A summary of the information gathered from these sources can be found in Chapter 5. This information was gathered and analyzed, and recommendations were developed to address the following key issues: Build park and recreation facilities in areas that lack these facilities Improve ADA accessibility of existing parks and facilities Improve and utilize joint use agreements with schools Improve after school programs Continue supporting sporting events Address aging infrastructure Add restrooms to parks that need them Change grass to artificial turf Add lighting to paths, trails, parks, courts, and fields Address homeless issues Prioritize pools, dog facilities, trails, pickleball courts, skate spots, and outdoor exercise areas in park development projects

RECOMMENDATIONS

Design and Maintenance Standards

After analyzing the findings obtained from the aforementioned process, which included community and stakeholder input, inventory of existing facilities, geographic distribution analysis, and the analysis of future recreation trends, a series of recommendations were developed to provide guidance for the improvement of Oceanside’s parks, recreation facilities, and programs. The following summary provides an overview of the recommendations. Detailed recommendations can be found in Chapter 5.

»» Prioritize accessibility for every park

Recommendations Summary

»» Evaluate and maintain the natural resources of the entire parks system

General Recommendations »» Improve connectivity to parks »» Improve and/or renovate existing parks and facilities »» Preserve open space »» Create additional trails through open space »» Augment programs »» Enhance division programming efficiencies »» Expand financial opportunities

»» Prioritize Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for every design project that is undertaken »» Prioritize new amenities without adversely affecting the unique park experiences already found within the park system »» Improve the general park aesthetics »» Improve the general sustainability and cost efficiency of parks and facilities

»» Establish park maintenance standards »» Perform quality assurance reviews of each park periodically »» Evaluate and incorporate the use of technology and software systems to improve communications, scheduling, reservations, rentals, registration, etc. »» Use After-Action Reports to provide relevant details about incidents that occur at each park

»» Construct new park facilities

»» Develop protocols to protect sensitive areas with the help of environmental resources staff

Detailed Recommendations

Funding of New Facilities

»» Fill in geographic gaps in park facilities »» Develop new trails in potential areas, such as open spaces, creeks, and existing trails. »» Opportunity areas – priorities »» Improve connectivity to parks

Action Plan and Prioritization

OVERVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT The Master Plan is organized by the following chapters: 1. Planning Context – Explains the context of the City of Oceanside to California and the U.S., describes the functions of the Parks and Recreation Division, and provides an overview of past and existing planning documents relevant to the Master Plan. 2. Existing Conditions – Provides an analysis and inventory of Oceanside’s existing park and recreation facilities, a description of each park classification, as well as a geographic distribution analysis of existing facilities and population based standards analysis. 3. Future Conditions – Examines the future projected demographics, vacant land, potential growth areas, and future geographic distribution analysis. Additionally, future opportunities are identified, including potential new park locations and expansion/infill areas within existing parks. 4. Community Priorities and Needs – Analyzes recreation trends and summarizes the information gathered through community workshops, stakeholder meetings, intercept surveys, and invitation surveys. 5. Recommendations – Provides recommendations, goals, and standards meant to enhance the geographic distribution and quality of existing facilities and programs, improve programing and service delivery, and increase financial opportunities.

CHAPTER 1

PLANNING CONTEXT

1.1 INTENDED USES OF THE PLAN This Master Plan represents the latest update in a series of Master Plans updates that the City of Oceanside began in 1974. The Master Plan will provide an assessment of Oceanside’s parks and recreation system, taking into account future growth in the community. The previous Master Plan was completed in 1996, and the population has grown approximately 24 percent since it was developed. The Master Plan is intended to provide a realistic view of the City’s parks and recreation system and develop a vision for the system through 2030. Oceanside’s parks and recreation facilities consist of five recreation centers, two senior centers, 15 community parks, 17 neighborhood parks, one regional park, five skate parks, two pools, and two gymnasiums. Other facilities include 3.5 miles of beach, miles of trails, acres of open space, a small craft harbor, a fishing pier, two community theaters, an art museum, a surf museum, a nature center, and two municipal golf courses.

1.2 PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OVERVIEW The City of Oceanside is the third largest city in San Diego County in terms of population, with approximately 176,000 residents. The city lies about 38 miles north of San Diego and is surrounded by a rich natural landscape that includes inland hills and bluffs overlooking the Pacific Ocean. It also consists of beaches, natural creeks, rivers, areas with natural habitats, as well as a small craft harbor and marina. Oceanside is also home to Mission San Luis Rey, one of the 21 original missions founded by the Spanish in California and has become an attractor for both visitors and residents. Oceanside is surrounded by the Cities of Carlsbad and Vista to the south and east respectively, by Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base to the north, as well as unincorporated areas of San Diego County to the east. The Parks and Recreation Division is part of the Neighborhood Services Department with a mission to “...enhance the quality of life of Oceanside residents, through people, parks and programs.” This division provides parks and recreation services, activities and programs, and community wide special events. These services are offered through five core areas that include aquatics, recreation classes and youth services, senior services, special events, and sport and athletics. The Public Works Department oversees and maintains the facilities, while the Engineering Division oversees the Parks Capital Improvements (CIP) and budget.

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1.3 PREVIOUS PLANNING HISTORY FOR PARKS AND RECREATION

1.4 POLICIES, GUIDELINES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER STUDIES

In order to ensure that the changing demographics and demands of the community are met, it is critical to note the importance of continued update and coordination of all planning efforts. Over the past 31 years, Oceanside has adopted two guiding documents that include principles and recommendations for the provision of parks and recreation, and this Master Plan represents the latest update. This Master Plan builds upon the previously adopted plan and will serve as a guiding document for providing parks and recreation facilities within Oceanside.

The following plans were reviewed for relevance to this master planning effort and to ensure that all planning efforts are aligned and integrated.

1.3.1 1996 City of Oceanside Master Plan of Parks and Recreation This plan was an update to the previous Parks and Recreation Master Plan that was developed in 1987. This update was undertaken to incorporate new planning opportunities and to obtain current community input that would allow the City to meet the existing and projected needs of the community. The recommendations found in this plan were intended to satisfy current and future needs, based on an analysis of the existing inventory, the demand of recreation needs, community input, and consideration of established goals and standards. From the previous plan, topics covered pertaining to parks and recreation included: Recreation Programming Park system master planning Park acquisitions Park site development Park renovation Joint use opportunities Park operations and maintenance Park economics and financing

1.4.1 City of Oceanside General Plan The Oceanside General Plan is the primary city-wide comprehensive plan that guides future growth. The General Plan contains goals and objectives that are meant to guide decisions and preserve the quality of life within the City of Oceanside. The Land Use, Community Facilities, Environmental Resource Management, and Circulation Elements contain objectives and policies regarding existing recreational facilities, bikeways and trails, and suggest methods for increasing open space, and broadening the range of services.

1.4.2 City of Oceanside Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance, which was revised in 2015, contains detailed guidelines consistent with the goals of the General Plan and serves as its implementation tool. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is an implementation tool of both the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

1.4.3 El Corazon Specific Plan El Corazon is a city-owned 465-acre property located in the center of Oceanside. In 2009, El Corazon Specific Plan was adopted to guide and implement the vision for El Corazon Specific Plan Area as established by the El Corazon Master Planning process in 2003. It was during this planning process where citizens were encouraged to participate in developing the visioning concept and a common goal for El Corazon property. This plan is meant to implement the land use decisions created through the public outreach and master planning efforts and defines all development regulations and guidelines for the El Corazon property. Park development on the El Corazon property that is accessible to the public should be credited toward park acreage calculations and facility deficiencies found in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

CHAPTER 1: PLANNING CONTEXT

1.5 PARK AND RECREATION POPULATION STANDARDS In order to determine the Oceanside’s parks and recreation needs, the National Recreation and Park Association Guidelines for suggested quantities of park land and park facilities were used as reference. These standards were verified and justified by conducting random phone calls, which allowed determination of community interest and participation rates. The standards suggested in the previous master plan include: Use the standard of providing a minimum of five acres of public park land per 1,000 residents as a planning goal. Apply 40 percent of public schoolground acreage credit toward the acreage goal of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Apply 40 percent acreage credit for Guajome Regional Park developed areas. Give no local acreage credit for private facilities. Give no local acreage credit to open space areas not usable in terms of recreation activity.

1.6 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Gaining a clear understanding of the existing and projected demographic character of the city is an important component of the planning process for the Oceanside Parks and Recreation Master Plan. By analyzing population data, trends emerge that can inform decision making and resource allocation strategies for the provision of public parks, recreation amenities, and open spaces. For example, if the demand for soccer fields was steadily on the rise and existing public recreation facilities for soccer were barely meeting existing user demand, then the City may want to consider targeting investments to meet the increasing needs of this growing segment of the population. Key areas were analyzed to identify current demographic statistics and trends that can impact the planning and provision of public parks and recreation services in Oceanside. Community characteristics analyzed and discussed consist of: Existing and projected total population Age distribution Racial and ethnic character Household information Household income

Figure 1-1: 2016 Oceanside General Demographic Profile

175,948 Population

36.8

Median Age

61,480 Housing Units

Source: SANDAG 2016 Current Estimate, 2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimate

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

$58,949 Median Income

This demographic profile was completed using the most current data available (as of August 2018) the U.S. Census Bureau data and U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. A summary of demographic highlights is noted in Figure 1-1, followed by a more detailed demographic analysis. Key general 2016 demographic comparisons with other city, state, and national statistics include: The estimated median age of Oceanside residents is 36.8 years, higher than the median age for California (35.8) but lower than that of the United States (38). The median household income for Oceanside in 2016 is estimated to be $58,949. This is lower

than the median household income of $63,783 in California, but higher than the national median household income of $55,322. Oceanside’s estimated population was almost evenly split between male (49.7 percent) and female (50.3 percent) residents. The populations of California and the United States are also roughly evenly divided between the sexes.

1.6.1 Oceanside Population Growth Trend SANDAG projects that from 2012 to 2050, the city’s population will grow by 12 percent. The projected growth of Oceanside’s population is represented in Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2: Oceanside Population Growth Trend 195,000 190,000

185,859

Population

185,000

170,000

189,377

2040

2050

177,840

180,000 175,000

189,322

169,319

165,000 160,000 155,000 2012

2020

2030*

*Ten-year planning horizon Source: SANDAG Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast

CHAPTER 1: PLANNING CONTEXT

1.6.2 Population Age Distribution The existing and projected population of different age groups within the City from 2012 to 2050 is illustrated in Figure 1-3. Key age-based demographics include: The city’s 2012 population was estimated to be relatively young. Nearly 56 percent of residents were 39 years old or younger, and 31 percent were 60 years old or over, with the remaining 13% between 40 and 59. Between 2012 and 2050, the most significant changes to age cohorts are anticipated to be significant increases in the populations of the youngest and oldest residents. During this time, SANDAG projects the following:

However, this population is expected to decline to 29.5 percent by 2050. While the majority of the population will remain Caucasian through 2020, Oceanside is expected to become more racially and ethnically diverse. Hispanics will become the majority by 2030, and by 2050 about 52.7 percent of the population will be of Hispanic origin. While the population of some racial and ethnic groups will rise between 2012 and 2050, other groups including Caucasians, African Americans, American Indians are expected to decrease. During this time period, SANDAG projects the following changes to the populations of the different racial and ethnic groups in Oceanside between 2012 and 2050 (see Figure 1-4): American Indian: 23.6 percent decrease in population

»» Population ages 60 to 69 to experience a 31 percent increase.

Asian: 68.9 percent population increase

»» Population ages 70 to 79 to experience a 77 percent increase.

African American: 28.3 percent decrease in population

»» Population ages 80 and over to experience a 104 percent increase.

Caucasian: 29.5 percent decrease in population Pacific Islander: 0.5 percent decrease in population Other: 22.1 percent population increase

1.6.3 Estimated Racial and Ethnic Character

Two or More: 53.2 percent population increase

The majority of Oceanside’s population identifies as Caucasian (47. 2 percent), as seen in Figure 1-4.

Hispanic Origin (irrespective of race): 60.0 percent increase

Figure 1-3: Population Age Distribution: 2010 to 2050

30,000

Population

25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 to 79 22,620 26,464 21,706 21,761 21,888 14,491 8,646

80+ 7,614

2020 27,113 2030 26,844

20,125 21,086

27,087 24,435

23,485 25,058

20,139 22,404

21,314 19,467

18,608 18,564

12,385 17,260

7,584 10,741

2040 26,027 2050 26,615

21,136

25,228

22,928

23,836

21,543

16,873

16,749

15,002

21,287

24,098

23,328

21,678

22,633

18,920

15,317

15,501

2012

0 to 10 24,129

Source: SANDAG Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast 10

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Figure 1-5 shows the ethnic and racial character of the estimated population of the State of California and the City of Oceanside.

While the populations of both the city and state were estimated to be predominantly Caucasian, the state’s population was less diverse overall.

Population

Figure 1-4: Projected Oceanside Racial and Ethnic Character 2012 to 2050

110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

American Indian 2012 626 2020 568 2030 548

14,658

4,914

71,330

84,605

2040 2050

17,058 18,228

3,407 1,857

63,894 56,413

93,509 100,879

519 47 8

Asian

Black

Caucasian

10,7 91 11,926

6,561 6,197

79,983 76,616

Hispanic Origin 63,050 73,7 32

Pacific Islander 2,044 2,050

Two or More 5,916 6,392

386

1,976

7,442

412 425

2,004 2,033

8,519 9,064

Two or More 4.8%

Hispanic Origin* 38.9%

3.4%

35.8%

Other 348 359

Source: SANDAG Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast

Figure 1-5: Racial/Ethnic Character – 2016 City and State Populations

70%

% Population

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% California

American Indian 0.7%

Oceanside

0.4%

Asian

Black

Caucasian

Other

14.3%

5.8%

59.7%

14.4%

Pacific Islander 0.4%

8.9%

3.6%

46.8%

0.2%

0.7%

*State population of Hispanic origin is excluded from state total. Included, chart total for California exceeds 100%. Source: SANDAG Current Estimates, and U.S. Census Bureau CHAPTER 1: PLANNING CONTEXT

1.6.4 Household Information SANDAG estimated that in 2012 the City of Oceanside had a total of 65,469 housing units with an overall vacancy of 7.9 percent. Between 2012 and 2050, the number of total housing units is expected to increase by 5,473, at an average rate of 144 new units annually. Several trends of note regarding household information in Oceanside: The majority of housing units in the city are single family, detached units.

5,473

housing units are anticipated to be built by 2050

Between 2012 and 2050, SANDAG projects that development of multifamily housing units will exceed that of new single family dwellings. A total of 4,173 multifamily, and 1,513 single family housing units are anticipated to be constructed during this time period. The number of households in the city is anticipated to grow at relatively the same rate as the total number of housing units.

1.6.5 Household Income According to SANDAG, the estimated 2010 median household income for Oceanside residents was $63,577. The following year the median household income had a decrease of $183, and by 2012 it went down to $61,181. This downward trend remained constant, and in 2016 the median household income went down to $58,949, a decrease of $2,232 from the 2012 median household income. This is lower than the 2016 median household income for California ($63,783) but higher than the United States ($55,322), as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

From 2012 to 2016, the median household income decreased

$2,232

CHAPTER 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 EXISTING CITY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES The City of Oceanside prides itself on providing the highest quality parks and recreation to its citizens. The parks and recreation facility inventory indicates there is a broad range of passive and active opportunities, well dispersed throughout the city. The City of Oceanside currently has approximately 642 acres of park land. This includes 269 acres of community parks and centers (including 2 acres of El Corazon), 74 acres of neighborhood parks, and two aquatic facilities. Residents also enjoy 115 acres of school recreation areas (with existing Memorandums of Understanding). A major recreation resource for the community is the coastline. Oceanside has approximately 35 acres of usable beaches under the control of the City. The City also owns Oceanside Harbor which offers marine boating facilities and services (see Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1 on page 16). The current park amenities are analyzed against a ratio of park or recreation amenity per population, typically per 1,000 population. Local agencies can adopt their own standards, but often agencies tend to look toward national and regional standards. The park acreage standard was developed as part of the general plan, recreational element. Recreation facility metrics were developed based on national and regional standards but were tailored to the City of Oceanside based on input and local demographics. Amenities that meet or exceed the standard includes playgrounds, basketball courts, diamond fields, multi-purpose fields, outdoor aquatic centers, community centers, and gymnasiums (see Table 2-2 on page 17). There are amenities that do not meet the population based standards which include picnic shelters (25+ people), trails (paved and non-paved), skate parks, skate spots, tennis, volleyball, and pickleball. The current attainment of population based standards includes facilities from other providers such as schools with existing MOUs, other agency land, and non-profit providers. Using these facilities towards the standard helps meet the current standard but should not be considered for meeting a community’s full park and recreation needs. These joint use facilities typically do not provide for the same experience or length of use. 14

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

2.2 PARK CLASSIFICATIONS This Master Plan suggests the classification of parks into five categories: Regional Parks, Community Centers, Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks and Special Use Parks. The traditional approach to park planning in Oceanside has been to determine the attainment of park standards by just on one park category. However, since parks are typically sited and programmed for different levels of community and neighborhood needs, a more detailed classification is warranted. Neighborhood Parks are generally smaller parks that provide both passive and limited active recreation but tend to focus more on passive recreation. They are typically less than 5 acres and serve nearby residents within a 15-minute walkshed. They generally do not include citywide facilities, such as gyms, pools or sports fields. Community Parks serve daily recreational needs of the community as well as the local broader neighborhood. They are generally over five acres in size and service an area within a 5-minute driveshed. They are the locations where city-wide sports fields, pools and court sports are concentrated. Community Centers are community buildings that provide a wide range of activities serving the community as a whole. These centers often accommodate special events, recreation programs, offices, and community services. These facilities can pull from users all over the community, but should be accessible by a 5-minute drive. Regional Parks are parks that are larger than 30 acres, service the region, and provide a range of activities including passive and active recreation opportunities and often include open space, cultural, and/or natural resources. Schools can provide playgrounds, sports and game areas, restrooms, and children play areas for the general public. For purposes of this Master Plan, only schools that have existing MOUs were counted, since they allow the general public to use the recreation facilities when school is out of session. This Master Plan only counts the schools’ recreation areas at 40 percent due to the limited amount of time the general public can access them and to account for the more open fields and other non-recreational aspects of the typical school grounds.

Figure 2-1: Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities

Facilities Community Centers

Lake Park Lion’s Club Park

Country Club Senior Center

El Corazon Senior Center

Marlado Highlands Park

Joe Balderrama Recreation Center

Pacific St Linear Park

John Landes Recreation Center

Palisades Park South Oceanside School Park

Junior Seau Beach Community Center

Melba Bishop Park

Spring Creek Park

Boys’ & Girls’ Club

Strand Beach Park

YMCA Joe And Mary Mottino Family

Tyson Street Park

Women’s Club Park

Community Parks 9

Americanization School

Buddy Todd Park

Regional Parks 51

Guajome Regional Park

School Facilities (MOU)

Capistrano Park

El Corazon Property

Cesar Chavez Middle

Joe Balderrama Park

Del Rio Elementary

John Landes Park

Louise Foussat Elementary Martin Luther King Jr. Middle

Joseph Sepulveda Park

Libby Lake Park

Miracosta College

Luiseno Park

Mission Meadows Elementary

Mance Buchanon Park

Marshall St Swim Ctr & Park

Alamosa Park Elementary

Martin Luther King, Jr. Park

Christa Mcauliffe Elementary

School Facilities

Melba Bishop Park

Discovery Isle

Oak Riparian Park

E. G. Garrison Elementary

Oceanside Harbor And Beaches

El Camino High

Rancho Del Oro Park

Empresa Elementary

Ron Ortega Recreation Park

Ivey Ranch Elementary

Jefferson Middle/Mission Elementary

Alex Rd Skate Park

Lake Elementary

Brooks St Swim Center

Laurel Elementary

Buena Vista Lagoon Nature Center

Libby Elementary

Center City Golf Course / Goat Hill Park

Lincoln Middle

Junior Seau Pier Amphitheater

Madison Middle

Oceanside Municipal Golf Course

Mission Vista High

San Luis Rey River Trail

Nichols Elementary

Sunshine Brooks Theater

Ditmar Elementary

Heritage Park

Oceanside Adventist Elementary

Neighborhood Parks

Oceanside High

Alamosa Park

Palmquist Elementary

Buccaneer Park

Reynolds Elementary

Cesar Chavez Park

Roosevelt Middle

Fireside Park

San Luis Rey Elementary

Ivey Ranch Park

St. Mary Star of The Sea Elementary

Joseph Carrasco Park

Temple Heights Elementary

Special Use Parks 26 27 28

31 32 33 38

34 35 36 37 39 40

Source: City of Oceanside 2017 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Total

Guajome Regional Park

San Luis Rey River Trail

Junior Seau Pier Amphitheater

Alex Road Skatepark

Sunshine Brooks Theater

Mission Wells Historical Lot

Buena Vista Lagoon Nature Center

Center City Golf Course / Goat Hill Park

Oceanside Municipal Golf Course

El Corazon

Women’s Club Park

Tyson Street Park

Strand Beach Park (Seagaze Park)

Spring Creek Park

South Oceanside School Park

Ron Ortega Recreation Park

Rancho Del Oro Park

Palisades Park

Pacific Street Linear Park

Oak Riparian Park

Martin Luther King Jr, Park

Marshall Street Park

Marlado Highlands Park

Mance Buchanon Park

Luiseño Park

Lion’s Club Park

Libby Lake Park

Lake Park

Joseph Sepulveda Park

Joseph Carrasco Park

Ivey Ranch Park* - No public uses

Heritage Park and Museum

Fireside Park

Cesar Chavez Park

Capistrano Park

Buddy Todd Park

Buccaneer Park

1.27

Brooks Street Swim Center

Boys and Girls Club

1.46

Oceanside Harbor and Beaches

YMCA Recreation Center

17.56

Americanization School

Melba Bishop Rec Center and Park

Alamosa Park

Junior Seau Beach Community Center

Joseph Balderrama Rec Center and Park

John Landes Park

El Corazon Senior Center

Citywide Inventory of Parka and Recreation Assets

Country Club Senior Center

Table 2-1: Inventory of Park and Recreation Assets

Assets Listed in Acres Community Center

10.95 3.86

41.1

Community Parks

0.34

Neighborhood Parks

6.97

6.35

19 0.1

Special Use Parks

27.61

3.44

0.5

26.71 6

16.51 15.03 12

6.37

2 4

0.58

1.59

225.2

0.5

74.4

0.2

0.5

6.9

Regional Parks

Parkland Golf Courses

147.7 71.75

75 219.45

Total

642.05

Assets Listed in Linear Distances (Miles) Paved Trails

0.30

Unpaved Trails*

1.02

0.67

0.24

0.59

0.21

0.30

1.14

0.50

1.00

9.00

1.00*

0.65

1.00

14.76 1.86

Assets Listed in Quantities Barbecue*

Picnic Tables*

Basketball Drinking Fountain*

Food Service

1 1

Gymnasium Horseshoes

1 1

11 1

Diamond Fields

Picnic Area

1 1

1 3

1 4

23 8

1 1

Restrooms

12 3

Play Equipment

1 1

Pickleball

1 2 1

1 1

1 2

1 1

Roller Hockey

2 1

Skatepark

Skatespot

Tennis

1 2

2 1

Outdoor Aquatic Center

16 4

Parking

132

106

ADA Parking

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

3 2

2 1

29 1

Volleyball

1 1

Multi-Purpose Field

Rec Center

1 1

1 69

200 10

139

1483

Other Providers Inventory*

Total Current Inventory

Total Facilities Needed Currently for Recommended Standard

Total Current Combined Inventory Over/(Under) Recommended Standard

Playgrounds (ages 2-5, 6-10)

15.4

62.4

1 playground per 3,500 persons

4,000

43.97

18.43

Picnic Shelters (25+ people)

1 picnic area per 5,000 persons

4,000

43.97

(14.97)

Trails - Paved Surface (Miles)

14.76

0.4 miles per 1,000 persons

0.4

1,000

175.87

(161.11)

Trails - Non-Paved Surface (Miles)

5.34

7.2

0.4 miles per 1,000 persons

0.1

1,000

175.87

(168.67)

Skate Parks (inline, Skateboard, BMX)

1 skate park per 50,000 persons

50,000

3.52

(0.52)

Skatespot

1 skate spot per 25,000 persons

25,000

7.03

(5.03)

Basketball

1 court per 7,500 persons

10,000

17.59

10.41

Tennis

1 court per 5,000 persons

7,500

23.45

(4.45)

Volleyball

1 court per 5,000 persons

10,000

17.59

(12.59)

Diamond Fields

1.2

24.2

1 field per 7,000 persons

10,000

17.59

6.61

Pickleball

1 court per 5,000 persons

7,500

23.45

(15.45)

Restrooms

Multipurpose Fields

3.8

31.8

1 field per 5,000 persons

5000

35.17

(3.37)

Outdoor Aquatic Center (Square Feet)

1 pool per 35,000 persons

50,000

3.52

(1.52)

Community/Recreation Center (Square Feet)

1 center per 26,000 persons

25,000

7.03

(0.03)

Gymnasium (Square Feet)

1 gym per 26,000 persons

40,000

4.40

(1.40)

*Other providers include 40 percent of school recreation facilities with MOUs and 100 percent of Guajome Regional Park since it is located within City limits.

Recommended City of Oceanside Standard

National Guideline Service Level

Level of Service for Current Population

City of Oceanside Current Inventory

Table 2-2: Level of Service for Current Population (Numbers in Parenthesis and Red are Deficiencies)

Current Population 2016

175,870

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.3 DESCRIPTIONS OF EXISTING PARKS 2.3.1 Neighborhood Parks Alamosa Park (Includes Mission Wells Lot) Alamos Park is approximately six acres in size. It has 0.3 miles of a paved trail, barbecues, drinking fountains, multi-purpose field, picnic areas, play equipment, multi-purpose paved area, restrooms, and parking. The park has trees providing shade along its perimeter and where most of the picnic tables are located. The park has a large, turf, multi-purpose field and is mostly flat. Buccaneer Park Buccaneer Park is approximately six acres and is located across the street from the beach and along the Loma Alta Creek. Amenities include barbecues, basketball courts, drinking fountains, food service, multi-purpose field, picnic areas, play equipment, restrooms, and parking. There are scattered trees providing some shade and there is a shade structure over the picnic tables. The park is mostly flat with a turf multi-purpose field. There is a walking path along Loma Alta Creek.

Buccaneer Park

Cesar Chavez Park This small park is approximately 0.1 acres in size and is located at the intersection of Division and Grant Streets. It includes a partial basketball court, a playground, a small picnic area with shelter, and one drinking fountain. The park is mostly hardscape with little shade. Fireside Park Located in central Oceanside at the corner of Fireside Drive and Parkside Street, this park is surrounded by residential uses to the north and east and by open space to the west. It connects to the San Luis Rey River Trail via an unpaved trail. This park is approximately four acres and has barbecue pits, a basketball court, drinking fountains, multi-purpose fields, picnic areas, play equipment, paved walking trail, and one volleyball court. There are many trees scattered about the park providing some shade. The park is mostly turf.

Cesar Chavez Park

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Heritage Park and Museum This park is located in central Oceanside, just north of Mission San Luis Rey and is approximately four acres. It features the original buildings of the city’s downtown, including the first General Store, the old city jail, and Libby School. Additionally, the park also offers drinking fountains, picnic areas, restrooms, and a parking lot. The park has trees scattered throughout, providing shade. Ivey Ranch Park This park is located at the corner of Rancho Del Oro Drive and Highway 76 in central Oceanside. There are several facilities located within the park, including an equestrian center and childcare. The park offers play equipment, a picnic area, and a drinking fountain and restroom facilities that are out of order. Joseph Carrasco Park

Heritage Park and Museum

Originally named for its location on Skylark Drive, this park was renamed in 1990. The park is located east of Interstate 5 in southwestern Oceanside and is approximately 3.4 acres. The park has a multi-purpose field, which is a flat, turf area. The remaining areas are hilly and have some trees. Lake Park Located at the southeastern corner of Oceanside, this park is bordered by Lake Elementary to the west and Palm Tree Plaza to the southeast. Lake Park is approximately ten acres and has two baseball fields and one softball field, play equipment, restroom facilities, a shaded picnic area, and a parking lot. There are trees along the perimeter, but the majority of the park is without shade. Lion’s Club Park Located at the corner of Cassidy and Broadway Streets in western Oceanside, this park is bounded to the west by the railroad tracks. This park is approximately 0.5 acres and is surrounded by residential uses and it is a short walking distance from the beach. It is a multi-purpose turf field with trees along the perimeter.

Lake Park

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Marlado Highlands Park

Strand Beach Park (Seagaze Park)

Originally owned by the surrounding Homeowner’s’ Association (HOA), this park was incorporated into the City’s inventory in 1993. The park is approximately six acres and is split into two by Rivertree Drive. This park offers barbecues, picnic areas, walking path, and play equipment.

This small park, approximately 0.6 acres in size, is located at the corner of The Strand and Seagaze Drive, just across the street from the beach. The park offers a picnic area with shelter, as well as benches and other seating areas.

Palisades Park

Located along The Strand, this park lies across the street from the beach. This park is about 1.6 acres and offers drinking fountains, picnic areas, play equipment, multi-purpose field, restroom facilities, and ADA parking. Tyson Street Park is connected to Pacific Street Linear Park to the north.

This park is located at the corner of Rancho Del Oro Drive and Vista Del Oro Drive, south of Christa McAuliffe Elementary. This park is approximately 6.4 acres and offers a baseball field, a multi-purpose field, picnic areas, play equipment, and a small parking lot. Trees line the perimeter of the park. South Oceanside School Park Located at the corner of Cassidy Street and Stewart Street in southwestern Oceanside, this park is adjacent to South Oceanside Elementary School and is approximately four acres. The park includes a diamond field, drinking fountains, multi-purpose fields, picnic areas, play equipment, two tennis courts, and a parking lot.

Tyson Street Park

Women’s Club Park The Women’s Club Park is located on Mission Avenue, between San Diego Street and Brook Street. While this space has been designated as a park, is does not provide any open space for passive recreation activities nor does it have any other amenities.

Spring Creek Park This park is located in the middle of a residential neighborhood in eastern Oceanside and it is surrounded by single-family homes. This park, approximately three acres in size, offers a multi-purpose field and play equipment. Trees line the park’s perimeter.

Palisades Park

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Spring Creek Park

2.3.2 Community Parks Brooks Street Swim Center Brooks Street Swim Center is an outdoor pool facility featuring a lap pool and a diving area. Buddy Todd Park Located in southwestern Oceanside, this is a large park, approximately 19 acres, and is surrounded by residential uses. This park offers barbecue pits, a basketball court, drinking fountains, picnic areas, play equipment, restrooms, a volleyball court, multi-purpose fields, a walking trail, and a parking lot. The site is a combination of flat and hilly areas with trees dispersed throughout. Capistrano Park This park is approximately 14 acres and is located on Capistrano Drive and its surrounded by single-family homes to the north and west. The park has one baseball field and one softball field, a basketball court, barbecue pits, drinking fountains, picnic areas, two playgrounds, restrooms, multi-purpose fields, as well as a parking lot.

El Corazon According to the 2009 El Corazon Specific Plan, El Corazon will provide 212 acres of park space. The parkland is spread across nine parks that contain the following: 18 multi-use athletic for sport and other large public events. 7 diamonds dedicated for baseball and softball Numerous passive recreational areas with playgrounds, covered picnic pavilions, and open play areas A minimum of 1,320 parking spaces in 11 parking lots A plaza area, a bandstand, and an interactive fountain area connecting the active park areas with the nearby community center. Additionally, a destination playground is also planned for one of the park sites. Restrooms, concessions, storage buildings, and press boxes will be part of the parks’ amenities.

Brooks Street Swim Center

Capistrano Park

El Corazon

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Joseph Sepulveda Park This large park is located in southern Oceanside in the middle of a residential neighborhood and approximately 0.3 miles south of Oceanside Boulevard. The park is notorious for its topography and large undeveloped open space where some trails are located. The side of the park that faces Sherbourne Drive, has a baseball field, a multi-purpose open field, picnic areas, play equipment, barbecue pits, and drinking fountains. Libby Lake Park This park is named after the lake located on the property. Libby Lake Park lies in northern Oceanside and it is adjacent to Libby Elementary School. This park offers barbecue pits, drinking fountains, picnic areas, play equipment, restroom facilities, a skate park, volleyball court, and a walking path that goes around Libby Lake.

trails, a parking lot, as well as the only roller hockey rink in Oceanside. It was noted that during school dismissal some parents park and wait in the park’s parking lot for their children. Oak Riparian Park Known for its terrain and natural state, Oak Riparian Park is located in the southeastern corner of Oceanside, adjacent to the City of Carlsbad. The park features barbecue pits, drinking fountains, a multi-purpose field, picnic areas, play equipment, restrooms, and several trails that cross the natural undeveloped land.

Luiseño Park This park lies at the intersection of Vandergrift Boulevard and Douglas Drive in northern Oceanside and it is surrounded by single-family homes. Luiseño Park offers barbecue pits, one baseball field, one softball field, a drinking fountain, picnic areas, play equipment, restrooms, tennis courts, a trail that goes around the park, and a parking lot. Mance Buchanon Park Located in north central Oceanside, this large park is adjacent to the San Luis River Trail. This park features two large multi-purpose areas, drinking fountains, a food service area, picnic areas, play equipment, restrooms, and a trail that loops around the park.

Oak Riparian Park

Marshall Street Park This park is located in western Oceanside, four blocks west of Interstate 5. The park features the Marshall Street Swimming Center, which has one of the two existing pools in the city. Other amenities found in the park include drinking fountains, picnic areas, play equipment, restrooms, and parking. Martin Luther King Jr. Park This park is located between Martin Luther King Middle School and Ivey Ranch Elementary. This park offers various amenities, which include barbecue pits, a baseball field, a softball field, drinking fountains, picnic areas, restrooms, a skate park, 22

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Martin Luther King Jr. Park

Oceanside Harbor and Beaches Oceanside Harbor offers marine boating facilities and services. The beaches encompass approximately 60 acres of flat beaches used by over 3 million persons annually. The Oceanside Pier is used for fishing, strolling, and sightseeing. Rancho Del Oro Park This is a large park located in central Oceanside at the corner of Mesa Drive and College Drive. One of the main features of this park is the Joe and Mary Mottino Family YMCA, which offers recreational programs and services for all ages. Additionally, this park has barbecue pits, drinking fountains, multi-purpose fields, picnic areas, restrooms, five tennis courts, and extensive parking.

Oceanside Harbor and Beaches

Ron Ortega Recreation Park This park lies east of Interstate 5 in western Oceanside, just south of the Brooks Street Swimming Center. Most of the park is dedicated to baseball, with four fields. There are also other amenities that include drinking fountains and food service area, picnic areas, play equipment, restroom facilities, and three parking lots. Most of the area to the southeast of the park is gravel and dirt.

Rancho Del Oro Park

2.3.3 Community Centers Americanization School Also known as the Crown Heights Community Resource Center, this facility is located at the corner of Division Street and Center Avenue. The center was opened in 1996 in response to the high crime rate in the neighborhood. There are several programs offered at this facility, including youth programs and English as a Second Language, as well as a computer lab. Play equipment and artificial turf areas exists in the area outside of the center.

Americanization School

Country Club Senior Center This facility is located on approximately three acres. The center houses classrooms, an auditorium, food service, restrooms, and bocce ball courts.

Country Club Senior Center

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

El Corazon Senior Center

Boys and Girls Club

The center is approximately 12,000 square feet has classrooms and meeting rooms, dining room, kitchen space, administrative offices, a fitness room, and a large lobby and reception area with computer stations and a resource library. Once phase two is built, the usable space will be increased by 15,000 square feet and will include additional meeting rooms and rental space.

This center offers multi-purpose rooms and an arena (outdoor) soccer field. Similarly to the YMCA Recreation Center, the Boys and Girs Club requires membership fees.

John Landes Recreation Center Due to budget constraints, this center, at time of the approval of this document, is closed. Joe Balderrama Recreation Center This center is located in Joe Balderrama Park and is a 12,000 square foot facility. The facility houses an auditorium with a stage and kitchen, game and activities room, four multi-purpose rooms, and two courtyards. Daily childcare, after-school programs, teen programs, a variety of youth sports, dance, fitness, and educational classes, day camps, and community-wide special events, are some of the activities offered. Junior Seau Beach Community Center This center located below the Oceanside municipal pier, is a 17,000 square foot facility with a gymnasium, meeting room, kitchen, and stage. Basketball, soccer, volleyball, sports camps, day camps, wheelchair rugby, teen programs, and a variety of special events are offered at this facility.

2.3.4 Schools These schools have existing MOUs in place that allow the public to use the recreational facilities when not being used by the schools. Cesar Chavez Middle School The school, approximately 12.4 acres, hosts seven basketball courts, a multi-purpose field, and two tennis courts. Del Rio Elementary School A basketball court, multi-purpose field, and play equipment are recreation facilities at the school, on approximately 14.2 acres. Jefferson Middle School This school, approximately 50 acres, has ten basketball courts, a multi-purpose field, and an unpaved trail. Louise Foussat Elementary School Five basketball courts, a multi-purpose field, two diamond fields, and play equipment comprise the facilities at this school, on approximately 13 acres.

Melba Bishop Recreation Center

Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School

This 35,000 square foot center is located in Melba Bishop Park. This center houses a gymnasium with two full-sized basketball courts and locker/shower facilities, auditorium, meeting room, dance/fitness room, weight room, and pre-school room. Basketball, volleyball, soccer, sports camps, day camps, tiny tots, after-school programs, teen programs, field trips, and a variety of dance, educational and fitness classes are offered at this center.

This school, approximately 11.3 acres, houses ten basketball courts, a multi-purpose field, a diamond field, and three tennis courts.

YMCA Recreation Center (Non-profit) This center offers an outdoor pool, weight room, cardio room, locker room, group exercise area, and a childcare area. Activities include group exercise classes, personal training, youth sports, adult team sports, martial arts, youth and adult swim classes and leagues, and a variety of child-care. In contrast with other facilities, this YMCA requires membership fees. 24

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Melba Bishop Recreation Center

Mission Elementary School Two basketball courts, one multi-purpose field, and play equipment comprise the recreation facilities at this school, on approximately 13.6 acres.

2.3.5 Special Use Parks Oceanside Municipal Golf Course The Oceanside Municipal Golf Course has 18-holes and is located in the northern part of the city, adjacent to Camp Pendleton. There is an all grass driving range and a full-service grill. Center City Golf Course / Goat Hill Park Center City Golf Course / Goat Hill Park is an 18hole short course. It houses a food/alcohol concession. It also allows disc-golf. Alex Road Skate Park The park is located on the northwest corner of Alex Road and Foussat Road. The new concrete skatepark is 22,000 square feet and includes street features, two bowls and two snake runs.

2.3.6 Regional Parks Guajome Regional Park Guajome Regional Park, a County of San Diego park, contains about 4.5 miles of trails. Two ponds draw migratory birds and server as home to a variety of fish. Guajome has two day-use areas with playgrounds, a basketball court, and multi-use fields. There are also 33 tent and RV campsites and a rustic cabin.

2.4 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS A Geographic Distribution Analysis (GDA) was performed on the community parks, neighborhood parks, recreation centers, school recreation areas with MOUs, and special use parks. A GDA examines the walktime and drivetime to these facilities as determined by using a Geographical Information System (GIS) based parkshed analysis. The parks GDA analysis took into account the percentage of population being serviced by neighborhood, community, and regional parks. Instead of using radius circles from parks that only consider a direct distance instead of walking, driving, or biking distances. This study utilizes actual network routes that lead to park and recreation facilities. This actual network method is more accurate and since it puts attention on the need to improve the local network in order to improve access to park facilities. The GDA is important, since a general goal for access should be that neighborhood park users live within walking or biking distance of neighborhood parks. For each neighborhood park, community park, community center, special use park, and regional park, a GIS analysis was completed that generated polygons representing a 15-minute walkshed, given a walking speed of 2.5 mph. The 5-minute driveshed assumed posted speed limits but also assumes a total travel time that includes delay due to traffic signals and typical time spent looking for and parking the vehicle. Resulting walkshed polygons were superimposed on the city base map to see which regions were well covered by park access and to estimate the number of residents served by park type. Results from this analysis are displayed in Figure 2-2 through 2-4. Twenty-three percent of residents are served by the 15-minute walkshed for the neighborhood parks, highlighting the need for additional neighborhood parks, especially north-central and souther Oceanside. The 5-minute driveshed serves 86 percent of the community for parks, community center, special use parks, and regional parks.

Alex Road Skate Park

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-2: Neighborhood Parksheds

Neighborhood Parks School Facility(MOU)* 15-Minute Walkshed 5-Minute Driveshed** Other Parks Va nde g ri

Other School Facilities Private Golf Courses City Boundary

th No r

r Riv e

Melro se

Fr az

v Gro Old

e lleg Co

ro Del O

on Ca ny

Me sa

o Ra nch

El Cam ino Re al

ion

iss M

Sa nta F

Douglas

North River

o se Melr

si Mis

Bo bier

tH as Co

D on ny Ca

Olive

Oceanside

Vista

Vista Wy

ta Vis

Lake Blvd on Ca nn

1 Mile * Schools with an Memorandum Of Understanding in place for public use ** Indicates total travel time inclding approximate delay due to traffic signals and finding parking.

Source: City of Oceanside 2017, KTUA 2019 26

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Figure 2-3: Community Parksheds

Community Parks Regional Parks 15-Minute Walkshed 5-Minute Driveshed* Other Parks Va nde g ri

Other School Facilities Private Golf Courses City Boundary

th No r

r Riv e

Melro se

Fr az

v Gro Old

e lleg Co

ro Del O

on Ca ny

Me sa

o Ra nch

El Cam ino Re al

ion

iss M

Sa nta F

Douglas

North River

o se Melr

si Mis

Bo bier

tH as Co

D on ny Ca

Olive

Oceanside

Vista

Vista Wy

ta Vis

Lake Blvd on Ca nn

1 Mile * Indicates total travel time inclding approximate delay due to traffic signals and finding parking.

Source: City of Oceanside 2017, KTUA 2019 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-4: All Facility Parksheds Community Centers Neighborhood Parks Community Parks School Facility* School Facility(MOU)** Special Use Parks Regional Parks Va nde g ri

Private Golf Courses* 15-Minute Walkshed

th No r

5-Minute Driveshed***

r Riv e

Melro se

Fr az

v Gro Old

e lleg Co

ro Del O

on Ca ny

Me sa

o Ra nch

El Cam ino Re al

ion

iss M

Sa nta F

Douglas

North River

o se Melr

si Mis

City Boundary

Bo bier

tH as Co

D on ny Ca

Olive

Oceanside

Vista

Vista Wy

ta Vis

Lake Blvd on Ca nn

1 Mile * Shown for location, not included in parksheds. ** Schools with an Memorandum Of Understanding in place for public use. *** Indicates total travel time inclding approximate delay due to traffic signals and finding parking. Source: City of Oceanside 2017, KTUA 2019 28

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 3

FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.1 FUTURE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE In addition to determining the needs and desires of Oceanside residents, it is important to examine the future projected city demographics, vacant land, potential growth areas within the city, and future recreation needs for the projected population. Understanding the community’s recreational desires, its social makeup, and the City’s ability to provide services is key to developing a long-range plan for Oceanside’s parks and recreational facilities. This chapter highlights the demographic trends and future recreation needs as obtained through the outreach process and through the Population Based Standards (PBS). These needs, deficiencies and demographic changes should influence the City’s park and recreation planning through 2030. After 2030, a new park master plan should be completed to calibrate and update these changes and trends.

3.1.1 Projected Population According to SANDAG’s regional growth forecast, the City of Oceanside will have a population of 185,859 persons in 2030. This represents a 6.3 percent increase over the 2017 population of approximately 174,811 persons. Oceanside’s population growth rate of 0.4 percent is relatively low in comparison to California’s 0.8 percent and 0.7 percent for the rest of the United States.

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Table 3-1: Oceanside Future Project Population Year

Population

2012

169,319

2020

177,840

2030

185,859

2040

189,322

2050

189,377

Source: SANDAG Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast

This slightly lower than regional and national growth rates may likely have something to do with housing shortages or increased on base housing for Camp Pendleton. With lower rates of change in populations expected, it is possible to provide some predictability in recreation facilities usage, which can ease the parks and recreation planning and programing growth requirements. The projected population is illustrated in Table 3-1, however, it should be considered that parks, recreation facilities, and other services may also be used by the nearby residents of Vista and Carlsbad, Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, and unincorporated areas of San Diego County. In essence, Oceanside Parks are supporting more than just Oceanside residents. However, Oceanside residents are also obtaining their recreation needs not only in Oceanside, but also in adjacent communities as well as throughout the region, state, national and international areas.

Figure 3-1: Vacant Land in the City of Oceanside

Undeveloped Agriculture Land: 2,836 Acres Vacant and Undeveloped Land: 1,088 Acres

Va nde g ri

City Boundary

th No r

r Riv e

Melro se

Fr az

v Gro Old

e lleg Co

ro Del O

on Ca ny

Me sa

o Ra nch

El Cam ino Re al

ion

iss M

Sa nta F

Douglas

North River

o se Melr

si Mis

Bo bier

tH as Co

D on ny Ca

Olive

Oceanside

Vista

Vista Wy

ta Vis

Lake Blvd on Ca nn

1 Mile

Source: City of Oceanside 2017 CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.1.2 Vacant Land The City of Oceanside has approximately 1,088 acres of vacant land, as seen in Figure 3-1. Cityowned vacant land could be repurposed for new neighborhood or community parks to help meet deficiencies in any of those categories. Chapter 5 demonstrates how several vacant parcels can meet the needs of underserved neighborhood areas of the city if parks are developed on these sites.

3.1.3 Smart Growth Typologies and Focused Growth Areas In 2015 SANDAG adopted the San Diego Forward Regional Plan, which provides a vision for sustainable development in the San Diego region based on smart growth principles. In order to implement these principles, the “Smart Growth Concept Map” was developed to identify the location of existing, planned, and potential smart growth areas within the region that can support smart growth, transit, walking, and biking. These potential smart growth locations consist of seven place types, including metropolitan centers, urban centers, town centers, community centers, rural villages, mixed-use transit corridors, and special use centers.

Downtown Oceanside

Since Oceanside is a major transportation hub for North County, a total of eight potential smart growth locations have been identified (see Figure 3-2): Downtown Oceanside (includes the Oceanside Transit Center served by Amtrak, Coaster, Metrolink, Sprinter, NCTD bus line, and Greyhound) (OC-1)

San Luis Rey Transit Center

South Coast Highway Sprinter Station (OC-2) Crouch Street Sprinter Station (OC-3) El Camino Real Sprinter Station (OC-4) Rancho Del Oro Sprinter station (OC-5) College Boulevard Sprinter Station (OC-6) Melrose Sprinter station (OC-7) San Luis Rey Transit Center (OC-8)

College Boulevard Sprinter Station

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Figure 3-2: Smart Growth Opportunity Areas in the City of Oceanside

*The community center potential is based on Smart Growth areas where population centers are predicted to grow, thereby needing a new community center, perhaps required to be provided by the future development. Source: SANDAG 2018 CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

According to SANDAG’s regional growth forecast, most of the projected population growth is expected to take place around these opportunity areas. In fact, two of the areas that will see the largest population increase in Oceanside by 2035 are near existing and planned community centers. These community centers are areas of housing within walking or biking distance of transit stations, and are characterized by low- and mid-residential, office, and commercial buildings. Despite this, some of these areas are not currently served by any parks of recreation facilities, as seen in Figure 3-2. The City should encourage new development in these smart growth areas and should try to provide parks near these new population centers.

3.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS GDA In addition to the existing condition GDA performed in the previous chapter, access distances were calculated for all parks and future parks including special recreation facilities and schools with MOUs. This analysis used 2035 future populations, as projected by SANDAG’s regional growth forecast. For these future conditions, the parks and recreation facilities GDA effort looked at the percentage of future population that will be serviced by the existing community parks, neighborhood parks, recreation centers, school recreation areas with MOUs,

and special use parks. The future percentage of population being serviced by these facilities was evaluated using actual walking, driving, or biking distances utilizing the existing network routes that lead to park and recreation facilities (see Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4). This analysis indicates those neighborhoods that might be currently adequately serviced by parks and other recreation facilities, but that may experience future deficiencies based on the expected population growth. Additionally, the existing park amenities are analyzed based on a ratio of amenity per future population. Given the current population growth trends and the location of existing facilities, about 24 percent of residents will be served by the 15-minute walkshed for the neighborhood parks and 87 percent of the community will be served by the 5-minute driveshed for parks, community centers, special use parks, and regional parks (see Table 3-2).

3.3 FUTURE CONDITIONS POPULATION BASED STANDARDS (PBS) Amenities that currently exceed the standards are expected to keep meeting them by 2035. However, the facilities that do not meet the level of standards today will have a greater deficiency in the future, as shown in Table 3-3. This type of analysis is import-

Table 3-2: Future Geographic Park Distribution and Population Served Total Acreage

# Population Served 2016

% Population Served 2016

# Population Served 2035

% Population Served 2035

15-Minute Walking Distance (Neighborhood Parks and School Facilities with MOU)

4,278

43,759

24.9%

45,902

24.3%

15-Minute Walking Distance (All Parks)

11,304

108,575

64.0%

119,876

63.6%

5-Minute Driving Distance (Community and Regional Parks)

17,711

150,980

88.9%

164,197

87.1%

5-Minute Driving Distance (All Parks)

18,176

155,697

91.7%

168,434

89.3%

Park Service Area

Park Service Area including parks outside of city limit but still within walk/drivesheds

15-Minute Walking Distance (Neighborhood Parks and School Facilities with MOU)

4,457

46,903

26.7%

49,473

26.2%

15-Minute Walking Distance (All Parks)

11,460

110,083

64.8%

121,714

64.6%

5-Minute Driving Distance (Community and Regional Parks)

18,068

153,738

90.6%

166,554

88.3%

5-Minute Driving Distance (All Parks)

18,407

156,386

92.1%

169,164

89.7%

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

ant because it allows the City to identify the future needs and deficiencies of the community and plan accordingly, especially around those areas that are expected to gain the most population by 2030. New community parks and recreation facilities should be centered in those areas with deficiencies that are expected to concentrate more density, especially near developments that meet the criteria for density incentives for low- and moderate-income units. This will make these facilities more accessible to a higher percentage of users who drive, bike, or walk. Future development should be located within shorter distance of these community parks and recreation facilities to ensure an adequate level of service while at the same time encouraging alternate modes of traveling, traffic reduction, and healthier lifestyles.

3.4 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES In order to reduce the shortage of parks and recreation facilities in some of Oceanside’s neighborhoods, and in order to close some of the geographic gaps, parks with new facilities should be added in these areas when possible. The City should ensure that new developments build parks to cover their share of park requirements. Where areas are park or facility deficient, staff should require new development to construct parks rather than accept the in-lieu fees so that the deficient resource can be made available to the future population, within a reasonable distance.

3.4.1 Potential New Park Locations Figure 3-5 shows potential future locations for parks that have been identified throughout the City of Oceanside. These parks are mostly needed to fill in existing park gaps within the city. Adding new parks in these areas will improve the distribution of parks and will ensure that all residents are properly serviced by these facilities. The list below details the potential locations that have been identified: Area A: Located north of Route 78, east of El Camino Real, and south of Oceanside Boulevard. Area B: Located south of Mesa Drive, North of Oceanside Boulevard, east of College Drive, and west of Melrose Drive. Area C: Located south of 76 and east of Melrose. In addition to these potential parks, the City should consider the placement of trails within its parks. This should also include the development of a citywide trails master plan that can further refine these ideas.

Potential trail connection in Area B at Panorama Ridge Road just north of Northerly Street

Potential park in Area A located on Oceanview Road north of Terrace Lane

Potential park in Area C at the corner of Spur Avenue and Belmont Park Road

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

Other Providers Inventory*

Total Current Inventory

Total Facilities Needed in the Future for Recommended Standard

Total Future Combined Inventory Over/(Under) Recommended Standard

Implementation of El Corazon Specific Plan

Total Current Combined Inventory Over/(Under) Recommended Standard

Playgrounds (ages 2-5, 6-10)

15.4

62.4

1 playground per 3,500 persons

4,000

47.13

15.27

9.00

24.27

Picnic Shelters (25+ people)

1 picnic area per 5,000 persons

4,000

47.13

(18.13)

13.00

(5.13)

Trails - Paved Surface (Miles)

14.76

0.4 miles per 1,000 persons

0.4

1,000

188.54

(173.78)

4.50

(169.28)

Trails - Non-Paved Surface (Miles)

5.34

7.2

0.4 miles per 1,000 persons

0.1

1,000

188.54

(181.33)

4.50

(176.83)

Skate Parks (inline, Skateboard, BMX)

1 skate park per 50,000 persons

50,000

3.77

(0.77)

1.00

0.23

Skatespot

1 skate spot per 25,000 persons

25,000

7.54

(5.54)

0.00

(5.54)

Basketball

1 court per 7,500 persons

10,000

18.85

9.15

3.00

12.15

Tennis

1 court per 5,000 persons

7,500

25.14

(6.14)

0.00

(6.14)

Volleyball

1 court per 5,000 persons

10,000

18.85

(13.85)

0.00

(13.85)

Diamond Fields

1.2

24.2

1 field per 7,000 persons

10,000

18.85

5.35

7.00

12.35

Pickleball

1 court per 5,000 persons

7,500

25.14

(17.14)

0.00

(17.14)

Restrooms

Multipurpose Fields

3.8

31.8

1 field per 5,000 persons

5,000

37.71

(5.91)

6.00

0.09

Outdoor Aquatic Center (Square Feet)

1 pool per 35,000 persons

50,000

3.77

(1.77)

1.00

(0.77)

Community/Recreation Center (Square Feet)

1 center per 26,000 persons

25,000

7.54

(0.54)

1.00

0.46

Gymnasium (Square Feet)

1 gym per 26,000 persons

40,000

4.71

(1.71)

0.00

(1.71)

Recommended City of Oceanside Standard

Level of Service for Current Population

National Guideline Service Level

City of Oceanside Current Inventory

Table 3-3: Level of Service for 2035 Population (Numbers in Parenthesis and in Red are Deficiencies)

*Other providers include 40 percent of school recreation facilities with MOUs and 100 percent of Guajome Regional Park since it is located within City limits.

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Future Population 2035

188,536

Figure 3-3: Projected Neighborhood Park Parkshed

Losing more than 5 people per acer Minimal change in population Gaining more than 5 people per acer Other Parks Other School Facilities Va nde g ri

Private Golf Courses City Boundary

th No r

r Riv e

Melro se

Fr az

v Gro Old

e lleg Co

ro Del O

on Ca ny

Me sa

o Ra nch

El Cam ino Re al

ion

iss M

Sa nta F

Douglas

North River

o se Melr

si Mis

Bo bier

tH as Co

D on ny Ca

Olive

Oceanside

Vista

Vista Wy

ta Vis

Lake Blvd on Ca nn

1 Mile

Source: SANDAG 2018 CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-4: Projected Combined (Neighborhood, Community, and Regional Parks) Parkshed

2016-2035 (population per acre) < -5 -5 to 5 6 - 50 >50

Va nde g ri

Other Parks Other School Facilities Private Golf Courses

th No r

City Boundary

r Riv e

Melro se

Fr az

v Gro Old

e lleg Co

ro Del O

on Ca ny

Me sa

o Ra nch

El Cam ino Re al

ion

iss M

Sa nta F

Douglas

North River

o se Melr

si Mis

Bo bier

tH as Co

D on ny Ca

Olive

Oceanside

Vista

Vista Wy

ta Vis

Lake Blvd on Ca nn

1 Mile

Source: SANDAG 2018 38

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

3.4.2 Potential Infill/Expansion of Existing Parks While it is important to meet park and recreational deficits, acquiring and developing parks is not always possible because the cost of acquiring land makes this option less economically feasible. However, the City can integrate new facilities into existing park areas in order to handle the deficiencies in particular recreational amenities. This section identifies possible infill expansion into existing parks by adding new recreational facilities. Several aspects were taken into consideration to determine the opportunity areas for each park, including existing facilities, layout, terrain, vegetation, and connections to existing or potential trails. The square footage of each potential area was calculated to determine what possible facilities could fit within the size limitation of the area. The following pages show an overview of the potential recreational facilities that can fit into the infill/expansion areas of each park within each Council District, as shown in Figure 3-6. The City can opt for more traditional facilities to reduce its current deficit, or it can incorporate non-traditional ones thaw do not exist at the moment but that represent more recent trends and the fabric of Oceanside’s residents. Once funding for future facilities can be identified, all parks on the list on Table 3-4 should be considered for new facilities and a more detailed site plan should be developed. Specific park planning should be conducted to ensure park and neighborhood character is considered when best fitting facilities into an improvement design.

Pickleball court

Skate park

Bicycle pump track

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-5: Potential New Neighborhood Park Locations

Source: KTUA 2019 40

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Ball Field

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court/Rink Sports

2,000-5,000

A3 A4

•

• • •

•

• • • • • • •

•

• • •

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

•

• •

•

• • •

• • • • • • •

• •

A3 A4

•

• •

• • • •

•

• • •

•

• • • •

•

• • •

•

• • •

• •

• • •

• • • • •

•

• •

• • •

• • • •

•

• • •

•

• •

• • • • •

•

• •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,200-28,000

•

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

• • •

•

• • • • •

•

• •

•

• • • • •

•

• • • • •

• •

• • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

•

• •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Women’s Club Park

Tyson Street Park

Spring Creek Park

South Oceanside Park A1

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

Ron Ortega Park

Rancho del Oro Park

Palisades Park

Oak Riparian Park

Melba Bishop Park

Martin Luther King Jr. Park

Marlado Highlands Park

Mance Buchanon Park

Luiseño Park

Lake Park

Joseph Sepulveda Park

Joseph Carrasco Park

Joseph Balderrama Park

John Landes Park A3

•

• • • • •

•

10,000-75,000

2,500-3,500

Fireside Park

El Corazon A3

•

Dog Park

Pickleball

•

30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

Lion’s Club Park

Libby Lake Park

Typical SF

Capistrano Park

Buccaneer Park

Alamosa Park Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill

Buddy Todd Park

Table 3-4: Potential Infill/Expansion Facilities for Existing Parks Summary

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • •

• • •

•

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill for Infill Adventure Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

•

• •

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

• • • • • • • • • • •

1,500-10,000

Community Park

•

• • • •

• •

• • • • • • • •

•

• •

•

• •

•

• • • •

• • •

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

• • • •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• •

•

• •

• • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

Neighborhood Park CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

Figure 3-6: Council Districts

Facilities Community Centers

Lion’s Club Park

Country Club Senior Center

El Corazon Senior Center

Marlado Highlands Park

Joe Balderrama Recreation Center

Pacific St Linear Park

John Landes Recreation Center

Palisades Park South Oceanside School Park

Junior Seau Beach Community Center

Melba Bishop Park

Spring Creek Park

Boys’ & Girls’ Club

Strand Beach Park

YMCA Joe And Mary Mottino Family

Tyson Street Park

Women’s Club Park

Americanization School

Buddy Todd Park

Regional Parks 51

Guajome Regional Park

School Facilities (MOU)

Capistrano Park

El Corazon Property

Cesar Chavez Middle

Joe Balderrama Park

Del Rio Elementary

John Landes Park

Louise Foussat Elementary Martin Luther King Jr. Middle

Joseph Sepulveda Park

Libby Lake Park

Miracosta College

Luiseno Park

Mission Meadows Elementary

Mance Buchanon Park

Marshall St Swim Ctr & Park

Alamosa Park Elementary

Martin Luther King, Jr. Park

Christa Mcauliffe Elementary

School Facilities

Melba Bishop Park

Discovery Isle

Oak Riparian Park

E. G. Garrison Elementary

Oceanside Harbor And Beaches

El Camino High

Rancho Del Oro Park

Empresa Elementary

Ron Ortega Recreation Park

Ivey Ranch Elementary

Jefferson Middle/Mission Elementary

Alex Rd Skate Park

Lake Elementary

Brooks St Swim Center

Laurel Elementary

Buena Vista Lagoon Nature Center

Libby Elementary

Center City Golf Course / Goat Hill Park

Lincoln Middle

Junior Seau Pier Amphitheater

Madison Middle

Oceanside Municipal Golf Course

Mission Vista High

San Luis Rey River Trail

Nichols Elementary

Sunshine Brooks Theater

Ocean Shores High (Continuation)

Heritage Park

Oceanside Adventist Elementary

Neighborhood Parks

Oceanside High

Alamosa Park

Palmquist Elementary

Buccaneer Park

Reynolds Elementary

Cesar Chavez Park

Roosevelt Middle

Fireside Park

San Luis Rey Elementary

Ivey Ranch Park

St. Mary Star of The Sea Elementary

Joseph Carrasco Park

Temple Heights Elementary

Special Use Parks 26 27 28

31 32 33 38

34 35 36 37 39 40

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Lake Park

Community Parks

3.5 POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES PER PARK

COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 3.5.1 Buddy Todd Park Park Infill Improvements Buddy Todd Park has the potential for infill/expansion areas in three locations. While the park is large, the terrain and existing vegetation limit the amount of space for opportunity areas. Area 1 can replace a small multiuse field next to the volleyball court with another court sport, or a skate spot. Area 2 can also accommodate a pickleball court. Area 3, which is considerably larger, can accommodate most facility types with the exception of a BMX course or a disk golf course. Area 4, located south of the parking lot, can be used as a dog park, bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, a BMX course, pickleball courts, a community garden, a bike skills course, an adventure course, a skate spot, and a small performance stage. Picnic areas, playgrounds, and adventure playgrounds can be work at any of these locations. Access Improvements 1 Connection to Todd Street 2 Connection to North Barnwell Street Trail

Buddy Todd Park

Table 3-5: Buddy Todd Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF

7,579

59,409

44,935

•

4,000-6,000

•

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Volleyball

BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000 50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

4,825

4,000-16,000

2,000-5,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill

Area 4

• •

25,000-70,000

Skate Spot

Area 3

• •

Community Center/Gym

Disk Golf Course

Area 2

• • • • • • • • • •

5,000-10,000

Adventure Playgrounds

116,748

Area 1

30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard Court Sports

Total Infill Area SF

1,500-10,000

• •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

BUT LER ST

Figure 3-7: Buddy Todd Park Infill/Expansion Potential

D TO

ST VAL LE

PAR

PRIVATE RD

COTTINGHAM ST

NA SS

Y VIE

US C

W LN

ME SA

PAR

NA SS

US C

TU R

NB U

AR Proposed NTrail W EL Park Boundary L ST Opportunity Area Basketball ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Volleyball Misc. Unusable Areas*

175

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.2 Capistrano Park Park Infill Improvements Capistrano Park has mostly been developed to its maximum potential. However, three areas of expansion are possible. Areas 1 and 3, located in the middle of the park, can be used for an additional court sport, a picnic area, or a skate spot. Area 2 has the potential to become a pickleball court, a picnic area, a playground, or a pickleball court. Access Improvements 1 Access to Capistrano Drive 2 Access to existing trail Trail

Capistrano Park

Table 3-6: Capistrano Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000 2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Area 3

17,318

8,814

6,960

• • •

•

• • • •

•

• •

•

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course Skate Spot

Area 2

4,000-6,000

BMX Course

33,092

Area 1

30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard Court Sports

Total Infill Area SF

1,500-10,000

• •

•

Figure 3-8: Capistrano Park Infill/Expansion Potential

Proposed Trail ParkTBoundary S LA Opportunity Area U PABaseball Field A NT Basketball SA ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Tennis Court SAN MATEO ST Misc. Unusable Areas*

SAN JOSE ST

SAN LUIS REY DR

130

CA PI ST R

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.3 Joseph Balderrama Park Park Infill Improvements Joseph Balderrama Park is relatively compact and mostly developed to its maximum potential. Numerous facilities, including volleyball and basketball courts and playgrounds can be found in the park. The park has two areas for possible infill/expansion, which would remove a more unusable area of the multi-use field area. Area 1 can be converted into court sports, picnic areas, playgrounds, bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, outdoor exercise areas, adventure playgrounds, pickleball courts, or a skate spot. Area 2 is much smaller in size and can accommodate court sports, picnic areas, additional playgrounds, bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, and a skate spot. Access Improvements 1 Access to West Puls Street 2 Access to Higgins Street 3 Access to San Diego Street Trail

Joseph Balderrama Park

Table 3-7: Joseph Balderrama Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill

Typical SF

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

12,590

Area 1

Area 2

9,598

2,992

• • • • • • • •

• • •

•

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

Total Infill Area SF

1,500-10,000

•

Figure 3-9: Joseph Balderrama Park Infill/Expansion Potential

N MO LE

GIN HIG

T SS

LS PU

DI E GO

T SS

GIN HIG

N SA

LS PU

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Basketball Concessions ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field

Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Recreation Center Tennis Court Misc. Unusable Areas* Handball Court

SH BU

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.4 Marlado Highlands Park Park Infill Improvements Marlado Highlands Park has the potential for infill/expansion areas in several locations. The park is mostly multi-purpose field space and has several recreation facilities. However, some expansion capacity can be considered that would not detract from the multi-purpose fields. Areas 1, 2, and 3 would remove some of the open play area. Areas 1, 2, and 3 have similar dimensions and thus have similar opportunities for consideration such as court sports, picnic areas, playgrounds, adventure playgrounds, pickleball, or a skate spot. Access Improvements 1 Access to Southwest Drive 2 Access to Rivertree Drive 3 Potential trail expansion into open space Trail Marlado Highlands Park

Table 3-8: Marlado Highlands Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

19,821

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

6,678

7,895

5,248

•

• • •

• • • •

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

•

• •

4,000-6,000

•

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

Total Infill Area SF

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Figure 3-10: Marlado Highlands Park Infill/Expansion Potential

C ASHWOOD

NORTHW OOD DR

2 1 3

SOUTHWOOD DR

RIVERTR EE D

Proposed Trail Park Boundary MEADOW VIEW DR Opportunity Area ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Picnic Area Play Equipment Misc. Unusable Areas*

130

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.5 Ron Ortega Park Park Infill Improvements Ron Ortega Park is mostly a field sports-based park with a large area where many facilities can be added. The park has the potential for expansion areas in two locations. Areas 1 and 2 would remove or relocate parking spaces, for the conversion of opportunity areas. Area 1 has enough space to accommodate any of the typical facility types. Area 2 may be suitable for a dog park, or other non-traditional recreational facilities such as a community garden, outdoor gym, orienteering course, or a pump track. Access Improvements 1 Access to Maxon Street

Ron Ortega Park

Table 3-9: Ron Ortega Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Total Infill Area SF

108,106

Area 1

Area 2

85,513

22,593

•

• • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • •

•

BARNES ST

Figure 3-11: Ron Ortega Park Infill/Expansion Potential

PRIVATE RD

BROOKS ST

ON XS A M

Park Boundary Opportunity Area Baseball Field ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Misc. Unusable Areas*

2 COUNTRY CLUB LN

140

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.6 Tyson Street Park Park Infill Improvements Tyson Street Park has the potential for expansion in two locations. The park has a multi-purpose field, play equipment, and picnic areas that cover roughly half of the park, while the other half consists of non-recreational areas. Area 1 can be converted into court sports, picnic areas, and playgrounds. Additional Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill that can be built include adventure playgrounds, BMX course, community garden, or skate spot. Area 2, which is considerably smaller is best suited for court sports or picnic areas. Access Improvements 1 Access to South Pacific Street Trail

Tyson Street Park

Table 3-10: Tyson Street Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Total Infill Area SF

11,321

Area 1

Area 2

8,751

2,570

•

• • • • • • • • •

•

Figure 3-12: Tyson Street Park Infill/Expansion Potential

SP C IFI AC

E TH RA ST ND S

N SO TY

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Concessions ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Misc. Unusable Areas*

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.7 Women’s Club Park Park Infill Improvements The Women’s Club Park is a landscaped area located south of Mission Avenue, between Brooks Street and San Diego Street. While this space has been designated as a park, it is not currently open to the public. The Women’s Club Park has the potential to become a recreational facility as long as traffic issues can be addressed. This area can be used for court sports, as picnic area, playground, or a pickleball courts. A dog park, a facility that the community has expressed a desire for, can also fit within this opportunity area. Access Improvements 1 Access to San Diego Street Trail

Women’s Club Park Total Infill Area SF

Table 3-11: Women’s Club Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

• • • • • • •

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course Skate Spot

8,751

4,000-6,000

BMX Course Disk Golf Course

Area 1

1,500-10,000

•

Figure 3-13: Women’s Club Park Infill/Expansion Potential

ND SA O I EG ST

S KS OO BR T

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area

1 25

Feet

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

COUNCIL DISTRICT 2 3.5.8 Fireside Park Park Infill Improvements Fireside Park has three areas with potential for infill/expansion. Area 1 is the largest one and can be used for court sports, a dog park, bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, pickleball courts, a community garden, or a skate spot. Area 2 can be used as a ball field, or a pickleball court. Area 3, which is the smaller one in size, can be used for court sports or skate spots. Picnic areas, additional playgrounds, outdoor exercise areas, and adventure playgrounds can be built at any of these locations. Access Improvements 1 Access to trail Trail

Fireside Park

Table 3-12: Fireside Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Total Infill Area SF

18,432

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

8,801

5,140

4,491

•

• •

• • • • • •

• • • •

• •

•

• • • •

• •

•

PRIVATE RD

Figure 3-14: Fireside Park Infill/Expansion Potential

PARKSIDE DR

3 1 2 C EMERGENCY DR

PRIVATE RD

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Basketball Multi-purpose Field

FIRESIDE ST

Picnic Area Play Equipment Volleyball Misc. Unusable Areas*

Feet

LANCER AVE

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.9 Libby Lake Park Park Infill Improvements Libby Lake Park has mostly been developed to its maximum potential and most of the remaining land is unsuitable for development because of the existing terrain and vegetation. There is a small area with the potential for additional facilities, which can include court sports, a picnic area with shelter, and adventure playground, or a pickleball court. Access Improvements 1 Access to potential trail through open space 2 Access to Calle Vallecito Trail

Libby Lake Park Total Infill Area SF

Table 3-13: Libby Lake Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

4,876

• • • • • •

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

•

4,000-6,000

•

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

Area 1

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Figure 3-15: Libby Lake Park Infill/Expansion Potential

MARBLEHEAD BAY DR

CALLE MONTECITO

Libby Elementary

CASA DR

Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Skate Park Volleyball Misc. Unusable Areas*

LLE CA

175

S LA

LL CA

SIT PO

R IMA OL S E

Feet

CALLE VALLECITO

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Unknown Building ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking

CALLE MARIPOSA

LIBBY VILLAGE WAY

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.10 Luiseño Park Park Infill Improvements Luiseño Park has the potential for expansion areas in various locations. The park has many recreation facilities; however, some expansion capacity can be considered to be built out. Areas 2 and 3 are similar in size and thus have similar expansion opportunities such as court sports, picnic areas, and a skate spot. Areas 1 and 4, which are larger, can be used for playgrounds, adventure playgrounds, or pickleball. Access Improvements

Luiseño Park Total Infill Area SF

Table 3-14: Luiseño Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

4,626

2,880

2,453

5,430

•

• • •

•

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

•

4,000-6,000

•

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

15,389

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

•

Figure 3-16: Luiseño Park Infill/Expansion Potential IP ST MEND

DOUG

R LAS D

4 PRIVA

TE RD

TEAL W

S OT ELI

VANDE G

RIFT BL VD

Park Boundary Opportunity Area Multi-use Paved Unknown Building Baseball Field ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field

Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Tennis Court Misc. Unusable Areas*

100

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.11 Melba Bishop Park Park Infill Improvements Melba Bishop Park is a large park with a wide variety of recreation facilities including baseball fields, a basketball court, pickleball courts, playgrounds, and a large community center. This park, however, has three areas with the potential for additional facilities. Area 1, located by the playgrounds, can be used for several facilities, such as a dog park, a soccer field, a community garden, an outdoor gym, a bike skills course, or a small performance stage. Area 2, smaller in size, can be used as a picnic area. Area 3, which is considerably larger, can accommodate a dog park, an outdoor exercise area, a soccer field, a community garden, an orienteering course, a pump track/bike skills course, a rope/adventure/skills course, or a skate spot. Court sports and pickleball courts can fit in all three areas. Access Improvements 1 Access to Leon Street Trail Melba Bishop Park

Table 3-15: Melba Bishop Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Total Infill Area SF

58,853

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

8,738

12,038

38,077

•

• • • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • •

• •

•

• • •

Figure 3-17: Melba Bishop Park Infill/Expansion Potential

FRANC

BARRY S

IS ST

KE AR

T RS

1 1

LEON ST

Del Rio Elementary

NORTH RIVER RD

PRI TE VA RD

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Baseball Field Basketball Concessions ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking

Pickleball Picnic Area Play Equipment Recreation Center Restroom Skate Park Volleyball Misc. Unusable Areas*

160

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.12 Spring Creek Park Park Infill Improvements Spring Creek Park has the potential for infill/expansion in one location. The park is largely a multi-purpose field with a small area with play equipment, surrounded by a miscellaneous unusable areas. However, some expansion capacity can be considered without encroaching on the multi-purpose functions of the larger field. Area 1 can be converted into court sports, picnic areas, or playgrounds. Area 1, can also be used for non-traditional recreational facilities such as adventure playgrounds, bocce ball/shuffleboard/pickleball, or skate spot. Area 2 can accommodate all of these facilities, as well as a soccer field, a community garden, an orienteering course, a pump track/bike skills course, or a rope/adventure/skills course. Access Improvements 1 Access to Old Ranch Road 2 Access to Mustang Way 3 Access to Melrose Drive Trail

Spring Creek Park

Table 3-16: Spring Creek Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

23,792

Area 1

Area 2

14,654

9,138

•

• •

• • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

•

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

Total Infill Area SF

1,500-10,000

•

• • •

Figure 3-18: Spring Creek Park Infill/Expansion Potential

Montessori Adolescent Academy

D OL

CH AN

1 1

O MELR SE DR

2 2

3 Proposed Trail AY W Park Boundary NG Opportunity TA Area S U M Multi-purpose Field Play Equipment Misc. Unusable Areas*

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 3.5.13 Buccaneer Park Park Infill Improvements Buccaneer Park is a popular destination due to its proximity to the beach and some of the amenities that it offers. Area 1 would remove some of the edges of the multi-use field area converted into sports, a picnic area, or a skate spot. Area 2, which is considerably larger in size can be used for court sports, a dog park, picnic areas, playgrounds, bocce ball/shuffleboard outdoor gym and exterior exercise areas, as well as for other non-traditional facilities that include adventure playgrounds, a community garden, a skate spot, or a small performance stage. Access Improvements 1 Access to Morse Street Trail

Buccaneer Park

Table 3-17: Buccaneer Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill

Typical SF

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

18,846

Area 1

Area 2

3,492

15,354

• •

1,500-10,000

• • • • • • •

•

• •

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

Total Infill Area SF

•

Figure 3-19: Buccaneer Park Infill/Expansion Potential

TE IV A PR

PRIV A TE

DR WY

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Beach Unknown Building Basketball Concessions ADA Parking

WY DR

Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area

Play Equipment Restroom Misc. Unusable Areas*

La Salina Wastewater Treatment Plant

I AC FI C ST

1 SM S RS YE

E RS O M

C PA C IF I R TE

100

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.14 Joseph Carrasco Park Park Infill Improvements Joseph Carrasco Park has two multi-purpose fields, both of which have the potential to be used for other activities without negatively affecting other users. Area 1 includes the smaller multi-purpose fields and can be used for court sports, or playgrounds. Area 2 is slightly smaller and can be used for court sports. Picnic areas and skate spots can work in both locations. Access Improvements 1 Access to Partridge Lane Trail

Joseph Carrasco Park

Table 3-18: Joseph Carrasco Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

8,369

Area 1

Area 2

4,496

3,873

•

• • • • • •

• • • • •

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

•

4,000-6,000

•

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

Total Infill Area SF

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

•

Figure 3-20: Joseph Carrasco Park Infill/Expansion Potential

RK SKYLA

2 1

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Multi-purpose Field Misc. Unusable Areas*

SA RB

O NN E

Feet

PARTRIDGE LN

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.15 John Landes Park Park Infill Improvements John Landes Park has many recreation facilities including baseball fields, basketball and volleyball courts, and a recreation center; however, this park has some infill/expansion capacity. Areas 1 and 2 can be used for court sports, playgrounds, picnic areas, and adventure playgrounds and even a skate spot. Access Improvements 1 Access to Cedar Road 2 Access to Lewis Street Trail

John Landes Park

Table 3-19: John Landes Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

26,928

Area 1

Area 2

18,960

7,968

•

• • •

• •

•

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

Total Infill Area SF

1,500-10,000

Figure 3-21: John Landes Park Infill/Expansion Potential

LEWIS ST

CEDAR RD

2 1

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Unknown Building Baseball Field Basketball ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field

Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Recreation Center Skate Park Tennis Court Misc. Unusable Areas*

100

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.16 Joseph Sepulveda Park Park Infill Improvements Joseph Sepulveda Park has a great potential for expansion and infill. The park has several areas with steep slopes that prevent expansion. Some expansion capacity can be considered in the flatter areas of the park. Area 1 total square footage is 351,224 square feet, which is suitable for all facility types exclusively or combined. Access Improvements 1 Access to existing trail 2 Access to Colgate Drive Trail

Joseph Sepulveda Park Total Infill Area SF

Table 3-20: Joseph Sepulveda Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball Picnic Areas

2,500-3,500 500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Area 1 351,224

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Figure 3-22: Joseph Sepulveda Park Infill/Expansion Potential

1 CARNEGIE DR

D ER

STA N

DR SHENANDOAH

FO RD

T OS WO

RNE CO LL D R

Multi-purpose Field Picnic Area Play Equipment Misc. Unusable Areas*

CAMBRIDGE CT

OXFORD PL

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Baseball Field Basketball

MARVIN ST

170

SHERBOURNE DR

CO LG A TE

Feet

PRIVATE RD

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.17 Lake Park Park Infill Improvements Lake Park is mostly a field sports-based park with some irregular shaped areas where facilities can be added. These uses can be in support of pre-game and post-game activities such as picnic areas with shade structures where people can wait for games to start. Area 1 can also be used for court sports, an adventure playground, or a skate spot. Area 2 can accommodate these amenities and can include bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, an outdoor gym and exterior exercise area.

Lake Park

Table 3-21: Lake Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000 25,000-70,000 2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Area 1

Area 2

4,084

9,311

• • • •

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

•

• •

4,000-6,000

•

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

13,395

30,000-100,000

Community Center/Gym Court Sports

Total Infill Area SF

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Figure 3-23: Lake Park Infill/Expansion Potential

Madison Middle

Lake Elementary

PR IVA

IN MAR

BLVD

Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Misc. Unusable Areas*

LAKE

Park Boundary Opportunity Area Multi-use Paved Baseball Field Concessions R EN D ADA Parking LASS

150

NO CAN

N RD

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.18 Lions Club Park Park Infill Improvements Lions Club Park has the potential for infill/expansion. This park can be converted into court sports, dog park, picnic areas, playgrounds, or soccer fields. The park can also be used for non-traditional recreational facilities such as adventure playgrounds, bocce ball/shuffleboard/pickleball, community garden, outdoor gym, orienteering course, skills course, or a skate spot. A dog park, a facility that the community has expressed a desire for, can also fit within this opportunity area. Access Improvements 1 Access to existing trail Trail

Lion’s Club Park Total Infill Area SF

Table 3-22: Lions Club Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Area 1 16,473

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Figure 3-24: Lions Club Park Infill/Expansion Potential

1 D OA BR W AY

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area

ID SS CA

Feet

T YS

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.19 Oak Riparian Park Park Infill Improvements Oak Riparian Park includes larger open spaces, much of which are too environmentally sensitive to allow for major park expansion. However, this park has two areas with the potential for infill. Area 1 is best suited for court sports, dog park, picnic areas, or playgrounds. Area 2 can accommodate the same types of facilities as Area 1 and also a ball field, a community center/gym, or a soccer field. Access Improvements 1 Access to Skyhawk Way 2 Improve access to Lake Boulevard 3 Access to Southridge Way Trail

Oak Riparian Park

Table 3-23: Oak Riparian Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Total Infill Area SF

93,764

Area 1

Area 2

12,633

81,131

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ER SH

WINSLOW RD

Figure 3-25: Oak Riparian Park Infill/Expansion Potential

IDA

CIR

AM DURH

HA TF IE

NO RM AN DY

CIR

BL AC KW

E RIDG

T YS E K

NE O

E PR

R CI

C CK WI T S

NEW

D LAN

TE GA IN W

WA V

ER L

WICKLEY PL

SKYHAWK WAY W

SOUTHRIDGE WA Y

SC EN IC

VIEWR ID GE W AY

VI EW

CO LU

Y NIGHTH AWK W A

HI LL

LAKE BLVD

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Misc. Unusable Areas*

NORMOUNT RD

280

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.20 Palisades Park Park Infill Improvements Palisades Park has the potential for infill/expansion areas in two locations. The park has several recreation facilities including a baseball field. Converting Areas 1 and 2 to other facility types would remove some of the open play area. Area 1 which is smaller, is best suited for court sports, picnic areas, playgrounds, bocce ball/ shuffleboard courts, outdoor exercise areas, adventure playgrounds, pickleball courts, a community garden, an orienteering course, or a skate spot. Area 2 can accommodate these amenities, as well as a dog park or a rope/adventure/skills course. Access Improvements 1 Access to Rancho Del Oro Drive 2 Access to Vista Del Oro Drive Trail Palisades Park

Table 3-24: Palisades Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Total Infill Area SF

26,061

Area 1

Area 2

8,322

17,739

•

• • • • •

• • • • • •

• •

•

• • •

•

Figure 3-26: Palisades Park Infill/Expansion Potential RANCHO DE L O R O DR PRIVA

TE RD

Christa McAuliffe Elementary

DR MADIER A

SOR REN TO D

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Baseball Field ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Misc. Unusable Areas*

VISTA DEL ORO DR

RAMADA DR

100

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.21 South Oceanside School Park Park Infill Improvements South Oceanside School Park is relatively medium and compact and mostly developed to its maximum potential. Various facilities, including volleyball courts, playgrounds, and a baseball field, can be found in the park. The park, however, has one area for possible expansion, which would remove some of the multi-use open field area that can be converted into a picnic area, a community center/gym, a dog park, playgrounds, a pickleball court, a community garden, an outdoor gym, or a small performance stage. Access Improvements 1 Access to South Oceanside Elementary School 2 Access to Cassidy Street 3 Access to Kelly Street Trail South Oceanside Park

Table 3-25: South Oceanside School Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Total Infill Area SF Area 1 30,041

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Figure 3-27: South Oceanside School Park Infill/Expansion Potential

ID SS CA

T YS

EW ST AR TS T

South Oceanside Elementary

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Multi-use Paved Baseball Field Multi-purpose Field Parking Play Equipment Tennis Court Misc. Unusable Areas*

L KE

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 3.5.22 Alamosa Park Park Infill Improvements Alamosa Park includes two large open spaces that are currently being used as multi-purpose fields. There are three areas with the potential for additional facilities within these two spaces without affecting the fields being used for open play. Area 1 can be used for court sports, a dog park, a designated picnic area, adventure playgrounds, a community garden, an outdoor gym, or a skills course. Area 2 would remove a small portion of the multi-use field that can be converted to a court sport area, picnic area, or a skate spot. Area 3 can be used for court sports, a dog park, adventure play grounds, or a community garden. Access Improvements 1 Connection to Alamosa Park Drive 2 Connection to Roosevelt Middle School

Alamosa Park

Table 3-26: Alamosa Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000 2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball Picnic Areas

2,500-3,500 500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000 50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

BMX Course Disk Golf Course

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

28,053

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

11,566

6,400

10,087

30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard Court Sports

Total Infill Area SF

1,500-10,000

• • • •

•

• • • • • •

• •

•

• •

•

Figure 3-28: Alamosa Park Infill/Infill/Expansion Potential

PI NE W

E GL

AL AM

Alamosa Park Elementary

O SA

PA RK

O RI

1 1

D OO

TA LA

Roosevelt Middle

100

MESA D R

Park Boundary Opportunity Area Multi-use Paved ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Misc. Unusable Areas*

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.23 Mance Buchanon Park Park Infill Improvements Mance Buchanon Park is a large park that is dominated by soccer fields, however, this park has the potential for infill/expansion areas in three locations. While the park is mostly soccer fields and has several recreation facilities, some expansion capacity can be considered. Converting Areas 1, 2, and 3 to opportunity areas would remove some of the open play area. Area 1 is best suited for court sports, dog park, picnic areas, playgrounds, and a soccer field. Area 2 which is larger, has vast opportunities including a ball field, a community center/gym, BMX course, and a skills course. Area 3, the smallest opportunity area, can accommodate court sports, a dog park, picnic areas, bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, adventure playgrounds, pickleball courts, an orienteering course, a skate spot, or a small performance stage. Access Improvements 1 Access to Gardenia Street

Mance Buchanon Park

Table 3-27: Mance Buchanon Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Total Infill Area SF

102,751

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

14,785

84,264

3,702

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

•

Figure 3-29: Mance Buchanon Park Infill/Expansion Potential RD ER

RIV

ND Park Boundary O DROpportunity Area

RE D

MO NRO CO LLE

NO RT

ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Misc. Unusable Areas*

GE BLV D

ADA MS S T

SUMA C

RO MN EY

OC OT

AR O

SOR RE

L TR

EE P

250

Feet

FLAME TREE

Z YU MA

D IFER CON

AV E

Cesar Chavez Middle

MA CA DA

SEQUO IA

MAY TE

MI A

NC T

MI M

OS A

SAGINA C T

GARD ENIA S T

CEAN OTHU S

MA NZ AN ITA

SA GU

ILL

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.24 Martin Luther King Jr. Park Park Infill Improvements Martin Luther King Jr. Park is mostly a field sports-based park with two smaller areas that have the potential for expansion. The park is mostly multi-purpose field space and has several recreation facilities; however, some expansion capacity can be considered to be built out. Areas 1 and 2 would remove some of the open play area that can be converted into opportunity areas. Area 1 is best suited for court sports, picnic areas, a dog park, playgrounds, bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, outdoor exercise areas, a soccer field, adventure playgrounds, pickleball courts, an orienteering course, a pump track/bike skills course, a rope/adventure/skills course, or a skate spot. Area 2, which is considerably larger, can accommodate all facility types exclusively or combined, with the exception of a BMX course or a disk golf course. Access Improvements 1 Access to existing trail 2 Access to existing trail Trail Martin Luther King Jr. Park

Table 3-28: Martin Luther King Jr. Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

Total Infill Area SF

46,787

Area 1

Area 2

14,919

31,868

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • •

CAL LE

VIA CRU Z

CO RA Z ON

Figure 3-30: Martin Luther King Jr. Park Infill/Expansion Potential

LUPIN E

WA Y

A VI

TE EN M E

Ivey Ranch Elementary

1 2 1

2 CA FI CI PA W AY

A MES

Martin Luther King Jr. Middle

Proposed Trail Park Boundary Opportunity Area Unknown Building Baseball Field ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field

Parking Picnic Area Play Equipment Restroom Roller Hockey Skate Park Misc. Unusable Areas*

200

Feet

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

3.5.25 Rancho del Oro Park Park Infill Improvements Rancho del Oro Park is a large park with many recreation facilities that include several tennis courts and the Joe and Mary Mottino Family YMCA. Areas 1, 2, and 3 would remove some of the open play area that can be converted into opportunity areas. Area 1 can accommodate bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, adventure playgrounds, or pickleball courts. Area 2 is considerably larger and can accommodate all these uses, as well as an outdoor exercise area, a soccer field, a community garden, an orienteering course, a rope/adventure/skills course, or a small performance stage. Area 3, which is similar in size to Area 1, can accommodate approximately the same type of facilities with the exception of adventure playgrounds, pickleball courts, or a skate spot. Court sports, picnic areas, playground, or a skate spot can be built at any of these areas. Access Improvements 1 Potential connection to Empresa Elementary School 2 Access to Avenida Empresa Trail

Rancho del Oro Park

Table 3-29: Rancho del Oro Park Infill/Facility Expansion Analysis Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Ball Field

Typical SF 30,000-100,000

Bocce Ball/Shuffleboard

5,000-10,000

Community Center/Gym

25,000-70,000

Court Sports

2,000-5,000

Dog Park

10,000-75,000

Outdoor Gym and Exterior Exercise Areas

5,000-20,000

Pickleball

2,500-3,500

Picnic Areas

500-1,500

Playgrounds

4,000-6,000

Soccer Field

14,000-75,000

Tennis

7,000-28,000

Volleyball

4,000-16,000

Non-Traditional Recreation Facilities for Infill Adventure Playgrounds BMX Course

40,000-60,000

Community Garden

10,000-40,000

Disk Golf Course

10,000-20,000

Rope/Adventure/Skills Course

15,000-50,000

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

1,500-10,000

46,416

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

8,862

28,685

8,869

•

• •

• • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • •

50,000-200,000

Pump Track/Bike Skills Course Skate Spot

4,000-6,000

Total Infill Area SF

•

• • • • • •

•

• •

•

Figure 3-31: Rancho del Oro Park Infill/Expansion Potential

ST LON TOU

A MES

RAN C

HO D

EL O

PAR

A ST ACIN TERR

Empresa Elementary

LLE CO

V BL GE D

LL CA A OY EG

ID EN AV

S RE MP

ID EN AV

Proposed Trail Park Boundary YA Opportunity Area GO E TMulti-use Paved R CO ADA Parking Multi-purpose Field Parking Picnic Area Recreation Center Restroom Swimming Pool Tennis Court Misc. Unusable Areas* AE

150

S RE

R LO O C

A Feet VI

O AD

*Heavily landscaped, circulation, slopes, drainage areas, or natural open space. CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 4

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS

4.1 KEY TRENDS Since the provision of public parks and recreation services can be influenced by demographic preferences, the Master Plan process identified local and national recreation trends that help define what Oceanside’s residents are seeking. By combining participation levels of the City, resident demographics using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, local community input and research of relevant national recreation trends, critical insights that help to plan for the future can be found. This section reviews local and national recreation trends relative to Oceanside’s demographic and identified interests. The current trends impacting City services include: A focus on walking, hiking, and camping in an outdoor setting, such as the beach Participation in team sports activities Swimming and aquatic based activities

Figure 4-1: City of Oceanside Outdoor Activity Participation Archery

12%

Canoeing/Kayaking

Freshwater Fishing

Horseback Riding

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Camping Trip

Learning from these new shifts in participation in outdoor recreation, sports, and cultural programs, a city can then adapt its park requirement planning and development focus.

Outdoor recreation activities with more than five percent household participation included are highlighted in green. Camping trips, canoeing/kayaking, fresh and salt water fishing, frisbee, hiking, jogging/ running, and road biking, were all popular activities; visiting the beach was the number one outdoor recreation activity.

Birdwatching

Frisbee

According to the 2018 Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities (SFIA) Topline Participation Report, outdoor recreation is an activity group that is continuing to capture the interest and attention of new audiences; besides those older than 55, all other age groups listed camping as the number one activity among non-participants. Figure 4-1 demonstrates the participation in outdoor activities in the City of Oceanside’s households according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Almost 12 percent of households participated in overnight camping trips.

Backpacki ng

Recreation activity and programs for the different age-based generations

4.1.1 City of Oceanside Household Participation in Outdoor Activities

Knowing that residents like to visit the beach may be an indication of the community’s need for aquatic related programs. Table 4-2 shows the team sports with the highest and the lowest average annual growth from 2012 to 2017. According to the 2018 SFIA, Millennials are more likely than other generations to engage in water sports.

10% 5%

Hiking

11% 2%

Jogging/Running Mountain Biking Power Boating

15% 3% 4%

Road Biking Salt Water Fishing

11% 5%

Visited Beach

28%

Source: U.S. Census, ESRI Business Analyst

Table 4-1: Water Sport Average Annual Growth Water Sport Stand Up Paddling

5 Year Avg. Annual Growth 20.2%

Kayaking (whitewater)

6.0%

Recreational Kayaking

5.2%

Rafting

-1.4%

Water Skiing

-3.8%

Jet Skiing

-5.0%

Source: 2018 Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report, 2012-2017

Figure 4-2: City of Oceanside Team Sport Participation

Figure 4-2 demonstrates the household participation of individual and team sports in the city. Swimming, soccer, golf, football, bowling, basketball, and baseball were all activities with over 5 percent of household participation.

4.1.3 Nationwide Fitness Activity Trends According to the SFIA, high impact intensity training (HIIT) and cross-training style workouts, or CrossFit, are two of the top trending aerobic activities (see Table 4-3 on page 98). These workouts combine elements of gymnastics, weightlifting, running, rowing, and other sports to create a varied fitness regime. With regard to individual sports, off-road triathlons have seen a 7 percent average annual growth for the last five years. These races, such as XTERRAs, consist of a competitive combination of swimming, mountain biking, and trail running. Pickleball, a paddle sport mixing badminton, tennis, and table tennis, is still trending, gaining an average 8 percent growth each year. Growing even slightly faster is Cardio Tennis at 9.1 percent. Cardio Tennis is a fitness program that focuses on combining a full body workout with elements of tennis.

Baseball

Basketball

Bowling

Football

Golf

Ice Skating

Roller Skating

Soccer

Softball

3% 4%

Tennis

Hockey, rugby, and lacrosse have all experienced an increase of participation. Ultimate Frisbee, Touch Football, and fast pitch softball have seen a significant decline in the last five years. However, recent trends related to concerns over football concussions, has sparked a new interest in touch football.

Volleyball

Nationally, according to the 2018 SFIA report, the activity with the most growth over the last 5 years has been rugby with over 16 percent increase, as shown in Table 4-2.

15%

Swimming

4.1.2 City of Oceanside Household Participation in Team Sports

Source: U.S. Census, ESRI Business Analyst

Table 4-2: Team Sport National Average Annual Growth Team Sport

5 Year Avg. Annual Growth

Rugby

16.5%

Baseball

10.4%

Swimming on a Team

10.1%

Fast Pitch Softball

-2.7%

Touch Football

-3.5%

Ultimate Frisbee

-8.7%

Source: 2018 Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report, 2012-2017

CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS

Engaging persons who normally do not participate in recreational activities or visit parks is one of the outreach challenges of parks and recreation agencies. Income has been seen to impact activity rates; those households making under $50,000 are significantly less active than those making more. Data shows that having someone to join first time users will increase participation more than any other reason.

Table 4-3: Nationwide Fitness Activity Trends 5 Year Avg. Annual Growth Aerobic Activity High Impact Intensity Training (HIIT)

9.3%

Cross-Training Style Workouts

6.6%

Row Machine

5.8%

Stair Climbing Machine

5.6%

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, City of Oceanside residents spend on average $969 a year on recreational expenditures, totaling almost $61 million in 2017, as seen in Figure 4-3. This included membership fees for social, recreation, and community clubs, fees for recreation lessons, camping fees, and recreation equipment purchases, and other related recreation expenses.

Aquatic Exercise

5.0%

Tai Chi

5.0%

According to the Outdoor Industry Economy Report, in California alone, annual consumer spending in outdoor recreation is $92 billion, supporting 691,000 direct jobs. About 56 percent of California residents participate in outdoor recreation each year.

4.1.4 Local and State-wide Recreational Expenditures

Strength Activity Kettleballs

7.0%

Individual Sports Triathlon (Off-Road)

17.1%

Martial Arts

11.2%

MMA for Fitness

11.1%

Trail Running

9.6%

Boxing for Fitness

6.2%

Racquet Sports Cardio Tennis

9.1%

Pickleball

8.5%

Source: 2018 Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report, 2012-2017

Figure 4-3: City of Oceanside Recreational Expenditures Sports, Recreation, and Exercise Equipment

$11,338,373

Entertainment/Recreation Fees and Admissions

$43,377,484

Recreational Vehicles and Fees

$6,145,207

Source: U.S. Census, ESRI Business Analyst

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

$60,864,064

Figure 4-4: State of California Outdoor Recreation Economy

691,000 direct state jobs

$30.4 B in wages and salaries

$92 B

in consumer spending

$6.2 B

in state/local tax revenue

Source: Outdoor Industry, 2017 Outdoor Recreation Economy Report

4.1.5 Generational Changes Activity participation varies based on age, but it also varies based on generational preferences. In regard to generational activity, according to the SFIA report Millennials had the highest percentage of those who were “active to a healthy level,” but a quarter also remained sedentary. Nearly 28 percent of Generation X were inactive, with Baby Boomers at 33 percent inactive. Baby Boomers prefer low impact fitness activities such as swimming, cycling aquatic exercise, and walking.

Figure 4-5: City of Oceanside Generational Breakdown

At least 65 percent of Generation Z’s were at least casually active in 2017, according to the 2018 SFIA report. Figure 4-5 demonstrates the breakdown of generations in the City of Oceanside. In the City of Oceanside, Generation Z makes up the largest generational group, at 27 percent, followed by Millennials (25 percent), Baby Boomers (22 percent), and finally Generation X (at only 20 percent). The Silent Generation is by far the smallest generational group, making up only 6 percent of the population.

CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS

4.2 COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT The planning process included a number of public outreach efforts designed to gather information from a broad range of local residents, stakeholders, and City staff through a series of public events, stakeholder meetings, and a survey.

4.2.1 Community Workshops A total of three workshops were conducted throughout the planning process to obtain community input and solicit feedback on existing parks and recreation facilities. All three workshops were held at the Oceanside Senior Citizens Center between 6:00PM-8:00PM. Additional resident feedback was collected at two public events including the Oceanside Sunset Market on April 5, 2018 and the Movie in the Park on May 19, 2018.

Workshop 1 common topics of discussion

Community Workshop 1 The first community workshop took place on Tuesday, February 27, 2018. It was designed as a conventional workshop including a presentation and breakout tables. Attendees had the opportunity to join one of four tables that were organized according to geographical city quadrants. This allowed participants to focus on the areas that they identify with the most. Each table had a team leader that asked a variety of questions designed to get a diverse understanding of the quadrant’s existing parks and recreation conditions.

Workshop 1 presentation

In addition to the table map exercises, attendees also had the opportunity to learn more about the parks and recreation facilities through photo boards that were printed and placed around the room. Over 30 people attended and had the opportunity to share their thoughts on both parks and recreation challenges and opportunities for the City of Oceanside.

Workshop 1 table exercises

100

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Community Workshop 2 The second workshop took place on Tuesday, March 27, 2018. It was designed as an open house format organized around a series of information stations where attendees were invited to review information, ask questions to the project team, and give feedback. Additionally, attendees were encouraged to complete a survey and provide any additional feedback through comment cards. The open house featured four information stations staffed by project team members with boards, infographics, and maps that displayed different key elements. These stations included an overview and first workshop recap, existing conditions, population based standards, and next steps.

Workshop 2 open house

Over 50 people attended and had the opportunity to share their thoughts on both parks and recreation challenges and opportunities for the City of Oceanside. Community Workshop 3 The third and final community workshop took place on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 and it was designed around a presentation followed by a series of information stations where attendees were invited to review information, ask questions to the project team, and give feedback. Additionally, attendees were encouraged to complete a survey and provide any additional feedback through comment cards. The workshop began with a slideshow presentation that detailed the progress of the project as well as goals for the meeting. Attendees were then directed to three stations staffed by project team members with boards, infographics, and maps designed to gain input from the community. These stations included existing park deficits, potential park locations, and potential trail locations.

Workshop 2 existing facilities matrix

Attendees expressed the need for systemwide improvements, including better lighting and grounds keeping. Several potential locations for parks and trails were also identified and suggestions were made about using easements for connections, especially around underserved areas.

Workshop 3 table exercise

CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS

101

4.2.2 Random Invitation Community Survey Summary (Statistically Valid) A total of 5,500 surveys were mailed to a random sample of Oceanside residents in April 2018. The final sample size for this statistically valid survey was 487, resulting in a margin of error of approximately +/-4.4 percentage points calculated for questions at 50 percent response. The results were segmented and analyzed by presence of children in the household, ZIP code, respondent age, and length of time lived in Oceanside. Those results are presented in cases where meaningful differences were observed. Using U.S. Census Data, age, race, and ethnicity distribution in the sample were adjusted to more closely match the population profile of Oceanside. Survey results indicate that the usage of beaches is extremely high, regardless of respondent demographics, as seen in Figure 4-6. About 97 percent of respondents said that they have visited the beach at least once in the past year and 40 percent at least once a week. Parks, trails, and special events are also very popular with the majority of respondents indicating attendance at least once in the past year.

The parks in Oceanside are an important part of the community and respondents indicated parks, trails, and paths as the most important facilities (see Figure 4-7). Respondents also indicated in a second tier of responses that playgrounds, recreation centers, and special events are important facilities. Most respondents agree that the community’s park needs are being met. Special event spaces, trails, and recreation centers, on the other hand, are less likely to be meeting the needs and represent areas for future improvements. Facilities such as golf courses and swimming centers rated considerably low in importance. Figure 4-8 indicates the importance of each facility to respondents and how important improvements to these facilities are. Facilities with high importance but that do not meet community needs are key areas for potential improvements. Improving these facilities would likely positively affect the degree to which community needs are met overall. While reviewing Figure 4-8, please note that although a recreational amenity or activity may be found in Quadrant B, the supply of this facility may be underserving the community if it is located on the vertical axis between Quadrant A and B. The closer the activity is aligned with the red diagonal line, the more adequate high demand services are being met.

Figure 4-6: Current Usage – Random Invitation Survey

102

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4-7: Importance of City Operated Facilities – Invitation Survey

Figure 4-8: Importance-Performance Matrix – Invitation Survey

Quadrant A High Importance/Low Performance “Concentrate Here”

Quadrant B High Importance/High Performance “Keep Up the Good Work”

Increased supply would benefit user demand

Quadrant C Low Importance/Low Performance “Low Priority”

Quadrant D Low Importance/High Performance “Possible Overkill”

CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS

103

The top future priorities for the next five to ten years were also suggested in the survey results, as show in Figure 4-9. Most respondents indicated that improving walking and biking connections to parks, making improvements or renovating park amenities, and preserving open space should be the top three priorities. The survey indicates that program interests vary considerably when compared to other segments of the population (see Figure 4-10). As a result, the City should develop a variety of programs to serve the various groups.

Improvements to existing facilities are high priorities

According to the survey, improving the conditions of parks and the other facilities would increase resident utilization. However, 53 percent of respondents said that issues related to safety and security are top barriers to participation, as shown in Figure 4-11. Lastly, respondents indicated that an increase in fees would have a moderate impact on future recreation participation, with over half of them saying their participation would be more limited. Nonetheless, most respondents would need more information to determine the level of impact that fees would have on their use levels. Improvements to walking and biking connections are high priorities

Figure 4-9: Top Three Future Facility Priorities – Invitation Survey

104

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4-10: Top Three Future Program Priorities – Invitation Survey

Figure 4-11: Barriers to Participation – Invitation Survey vs. Intercept Survey

CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS

105

4.2.3 Intercept Survey Summary

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE INTERCEPT SURVEY Help shape the future of your community! The City of Oceanside wants your feedback to assist in the planning and development of future parks and recreation opportunities.

In addition to the statistically valid survey, an intercept survey was conducted at multiple pop-up events and community workshops. This intercept survey contained about half as many questions as the invitation survey, and therefore responses were compared only in cases in which the same question was asked on both surveys. A total of 683 people completed the intercept survey. The results from this survey were used to analyze residents’ perspectives on parks and recreation in Oceanside. They also provided the City with a current view of people’s opinions, concerns, and desires for the future of Oceanside’s parks and recreation facilities. According to the intercept survey results, respondents were most likely to have visited the beach, with 98 percent having visited at least once in the past year and 54 percent at least once a week. They are also heavy users of Oceanside parks, with 94 percent having visited in the past year and a notable 59 percent having visited at least once a week (see Figure 4-12). When asked what the most important needs to be addressed over the next five to ten years were, two items rose to the top of the list as being very important to intercept respondents: making improvements and/or renovating existing amenities at parks and preserving open space. Figure 4-12: Current Usage – Intercept Survey

106

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

How long have you lived in the City of Oceanside?  0 – 5 years  6 – 10 years  11 – 15 years  16 – 20 years  20+ years

What is your home ZIP code?  92054  92057  92056  92058  Other area of the city: __________________________

CURRENT USAGE 3.

In the past 12 months, how frequently have you and your household:

ONCE A WEEK OR MORE

ONCE A MONTH

ONCE EVERY FEW MONTHS

ONCE A YEAR

DID NOT USE

DON’T KNOW

Visited a City of Oceanside park Used City of Oceanside trails or pathways Used the City of Oceanside swimming pool Used the City of Oceanside Community Center Participated in a City of Oceanside recreation program Attended a City of Oceanside event Visited the beach and/or harbor (If have visited a park) What activities do you typically engage in at City of Oceanside parks? (If you do not use Oceanside City parks or programs) Where do you recreate? FUTURE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS 4.

What are the most important needs to be addressed in the City of Oceanside over the next 5 to 10 years? NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 1

1) Add aquatics facilities 2) Add athletic fields/courts EANSIDE 3) Develop new parks DAD DE OC TO DE LA CIU 4) Expand programs and activities ACIO ABIER car y S Y ESP 5) Increase trail and UE pathway connectivity dar a planifi LOS PARQ n para ayu IÓN opiatnió 6) DE Make improvements and/or renovate existing amenities parks su EPC ea PC des ER ide DE INT de Oceans 7) New or expanded community/recreation center ENCUESTA ciudad dad! La n. o? 8) uni Preserve openrec space com ció tu icili rea de dom ro su de ar el futu idades de igo postal uda a form s y opo9)rtunOther (please specify: _________________________________) ál es el cód

VERY IMPORTANT 5

¡Ay que futuros par desarrollar 1.

po ha vivido ¿Cuánto tiem s  0 - 5 año s  6 - 10 año s año  11 - 15 años  16 - 20 20 años  Más de

2. ¿Cu  92057 __ anside?  92054 Oceitems _________ (INSERT NUMBERS)  92058to you___ ___household? ad de 5. ciud Which three from the list above are920 the56highest priorities and___ your ______  usted en la Most important #______ Second most important ciudad: de laThird #______ most important #______  Otra área

What are the most important areas that, if addressed by the City of Oceanside, would increase your use of City of Oceanside parks and recreation facilities? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 01)  Better condition / maintenance of parks or facilities 09)  More programs 02)  Better customer service / staff knowledge 10)  Better parking NO 03)  Facilities closer to where I live or work 11)  Lower pricing/user fees hogar?: NINGUNA SÉ os de suaccessibility UNA VEZ 04)  Better handicapped / disabled 12)  VEZ Better signage/wayfinding mbr mie VEZ LA los A UAL o UNA d VEZ uste UNA USO ACT AL AÑO 05) uen ciaExpanded hours of operation 13)  Improved safety and security UNA VEZ AL frec OS MESES qué ANA POC n SEM En ¿co meses, 06)  Improved communication about offerings MES 14)  WiFi connectivity últimos 12 O MÁS los En 3. 07)  Better lighting (parks, trails, and facilities) 15)  Other (please specify:_______________________) 08)  More facilities and amenities Oceanside? la ciudad de de Oceanside? un parque de de la ciudad ¿Ha Visitado ide? eros o rutas ans send Oce do de ¿Ha Usa anside? la ciudad Ciudad de Oce ad de Oceanside? la piscina de ¿Ha Usado unitario de la Ciud eación de la el Centro Com ¿Ha Usado rama de recr do en un prog de Oceanside? ¿Ha Participa de la Ciudad Oceanside? a un evento tido Asis rto? ¿Ha la Ciudad de o el pue parques de la playa y / izar en los ¿Ha Visitado des suele real ¿Qué activida un parque) se recrea? de (Si ha visitado dón ide City) ¿En de Oceans o programas s? los parques s 5 a 10 año (Si no usa los próximo MUY ide durante de Oceans IMPORTANTE PROGRAMAS Y S en la Ciudad 5 ONE A abordarse 4 INSTALACI PARA NAD que deben FUTURAS 3 NTE ntes RTA orta IMPO imp 2 1 esidades más son las nec 4. ¿Cuáles instalaciones

acuáticas

1) Añadir s deportivas campos / pista 2) Añadir parques llar nuevos 3) Desarro y actividades caminos ir programas los parques senderos y 4) Expand ctividad de existentes en cone la r instalaciones ión 5) Aumenta o renovar las y de recreac mejoras y / de comunitario 6) Hacer ndir el Centro expa o S) r ______) 7) Renova abierto LOS NÚMERO _________ r el espacio (ESCRIBIR _________ 8) Preserva y su familia? _________ para usted (especificar: ad de importantes importante #______ 9) Otros ión de la Ciud entos más

más reac elem son los tres rtante #______ Tercero iones de Rec rior ¿cuáles impo ues e Instalac IQUE) de los Parq De la lista ante #______ Segundo más APL entar el uso te O LO QUE RQUE TOD es para aum Más importan ramas a los siguient ntes para Ud. (s)? (MA 09)  Más prog rdar ento abo ami ide, importa Mejor estacion s / tarifas del usuario los caminos ad de Oceans laciones áreas más 10)  bajo ar 6. Si la Ciud ¿Cuáles serian las miento de parques o insta ento Precios mas ión / forma de encontr 11)  r conocimi Oceanside r condición / manteni Mejor señalizac ridad y la protección onal con mejo Mejo 12)  segu 01)  al cliente / pers donde vivo o trabajo ___) Mejora de la sa Mejor servicio d _________ 13)  02)  más cercana onas con discapacida idad WiFi _________ nes ___ ectiv lacio ___ Con Insta 14)  car: ______ 03)  idad para pers Otros (especifi Mejor accesibil operación 15)  04)  ofertas horas de las liar e ) sobr Amp nes n 05)  unicació e instalacio Mejorar la Com (parques, senderos 06)  ión Mejor iluminac 07)  nes y servicios Más instalacio 08) 

Intercept survey sample

About 54 percent of intercept respondents selected making improvements and/or renovating existing amenities at parks as one of their top three choices. Preserving open space (45 percent) and increasing trail and pathway connectivity (43 percent) were also highly selected, as shown in Figure 4-13.

As in the statistically valid survey, 69 percent of intercept respondents indicated that improved conditions and maintenance of parks and facilities are the most important factors for increasing their utilization. Additionally, 41 percent of respondents would like to see better lighting in parks and trails.

Figure 4-13: Top Three Future Facility Priorities – Intercept Survey

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS I am happy to know the City of Oceanside has a desire to improve itself for the benefit of its residents. Keep it up! Thanks!

Honestly I didn’t know that many of these things existed. If I received a physical catalog or just a postcard letting me know that I could check out City of Oceanside Activity Guide, that would be fantastic.

The summer programs are great! My kids are teens, so they’ll be transitioning from attending beach camps to leading them soon. The parks are beautiful and well maintained. Adding (fencing off) an area for loose dogs at each park and school would be great.

Clear signs directing residents to nearby facilities would greatly affect our family’s usage! Thanks for the work you do daily on our behalf!

More shade protection on the playground. On sunny days it’s hard to use it. Everything is getting very hot.

CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS

107

4.3 PROGRAM ANALYSIS 4.3.1 Program Development The City offers a variety of recreation services and programs that seek to meet the needs of the community. These services benefit individuals, families, businesses, and neighborhoods as a whole. Assessing current program offerings, determining program gaps, and finding community needs will allow the Parks and Recreation Division to identify improvement areas and develop strategies to assist in the delivery of other services. To do so, the City should develop a vision and mission to help identify the core services that will bring the greatest community benefits. It is also important to maintain regular dialogue with users and residents, as well as analyzing current trends, the market, and the data obtained during the community outreach efforts. The Oceanside Parks and Recreation Division should pursue program development around the priorities identified by the program evaluation process, research, and community input, including community events, hobby/interest programs, fitness and wellness programs, nature programs, among others. According to the survey, the top three highest priority programs are community events, fitness and wellness programs, and outdoor recreation programs. The following criteria should be analyzed when developing new programs: Need: outgrowth of a current popular program, or enough demonstrated demand to successfully support a minimal start (one class for instance). Budget: accounting for all costs and anticipated (conservative) revenues; should meet cost recovery targets established by the department. Location: appropriate, available, and within budget. Instructor: qualified, available, and within budget. Materials and supplies: available and within budget. Marketing effort: adequate and timely opportunity to reach intended market; (either existing marketing budget or as part of new program budget). New programs should be based on community demand and trends. Careful consideration, planning, and communication with the community is required. Due to the inability to predict the success of certain activities and programs, the City should engage in con108

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

tinuous creative assessments, surveying, research, and planning for viability. Additionally, new programs should be well advertised to provide the best possibility of success. Available facilities and funding must be considered when adding or expanding programs, as this may hinder potential opportunities in some cases.

4.3.2 Program Evaluation All current programs should be evaluated annually to determine if they should be continued, changed, or discontinued. A few simple questions should be asked about each program that includes: Is participation increasing or decreasing? Is there information contained in user feedback that can be used to improve the program? Are cost recovery goals being met? If not, can fees be realistically increased or costs reduced? Can the program be offered by a more suitable or more qualified provider? Is this program taking up facility space that could be used for expansion of more popular programs or new programs in demand by the community?

4.4 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS According to the input received through the community outreach process, the parks, recreation facilities, and programs are actively used by Oceanside’s residents. Key issues were identified through stakeholder meetings and interviews, community workshops, pop-up events, a community survey, a review of existing documents, an inventory, and a geographic distribution analysis. All the information obtained from the aforementioned sources was analyzed and recommendations were developed to address the following key issues: Improve walking and biking connections to parks. Preserve open space. Create additional trails through open space. Make improvements and/or renovate existing amenities of parks.

CHAPTER 5

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations are derived from all of the community and staff input received including stakeholder interviews, community workshops, intercept surveys, statistically valid surveys, pop-up outreach, and staff interviews. The recommendations are also informed by the geographic distribution analysis (GDA), geographic gap analysis, and funding considerations. The following discussion describes ways to increase Population Based Standards, distribution, and the quality of the parks and recreation system. This is accomplished through adding and enhancing amenities, as well as a commitment to the affordability of services and programs, upgrading programs and service delivery, improving organizational efficiencies, and augmenting financial opportunities. The following are goals that will help to improve the quantity and quality of the existing park system: Goal 1: Improve Connectivity to Parks Objective 1.1

Locate missing gaps in pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to parks, recreational facilities and open space. Gaps in pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the existing parks and community centers are shown on figures 3-3 - 3-4. A more detailed analysis of missing gaps should be conducted to further identify specific connectivity improvements throughout the park system. Updating the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan for increased park connectivity is recommended.

Objective 1.2

Develop plans to fill in the missing gaps in pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. It is recommended that where feasible, these gaps should be closed through the use of capital projects. This may take the shape of new sidewalks, improved sidewalks, new park entrances, new trails, bike lanes, safety improvements at intersections, and streetscape enhancements.

Objective 1.3

Work with other departments and private developers to implement the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan to construct public improvements to increase the connectivity to parks. The capital improvement projects listed in Objective 1.2 may be under several different departments/divisions’ jurisdictions including: Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Section, Development Services, Neighborhood Services Department, and Economic Development. It is recommended that departments work closely to devise a coordinated method for designing, funding, and constructing these improvements.

110

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Goal 2: Renovate Existing Parks and Facilities Objective 2.1

Create additional recreational facilities and amenities. Based on the existing facilities GDA and the PBS analysis, recommendations have been made for what types of facilities are deficient and in what areas of the city they are most needed. The park infill maps also list what types of facilities can be added to the existing park space. It is recommended that the City include the addition of these facilities and integrate them into programmed park upgrades, and future developments that need to finance these amenities.

Objective 2.2

Maintain and improve existing facilities, parks, trails, and open spaces. Parks and Recreation should work with Public Works to evaluate the condition of existing parks and trails on a routine basis. Evaluation methods should be developed to measure the quality of maintenance. Training of staff to guarantee that maintenance is up to City standards should happen on a continuous basis. Maintenance staffing should be observed and corrected as needed to meet present need for services, and an employment strategy for upcoming growth should be established. Bi-annual examinations of all facilities, parks, trails, and open spaces should be executed. Maintenance projects and annual maintenance demands should be undertaken on a consistent basis to decrease an accumulation of maintenance. Maintenance tasks should be prioritized and reviewed routinely. This should include developing costs, plans, and phasing recommendations.

Objective 2.3

Improve customer satisfaction through adding support amenities to existing facilities. Parks and Recreation should work with Public Works to investigate opportunities to improve customer satisfaction by adding shade, storage buildings, security enhancements, restrooms, lighting, benches, signage, and other amenities appropriately at existing parks.

Goal 3: Preserve Open Space Objective 3.1

Work with other departments and landowners to preserve existing open space. Preserving open space ranked the third highest priority in the statistically valid survey and scored highly in all other public outreach. The City should work with the owners of open space, especially those that are public sector or a land preservation organization, to assist in protecting open space in areas where it is appropriate. These areas would include sensitive habitat, steep slopes, buffers to sensitive areas, including along streams, and areas recommended for trails.

Objective 3.2

For new development seeking a discretionary permit, work with the applicant to preserve open space where appropriate. It is recommended that City staff work with applicants of discretionary projects to preserve open space in beneficial areas, such as those listed in Objective 4.2. Preserving open space can be deemed as a community benefit to the project.

Objective 3.3

Work with Planning Division to develop a Trails Master Plan. It is recommended that the Division, in conjunction with the Planning Division, develop a Trails Master Plan to provide a blueprint for the development of a system of interconnected trails and pathways that will connect open spaces, public facilities, and other regional parks. These trails will provide recreation and transportation opportunities, as well as health benefits for residents.

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

111

Goal 4: Create Additional Trails through Open Space Objective 4.1

Locate open space areas for new trails. As part of this Master Plan process, locations for possible new trails were explored (Figure 5-1). The City should continue to identify additional areas that have good potential for trails through a City Trails Master Plan process. The ideas in this chapter regarding trails should only be considered a starting place for further investigation.

Objective 4.2

Develop plans to build new trails through open space including mountain biking trails. It is recommended the City develop plans for the design and construction of new trails as identified in a City Trails Maser Plan and include the cost of developing the plans and construction of the trails in the CIP.

Objective 4.3

Locate new trails within new development and new parks where appropriate. The City should work with applicants of discretionary projects to coordinate the inclusion of trails within new development where appropriate.

Goal 5: Augment Programs Objective 5.1

Improve special event offerings and facilities. Using trends and program priorities expressed through the surveys, the Division should add special events where a demand or trend in the parks and recreation exists. Event facilities should be expanded and improved as part of the CIP.

Objective 5.2

Routinely analyze the usage of the programs, facilities, and services and make appropriate adjustments based on collected data. The Division should routinely measure the amount of participation in its programs, facilities, and services to determine the levels of usage. With this data, the division can make appropriate changes to its programs that reflects demand, which may result in needed facility expansions or renovations. Evaluations should be conducted at the end of each program to determine the participants’ level of satisfaction. This evaluation can assist in programming changes or adjustments. Monitor trends and demand in recreation and revise/add recreational opportunities appropriately.

Objective 5.3

Work with other service providers to enhance/develop programs to address changing needs and trends. As needs and trends change, work with other recreation providers to supplement the needs of changing interests. Create written agreements with service providers. Develop a web site where a member of the community can find out about all the other service providers’ recreational opportunities.

Objective 5.4

Monitor the costs of programs and services. The Division should augment programs and services as demand increases. Staff should monitor resource allocation, spending, and cost recovery. Proper education of staff will help keep costs in-line. Program and services employees should be routinely observed and changes should be made to meet present needs. Future programs and services’ costs should be identified and analyzed.

Goal 6: Enhance Division Efficiencies Objective 6.1

Improve internal and external communication about division activities, events and services. The Division should increase the use of a number of effective marketing tools and strategies actively

112

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

promoting parks and recreation services in the community. These tools can include email, social media, websites, flyers, newsletters, and street banners. The Division should consider bringing back the Parks and Recreation Guide. This comment was made throughout the public outreach effort. In addition, the Division should review marketing efforts on a regular basis and explore additional partnerships that will further enhance the Division’s communication and marketing efforts within the community. Objective 6.2

Keep up with increasing demand by increasing staffing properly. As facilities, programs, and services are enhanced, it is necessary to have appropriate staffing levels. This may necessitate new positions.

Goal 7: Expand Financial Opportunities Objective 7.1

Investigate supplementary funding sources. Funding sources should be researched and matched with potential improvements. Sources such as donations, grants, sponsorships, fees, and naming rights are some examples of what should be considered. Previous sponsors should be frequently communicated with to maintain the association and leverage previous investments.

Objective 7.2

Create a best practice pricing model. Develop a pricing process to regulate a consistent technique of pricing and services throughout the Division. A resource allocation and cost recovery procedure should be based in values, vision, and the City mission, while generating positive revenues to support the City’s park system. Success and effectiveness should be reviewed yearly.

Objective 7.3

Study prospects to grow private sponsorships. The Division should continue to grow sponsor partnerships for special events, activities, and programs. Present and future sponsorships should be encouraged to continue their support.

Objective 7.4

Track grant and charitable opportunities. New grant opportunities for programming, facility improvements, and connectivity enhancements should be sought after and this includes at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. The Division may want to contemplate hiring a new position or contracting with a dedicated grant writer to explore, propose, and follow grants.

Goal 8: Construct New Park Facilities Objective 8.1

Study additional land acquisition and development funding for new parks. Utilize the GDA findings to identify where gaps in distribution and quantities exist. Based on state standards of equity, utilize the park gaps and facility deficiencies in this Master Plan to determine what new parks may be needed, what facilities are missing in the area and the amount of acres the community is short in. Then assign developer impact fees or developer agreements to decrease these deficiencies based the expected population of these new developments. Keep track of available land for purchase or require dedication of lands from developments.

Objective 8.2

Implement existing park design and master plans. For those parks that have already received master planning efforts, design or construction documents, Park and Recreation should work with Public Works to develop capital projects and implement them. Prioritize those within the park gaps first.

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

113

5.2 DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS 5.2.1 Geographic Gaps in Park Facilities As seen in Figure 5-1, there are a few areas of the city that have gaps in accessibility to park facilities as measured by the goal of a 15-minute walk for neighborhood parks or a 5-minute drive for community parks and special facilities. Several criteria were looked at to ascertain if there were other potential facilities that can be shared; is it near a school, near an accessible Home Owner’s Association park, or near a partner facility. Next it was analyzed if the gap area was next to a City trail, open space, City owned land, other agency owned land, or other vacant land. Below are detailed descriptions and figures depicting possible locations, using the evaluation criteria above, for parks to assist in filling in the gaps of park facilities. Area A This area, as seen in Figure 5-2 on page 116, is located north of Route 78, east of El Camino Real, and south of Oceanside Boulevard. There is a sizable residential community here that is lacking in access to park facilities. These are older communities that were built before developers typically built amenities in the subdivisions, and before the Quimby Act. There is a golf course, the El Camino Country Club, in the area with other recreation amenities but it is a private golf course that requires membership fees, therefore, this is not considered a public asset. It is recommended that the city look into park opportunities in one or both of the areas shown in greater detail in figure 5-3. Both of these areas are under private ownership, but are relatively flat on top of the canyon, and have good access to the street system. Potential site A1 is 238,962 SF in size. Potential site A2 is 78,907 SF.

114

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Area B Area B is south of Mesa Drive, North of Oceanside Boulevard, east of College Drive, and west of Melrose Drive. It is a large area and is a mixture of residential, commercial, and public institution. On Figure 5-4 on page 118, there are three areas that could be potential locations for new parks and a potential trail system connecting the three parks with the surrounding community. Area B1 is 839,683 SF in size. It is a combination of flat and rolling terrain. Area B2 is 615,840 SF in size and is a combination of rolling hills and flat terrain. Area B3 is much smaller in size at 26,590 SF and is owned by Vista Unified School District. Potential site area B4, as seen in figure 5-6, is a proposed trail connection to the park located along Avenida De La Plata. This would connect this park deficient area to this park. Site area B5, as seen in figure 5-6, is the existing Temple Heights Elementary School. There does not currently exist an MOU for the public to access its facilities. It is recommended that an MOU be put in place so that the community can access its recreation facilities. Facilities at this school include basketball courts, playgrounds, handball courts, multi-purpose fields, and foursquare courts. Potential site areas B6 and B7, as seen on figure 5-7, are located next to a residential area and commercial area. Area B6 is mostly flat in terrain, is well connected to the neighborhood street system, and is 13,357 SF. Area B7 is also mostly flat and is 67,711 SF. It is owned by the Regency Hills Association. Area C Area C is south of 76 and east of Melrose Drive, as seen in Figure 5-8 on page 122. The residential area is next to a large portion of open space. Potential Site Area C1, owned by the State of California, is at the intersection of Spur Avenue and Belmont Park Road and is 129,167 SF. There is some slope to this terrain but with some minor grading, amenities can be developed. It is also recommended that trails be developed throughout this area.

Figure 5-1: Geographic Gaps in Park Facilities

Source: KTUA 2019 CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

115

Figure 5-2: Area A

See detail on page 117

116

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5-3: Potential Sites A1 and A2

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

117

Figure 5-4: Area B

See detail on page 119

See detail on page 120

See detail on page 121

118

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5-5: Potential Sites B1, B2, and B3

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

119

Figure 5-6: Potential Sites B4 and B5

120

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5-7: Potential Sites B6 and B7

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

121

Figure 5-8: Area C

See detail on page 123

122

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5-9: Potential Site C1

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

123

5.2.2 Trail Recommendations

5.2.3 Opportunity Area Priorities

Developing new trails in open space was ranked third in the statistically valid survey and was mentioned frequently at the public workshops, stakeholder interviews, and intercept surveys. A top area for developing new hiking trails is in the existing open space along Oceanside’s boundary with Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (see Figure 5-10). There are many City of Oceanside owned lands along this border. There are also many non-profit and land conservancy owned land. Where a proposed trail cannot connect through an existing residential development, the trail could connect to the San Luis Rey River trail and then connect back up once it is past the residential area. It is also recommended that the City communicate with the Marine Corps base about bringing the trail onto the federal property to get around the residential portion. This is high quality open space with steep hills and canyons. This is Oceanside’s only potential for a significant and extensive hiking trail system. The trail could run mostly east/west and could be about 11 miles long and connect through the canyon to the east of Oceanside Golf Course and then connect to Luiseño Park. A future Trails Master Plan would need to determine land ownership, environmental constraints and technical feasibilities for trail development.

On pages 48-97, potential infill of existing parks is detailed through tables, figures, and narrative descriptions. The following facilities and locations should be given priority due to current and projected deficit, lack of facilities in the area, lack of school facilities in the area, and lack of non-profit recreation providers in the area. Based on the criteria above, the following are priorities for park infill:

Another potential area for a trail (hiking and/or biking) is along the Loma Alta Creek. This is all publicly owned land and could provide another great east/west trail, approximately 8 miles long. It could begin/terminate at Bucanneer Beach Park and can connect to the Coastal Rail Trail. It could connect to Palisades Park, Joseph Sepulveda Park, and with a short ride on Rancho Del Oro Drive, Mira Costa College. It could also connect with Guajome Regional Park via Melrose Drive and then connect to the existing San Luis Rey River Trail. The San Luis Rey River Trail is highly popular trail. It is recommended that this trail be extended further to the east, to Oceanside’s border, adjacent to the river bed. This would add approximately three miles to the trail. On the Park Infill Improvement Maps in Chapter 4, there are several trails that are recommended at various parks. These can be less costly opportunities to increase the recreational opportunities at the parks and research has shown that when there is a walking trail at a park, it increases the overall usage of that park by 70 percent. 124

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Disc golf: Joseph Sepulveda Park, Lion’s Club Park, and Oceanside Municipal Golf Course. Dog park: Capistrano Park, South Oceanside Park, El Corazon, and Bucaneer Park. Gym: Buddy Todd Park, El Corazon, Joseph Sepulveda Park, and/or South Oceanside School Park. Outdoor gym/exercise equipment: Joe Balderrama Park, Martin Luther King Jr. Park, and/or Melba Bishop Park. Pickleball: Melba Bishop Park, Alamosa Park, Joe Balderrama Park, Mance Buchanon Park, Ron Ortega Recreation Park, and/or Lion’s Club Park. Pool: proposed at El Corazon. Skate spot: Ron Ortega Recreation Park, Spring Creek Park, Tyson Street Park or Buccaneer Park, Buddy Todd Park, Alamosa Park (or could be a skate park), Joseph Carrasco Park, and Spring Creek Park. Tennis: Ron Ortega Recreation Park, Fireside Park, and/or Spring Creek Park. Volleyball (sand): Joseph Sepulveda Park, Martin Luther King Jr. Park, and/or Oak Riparian Park. Basketball courts: MLK Jr. Park, Rancho Del Oro Park, Joe Balderrama Park, and Tyson Street Park. Sports Fields: proposed at El Corazon

5.2.4 Park Connectivity Suggestions It is recommended that the City update their current Bike and Pedestrian Plan either in conjunction with or in addition to the recommended Trails Master Plan. This planning process will decipher what mobility improvements should be made to facilitate active modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and transit. The plan should also recommend improvements to public infrastructure to better connect parks to the community, to make them easy and safe to get to by an active mode of transportation, and be well connected to each other.

Figure 5-10: Potential Trail Corridors to be Considered

Source: City of Oceanside 2017, KTUA 2019 CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

125

The Division should continue to coordinate with the Public Works Department as they look to develop and expand greenways, bike paths, and trails that connect communities, neighborhoods, and parks. It is also recommended that the City implement the various access connections shown on Figures 4-6 - 4-30. These connections help to better connect the parks to the surrounding communities, thus improving access and encouraging use of the parks. An additional way to improve connectivity is through signage. It is recommended that the Division develop and implement a wayfinding signage program. The program should include directional and distance signage, maps, and the use of apps. Enhanced wayfinding will help connect residents and visitors to bike paths, trails, and parks as well as create an awareness of these amenities.

5.2.5 New Development Recommendations It is recommended that the City, following the Quimby Act, continue to condition development projects to build parks (rather than accept the in-lieu fees) if the development is located in an area that is underserved by parks geographically and/or if it is underserved in terms of facilities (a low GDA and where the PBS is not being met). Figure 5-11 shows areas that are not served by community parks via a five-minute driveshed and are not served by neighborhood parks or schools with existing MOUs via a 15-minute walkshed. These areas should be a priority for new development to be conditioned to build parks in these areas. Also, shown on this figure are areas where the Smart Growth Opportunity Areas collide with the above gaps in geographic service. These areas should be given high priority for new parks to be built by development. And lastly, Figure 5-12 shows where gaps in service exist if it is assumed that the City will eventually have MOUs with all the schools. These gap in service areas should also be given high priority. In areas where gaps do not exist or when the proposed amenities are community-wide assets, they should be added to El Corazon Park, based on the El Corazon Master Plan.

126

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

5.2.6 New Construction, Enhancement, and Maintenance Recommendations Restrooms: Throughout the Master Plan process, there were many comments made that there should be better maintenance of the restrooms. It is recommended that a more thorough cleaning and maintenance schedule be adopted, a checklist created, and that staff be held accountable for completing the cleaning and maintenance. It has been identified that restrooms need to be added or replaced at the followint parks: Joe Balderrama Park, Buccaneer Park, Capistrano Park, Buddy Todd Park, Joseph Sepulveda Park, and Landes Park. Security: It was also heard throughout the process that security should be enhanced in the parks. It is recommended that additional lighting be added to parks and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principals be used when retrofitting or building new facilities. GIS database: The division should maintain a GIS database for parks and trails’ assets using the current inventory from the Master Plan. As new parks, trails, and amenities are added or existing assets are upgraded, replaced or repurposed, the GIS database should be updated to reflect those changes. Shade structures: Shade structures should be added to existing parks. Playgrounds, picnic areas, and other seating areas should be priorities for shade structures. ADA Access: There should be at least one playground that is fully accessible and that is centrally located. Community center: The community center at John Landes should be reopened and programmed.

Figure 5-11: Parkshed Gaps

Source: City of Oceanside 2017, SANDAG 2018, KTUA 2019 CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

127

Figure 5-12: Parkshed Gaps Assuming Future MOUs with All Schools

Source: City of Oceanside 2017, SANDAG 2018, KTUA 2019 128

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

5.3 DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS 5.3.1 Design Guidelines From a design standpoint most of the parks visited consist of a “suburban aesthetic” – they fit well into the context of the surrounding neighborhoods, and have a clean, well maintained landscape aesthetic. Trees and turf are the dominant vegetative material with some planting beds scattered throughout some of the sites. Some of the park sites have notable architectural features, but for the most part restroom and pavilion architectural materials consist of different types of concrete masonry unit (CMU) block or masonry facades with varying roof materials. Design Guideline 1: Accessibility From a design standpoint, accessibility should be a high priority for every park project that is undertaken to promote equality for people with disabilities, as well as comply with the U.S. Access Board/State of California standards. Staff that designs or manages construction projects should be familiar with accessibility standards; if this expertise is not present with existing staff members there are many classes available that can inform staff regarding accessibility standards. Larger capital projects often have design teams that provide accessibility quality control review, but it is important that the Division also keep a watchful eye on the work being designed and constructed, as another set of quality control review helps protect Oceanside’s infrastructure investments. Hiring a third-party accessibility consultant is another option if in-house staff does not have accessibility expertise. A third-party accessibility consultant can review construction drawings prior to the drawings being issued for bid; if the drawings contain items that do not meet accessibility standards, it is significantly cheaper to catch such issues prior to the design being constructed and revise the drawings prior to bid instead of trying to fix non-compliant items after construction has already occurred. If a system-wide ADA Assessment has not been performed for the entire park system, it is highly recommended that a third-party ADA consultant be hired to make an assessment so that a plan can be put into place to remedy the deficiencies that are found.

An important standard that is easily overlooked is the U.S. Access Board Standards for Outdoor Developed Areas which provides very specific ADA requirements for trails, benches, trash receptacles, picnic tables, grills, camping facilities, picnic facilities, and viewing areas, to name a few. Each time a feature like those listed above needs to be replaced it is a good opportunity to evaluate if the area meets current ADA codes, and plan what can be done to remedy any accessibility deficiencies. Lastly, in addition to meeting ADA standards it is recommended that new playground facilities also be designed to be inclusive. While ADA standards require that playgrounds can be accessed and entered by children with disabilities, an inclusive playground is designed to make the playground components usable to all children regardless of differing physical, mental, and social abilities. Special emphasis should be placed on ensuring the design allows for every child to interact with their peers or if they chose, play independently. Design Guideline 2: Safety From a design standpoint, CPTED should be a high priority for every design project that is undertaken. Staff that is responsible for park design or manages park construction projects should be well versed with the general principles of CPTED; if existing staff is not familiar with CPTED principles, there are training classes available. Large capital projects often have design teams that should be considering CPTED throughout the design process, but it is important for the Division to also keep a watchful eye on park projects being designed and constructed because Oceanside staff will have an insightful perspective regarding the dayto-day workings and challenges of a given site. Safety within a public park system is a complex issue that can often be improved by proactively introducing additional amenities, features, and programs into a site to attract a greater number of users for the maximum number of hours throughout the day, which has a tendency of dispersing unwanted activities. Lighting can play an important role in safety, perceived safety, and deterrence of unwanted nighttime activities, while also allowing the public to use the park system for longer hours each day. New LED lighting technology reduces the annual cost of lighting a park while also reducing the level of lighting maintenance required due to the long life of the CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

129

LED fixtures. For sites where installing underground electric lines is impossible, solar light kits are available, although pedestrian lights that utilize solar kits are often not aesthetically pleasing. To help unify the park system and create a cohesive Oceanside “brand” we recommend two to three standard light poles/fixtures be selected. For example, a pole/fixture could be selected that works well with most Oceanside’s parks, something that has a suburban aesthetic, and another pole/fixture could be selected for parks which have a historic feel. In addition to unifying the brand of Oceanside’s parks, limiting the standards to two to three will also benefit maintenance staff as they will only need to stock a few different types of parts. During the public workshops, concern regarding activity related to the homeless population was mentioned by the public. Parks that currently experience unwanted nighttime activities should be evaluated from a CPTED standpoint to see if there are design factors that contribute to the problem (lack of lighting, lack of visibility into the site for law enforcement due to tall plantings, and lack of programming/activities to attract lawful activity). Additionally, if site conditions exist that are conducive to sleeping in the park (i.e. someone can comfortably lay down on a bench, or seat wall) it would be worthwhile to consider providing site furnishings that encourage the public to relax while discouraging sleeping activities; standardizing these furnishings, similar to how the light fixture standardization was described above, would be appropriate. Law enforcement presence is an important component of park safety, but law enforcement alone often cannot solve complex safety issues within a park system. A balanced approach of CPTED based design, site lighting, increasing the number of amenities, features, and programs to attract the greatest number of park users to a site for the greatest number of hours throughout the day, together with law enforcement will often improve safety and perception of safety within a park. Lastly, park staff that oversees playground construction or renovations should be trained using the Certified Playground Safety Inspector Certification Program. Regardless of whether staff will perform playground audits, the expertise gained from this program will contribute to safer playgrounds throughout Oceanside’s park and recreation system.

Design Guideline 3: Park Experience When considering different park experiences that the public can access in Oceanside it is helpful to consider the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a system used by the U.S. Forest Service to manage parks for several decades. While an in-depth understanding of ROS is beneficial, as it relates to the Oceanside Parks and Recreation Division describing and understanding the different types of parks and recreation experiences the public can participate in is what is most important. Park planners could assist the City with tailoring an ROS system to the City of Oceanside’s unique park experience offerings, which would enable the Division to proactively provide new amenities without adversely affecting the unique park experiences already found within the park system. A quick example of how the ROS system can be applied to help inform the decision making process is as follows: a resident can go for a walk at an indoor recreation center, a beach park, or a suburban park, but their experience is very different at each of the three sites, hence they have a spectrum of different experiences even though the lens through which they experienced the different sites (walking) is the same. Based upon public workshops and the Master Plan survey, additional walking and biking trails, pathways, and interconnectivity within the parks system is a top request from the public; as such, from an ROS standpoint it could be said that Oceanside’s residents are interested in recreation opportunities that includes providing additional access to trails within the park system. Of note, other requests made by the public included special event spaces, recreation centers, providing parks in closer proximity to all residents, and preserving open space. In evaluating such requests, we recommend Oceanside first consider the spectrum of recreation opportunities that exist within the park system. This starts by using the inventory of features/amenities available within each park, and then asks the question “what is the experience of this amenity” within a given park – for example, how does the experience of a picnic area adjacent to a playground compare with the experience of a picnic area within a quiet naturalistic park? Does the park system have a lot of picnic areas adjacent to playgrounds, making

that experience common? Does the park system have a small quantity of picnic areas situated in naturalistic parks, making that experience unique? By identifying unique features and more importantly unique experiences that already exist within the park system, Oceanside can make ROS-informed decisions and feel confident that adding features to the park system does not alter existing unique experiences in an adverse way. Some notable experiences that stood out to the consultant team include the memorable trees and sense of enclosure experienced at Spring Creek Park, distinct topography of Joseph Sepulveda, memorable trails of Oak Riparian Park, and historic structures of Heritage Park. As an example, if a playground is desired nearby an existing small parking lot within a naturalistic park, from an ROS standpoint you would start by considering if the naturalistic park experience is common or unique within the park system. Then you would perform an analysis of how the proposed playground will affect the public’s experience and the environmental quality of the naturalistic park. It is highly likely that a playground will cause an increase in the volume of visitors to the park, and that human impacts to the site will radiate outward from the playground site. This simple ROS-based analysis which could easily be performed by a park planner, can help Oceanside to proactively consider if the proposed playground alters the naturalistic park experience in an appropriate, or inappropriate way. As a park system matures over the decades it often loses its most distinct experiences. Pressure from the public often causes each park to become “all things to all people” and as a result parks begin to have similar amenities and experiences. When the public has a great experience at a park across town it is logical that they request the same experience in their nearby neighborhood park. It is recommended that Oceanside identify and preserve the most unique experiences currently found within the park system for future generations; the ROS system is one way to do so because it provides a planning system that helps inform the decision making process, which in turn helps the Division proactively provide new amenities and experiences in the park system without adversely affecting the unique park experiences that currently exist.

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

131

Design Guideline 4: General Park Aesthetics Park aesthetics relates to how a site is perceived by members of the public. This section is based upon observations made during site visits and provides some suggestions to help improve the general park aesthetics. For many parks the experience begins in the parking lot, and some of the parks lacked adequate shade trees; adding more trees into the parking lots create a cooler, more welcoming entry experience for the public while simultaneously helping with the heat-island affect from a sustainability standpoint. Solar canopies in parking lots also provide relief from the sun while providing energy for the park, although they usually are not as inviting as a tree canopy. Waste enclosures are often located within parking lots in a location convenient for the waste management services. The trash enclosures with opaque gates, as opposed to transparent or semi-transparent gates with vertical slats, provide better visual separation from waste/recycling related activities, thus improving the experience of the park. Waste enclosures located in highly visible locations was observed at some parks. In the future as these waste enclosures need to be rebuilt, it is recommended to locate them out of the direct line of site 132

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

of the public, and/or using muted colors/vegetation to minimize their visual presence on the site. While the Park Experience section spoke to the need to preserve distinct recreation experiences throughout the park system, a sense of system wide unification is also desirable. Oceanside’s typical identification signage is a good way to provide continuity within the park system. One simple way to highlight this signage and further unify the park system is to add a few ornamental trees nearby each park identification sign, creating a pleasant visual cue for the public. Consistency of branding with architecture can be challenging because so many of Oceanside’s park buildings already exist. To further unify the park system, when the time comes to repaint or replace structures, a park system wide effort to shift building colors to a consistent color palette could be made. Muted earth tones make sense for park architecture that is more common (i.e. CMU block buildings), whereas more distinct architecture could utilize colors that draw more attention to the building, with structures located on the beach potentially having a brighter, more beach-like aesthetic. Overall, the goal could be to use a timeless color palette that does not cause the architecture to look dated.

Design Guideline 5: General Sustainability and Cost Efficiency Many municipalities experience an ever-increasing request to “do more with less,” so the following items represent potential cost efficiency measures related to the ongoing planning and design of the Oceanside Parks and Recreation System. Many of the restrooms found in Oceanside’s parks are constructed of CMU block; when the time comes to replace these restrooms, the City should evaluate using premanufactured restrooms. While this is not a good solution for architecturally prominent sites where custom architecture is desired, the façade finishes available on premanufactured building exteriors should meet the needs of many park sites. These buildings are predesigned and premanufactured and are specified by a consultant (not designed), so Oceanside could realize considerable savings in design fees and construction costs. It can be difficult to accurately anticipate the demand for future sports – for example, generally football participation is declining nationwide so rectangle fields built using precise dimensions for football may see less use over time. A different approach is to plan and design for recreation spaces: rectangular shaped turf areas that accommodate multiple different sports such as soccer, football, or lacrosse in north-south and east-west orientations (for younger players) so that the field of play can be shifted to minimize wear patterns. If designed correctly, a space that accommodates one large soccer field in the north-south orientation can “nest” multiple smaller fields in the east-west orientation, allowing the fields to be programmed more regularly because they accommodate different sports and/ or different age groups within the nested fields. Similarly, large existing softball fields can be retrofitted to also accommodate youth softball or baseball (up to a certain age limit) with the use of temporary or roll-away fencing. While synthetic turf fields are expensive to construct, their synthetic surface allows for increased programming of the fields, and multiple sports can be striped into the playing surface to improve the multi-purpose nature of the field and maximize its use. Lighting existing fields using LED sports lighting will allow the fields to be programmed longer into the night, providing greater use out of the existing facilities. As seen in from the examples above, the goal is to creatively retrofit

and maximize the use of existing facilities in lieu of acquiring additional land to construct new facilities, as retrofitting is often more cost effective and sustainable. In order to use existing park lands within landlocked and spatially constrained sites more efficiently, converting traditional storm water ponds to usable space may be possible using permeable paving and/or underground storage solutions. While this type of solution can be expensive, the potential to repurpose existing park lands currently occupied with storm water ponds may be cheaper than purchasing new land to address increasing Parks and Recreation needs. Centralizing and creating multi-sport athletic complexes is generally more cost effective than one or two fields scattered throughout a variety of different parks. The athletic complex approach simplifies scheduling and fewer staff are needed to manage the site with. Additionally, athletic fields require a higher level of maintenance than passive parks, so centralizing sport activities into complexes allows for maintenance equipment to be stored on-site, which is more sustainable than trailering maintenance equipment to each site because it saves time, fuel, and wear and tear on the equipment. Related to park development, additional service requests from design consultants can be minimized by working diligently to refine the project concept, scope, program, and budget of a project prior to enlisting a design team – assuming in-house planning staff is available. Additionally, change orders from contractors can be minimized by fully vetting design concepts throughout the Division early in the design process, obtaining buy-in from all of the key decision makers, and then resisting the urge to change previously agreed upon concepts/program during construction. An important aspect of clarifying scope and program up front with the design team relates to any sustainability goals Oceanside has, including but not limited to Low Impact Development (LID), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and transportation alternatives to cars (i.e. trails, biking, or public transit). Oftentimes budgets have a “use it or lose it” nature annually and as a result numerous purchases are made during the last few months leading up to the end of the fiscal year. With proactive planning, de-

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

133

sign, and permitting of small projects to get them shovel ready, as the fiscal year approaches it may be possible to utilize “use it or lose it” funds to accomplish small park projects. Also, if funds are left over from completed capital projects it may be possible to reallocate some of these funds to further contribute to these small projects. As stated in the Park Experience section, public pressure often leads to a park becoming “all things to all people” so each park begins to have similar experiences and features. As an example, if the public responds well to a new splash pad at a park across town, it is logical that they request the same feature be added to a nearby neighborhood park. By analyzing the inventory of existing features/amenities found within the park system, park staff can proactively create gap analysis maps that identify areas where features (i.e. splash pads) are lacking. This type of mapping allows Oceanside to respond to requests from the public with mapping data that clearly shows if the requested feature already exists in the nearby vicinity so that the park system is not overly-redundant with certain features. Redundancy of some common features that are critical to the park system is certainly justifiable, but over-redundancy if not the most cost-effective approach.

134

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Standardizing park benches, trash and recycling receptacles, and tables may allow the City to obtain quantity discounts when ordering furnishings – provided Oceanside can store some extra furnishings until they are needed. Additionally, standardizing furnishings reduces the quantity of replacement parts maintenance staff needs to stock, and also reduces the time it takes to order and replace damaged furnishings. To help unify the park system and create a cohesive brand it is recommended that there be two to three standards for each furnishing type. It would be more sustainable if furnishings that are manufactured regionally are selected. Design Guideline 6: Natural Resources Sustainability It is important that all Division staff, as well as outside entities that work on park sites understand the location and importance of Oceanside’s natural resources. This includes Division management, field staff, maintenance staff, and programming coordinators, as well as volunteers, vendors, and contracted maintenance, programming, and recreation companies. Existing communication channels such as a monthly newsletter from the Director, bulletin boards, quarterly meetings, or Division meetings to highlight the natural resource areas within each park that need to be protected, should be utilized. As with any organization, this information will need to be repeated at a regular frequency (i.e. annually) due to staff turnover, and newly hired staff should be provided with a map/list of the natural resource locations.

From a design standpoint, environmental interpretation signage that informs and engages the public regarding the nature of the natural resource is recommended to help residents better understand and appreciate the natural resources found in the park system. As Freeman Tilden said, “Through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation; through appreciation, protection.” Unique, age-appropriate, informative signage that actively engages the public will help enlist residents in the effort to preserve and protect the park system’s natural resources because protection is often a typical response to appreciation of the resource. That said, care should be taken when deciding which natural resources should be highlighted with the use of signage. Those most susceptible to illegal plant harvesting may be best served by not drawing attention to their presence. The uniqueness of some resources may dictate that the best method of protection is to direct patrons to stay out of the area, while managed use of a sensitive site (i.e. directing where the public may/may not walk) may be appropriate for other sites. A “system-wide” approach, where the natural resources of the entire park system are evaluated for their uniqueness, habitat value, state or federal protection status, and sensitivity to human intrusion, is recommended. This inventory will inform which natural resources are most common or conversely, most rare. With each request for a new park feature/ amenity or capital project, staff will need to consider the potential long-term unintended consequences of further developing a site that contains natural resources. Factors including but not limited to park programming, level of use, park hours, circulation, and volume of patrons accommodated at each site can significantly impact natural resources. With the help of City Environmental Resources staff, Division staff can evaluate if the protection of certain natural resources justifies designating portions of the park they are located in as off-limits to additional park development. Again, the “system-wide” approach will help the Parks and Recreation Division resist pressure to make a given park all-things-to-all-people. When a request to add an amenity/feature in a park that contains sensitive natural resources is received (i.e. the request to add a playground and additional parking) GIS data/facilities mapping can be utilized to look for nearby sites which do not contain sensitive natural resources and can better absorb the increased park usage associated with the new playground.

5.3.2 Maintenance and Operational Guidelines From a maintenance standpoint most of the parks are older facilities with clean, well maintained landscape areas. Trees and turf are the dominant vegetative material with some planting beds scattered throughout some of the sites. Restroom interiors do not appear to be as well maintained as exterior landscape areas, and based upon the survey it appears as though that better maintenance of parks/ facilities may increase the public’s use of the park system. Maintenance and Operational Guideline 1: Maintenance Population Based Standards In an effort to increase the public’s use of the park system, it is worthwhile to consider how to improve the perception of park maintenance levels. There are many potential reasons for the public’s perception of the park system such as the level of maintenance funding, unrealistic expectations on behalf of the public, City-wide priorities that compete for funding, maintenance operations suffering because staff is utilized for events/programs, contracted maintenance firms under-performing, or perhaps a combination of some of the above. Below are some suggestions for potential consideration. It is recommended to group the existing parks into tiers according to similar levels of maintenance. Specialty parks that require a higher level of maintenance effort, maintenance frequency, or maintenance expertise, such as piers, beaches, and active recreation sites would likely comprise the highest “tier” of parks, whereas more common parks that require less maintenance would comprise the lowest tier. It may be helpful to also include a middle tier that falls in between the high and low maintenance tiers, and site-specific factors such as salt spray, volume of use, or vulnerability to vandalism should also be considered when categorizing parks into different tiers.

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

135

A tiered approach which classifies parks into groups based upon maintenance needs could improve consistency in the level of maintenance service throughout the park system because it would help maintenance companies understand which types of parks require more (or less) maintenance. Providing specific, tier-based level of maintenance service requirements which include frequencies of trash pickup, and bathroom cleanings to contracted companies could also help highlight that population based standards expectations differ from park to park. Additionally, because written maintenance standards currently only exist within maintenance contracts, taking verbiage from these contracts to craft a written set of maintenance guidelines available for the Division’s reference may be beneficial. Maintenance standards existing in contracts may unintentionally lead to a select few fully understanding the maintenance goals and expectations for each park. Creating a set of written maintenance standards that the Parks and Recreation Division has access to could allow for a greater percentage of the Division to review and understand the mainte136

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

nance expectations of each park (or tier of parks), thus creating a shared vision for the level of maintenance the parks should have while simultaneously enlisting a larger number of staff to help identify any potential maintenance deficiencies. When maintenance operations are contracted to outside companies, often the level of quality control is lost as compared to in-house staff that reports directly to the Division. As such, it is recommended that a specific area is targeted where an improvement in maintenance operations is desired and work towards bringing that maintenance operation in-house. Additionally, for special events and programs, many municipalities utilize in-house staff to supplement the level of cleaning/trash removal that contracted maintenance companies provide. While this improves the experience of the special event/program at one park site, pulling staff away from their typical duties may lead to maintenance neglect at other park sites.

It is recommended that staff continue investing in their professional development through CPRS Maintenance Management School or other similar courses, or by prioritizing networking with park maintenance staff from nearby municipalities. Opportunities to share the successes maintenance staff are experiencing while simultaneously learning new ideas about how other municipalities are addressing similar challenges may refine the maintenance processes of park maintenance. Maintenance and Operational Guideline 2: Quality Assurance It is understood that park supervisors review the maintenance of the parks they oversee, that the “secret shopper” tool is used to evaluate the Division, and that the public has access to a customer care platform where park issues can be reported to park maintenance staff. One additional measure that is recommended is to provide dedicated staff to perform quality assurance reviews of each park site periodically. Prominent parks that experience the most frequent use may need to be reviewed every other month (six times a year), whereas parks that experience less use may only need to be reviewed three times a year. If the tiered approach to grouping parks with similar levels of maintenance needs is utilized (as described in the section above), the frequency of park quality assurance reviews should align with the tiered category, for example, six reviews for top tier parks, four reviews for middle tier parks, and three reviews for the lowest tier of parks.

The review checklist used for these reviews should be thorough and should include categories such as but not limited to landscape and irrigation, building interior and exterior cleanliness, site furnishings conditions, trash removal status, park staff/maintenance staff friendliness, and general park aesthetics. Having dedicated staff responsible for quality assurance helps protect against the potential for subjectivity during the review process and developing objective, quantifiable review sheets and having the same staff member review all park sites helps standardize the results. Reviewing sites using multiple different staff members or subjective evaluation methods should be avoided as it leads to distorted findings. Increased quality assurance measures help objectively identify what is working well and also identify areas for improvement, with the end goal of further refining maintenance operations to ensure that the public’s experience of a park consistently meets or exceeds their expectations.

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

137

Maintenance and Operational Guideline 3: Technology Technology continues to change how we communicate as a culture, so it is important to regularly evaluate how well the current methods of communicating to, and receiving feedback from, the public are working. Software systems that integrate numerous different aspects of Parks and Recreation work including but not limited to league scheduling, reservations, rentals, passes, and registrations are becoming more robust each year. As new sports lighting projects are designed, it is important to specify a lighting control system that integrates well with Oceanside’s existing software system. Maintenance and Operational Guideline 4: Safety and Accessibility A formal written process is recommended to be developed for how to evaluate and make important decisions which directly relate to the public’s health, safety, and welfare regarding when park infrastructure is damaged. If a portion of a park site does need to be shut down due to safety concerns, dated photographic documentation showing installed warning flagging, barricades, or signage should be obtained. After-Action Reports that provide relevant incident details including but not limited to the park name, location, time, weather, photos, event description, and names of individuals involved should be completed, and new staff should be trained in how to exercise sound judgment in shutting down a site due to safety concerns, as well as how to fill out an After Action Report. This process can be used for damages to park infrastructure as well as when the public gets hurt in a park. It is important to review the processes and After-Action Reports with management staff to consider if opportunities for improvement exists. Such reports provide a glimpse into how well staff is trained to respond to situations using sound judgment.

138

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

From a public relations standpoint, when a portion of a park site does need to be shut down for maintenance, it is beneficial to provide signage that includes Oceanside Parks and Recreation branding and a number that can be called and a website address, if the public has questions regarding the closure. The number called will connect to a voice message that provides information regarding the start date of the closure, the reason for the closure and the work being performed, the anticipated opening of the site, and a “thank you” from the Parks and Recreation Division for the public’s patience. This “Frequently Asked Questions” voice message provides transparency for the public, and also frees up staff to perform their typical job responsibilities and spend less time answering the common questions. Park maintenance staff that oversees construction should receive training in U.S. Access Board/State of California accessibility standards. Some municipalities undertake small park infrastructure renovation projects, and these projects typically don’t go through a formal permitting process where accessibility review takes place. As such, the maintenance staff that oversees these projects needs to be able to identify if a proposed solution adheres to accessibility codes. Alternatively, the Division can have one staff member trained in accessibility review and then set up a process so that these renovation projects are reviewed by the trained staff member prior to ordering materials or commencing with construction activities. A third option is to simply hire a third-party accessibility consultant to review proposed projects prior to construction. While this additional step in the process may require time and money, developing park infrastructure that does not meet current accessibility codes and subsequently being required to replace this infrastructure or dealing with litigation that arises as a result of non-compliant construction is much more costly. Some commonly overlooked accessibility standards that maintenance staff can have a direct hand in replacing include benches, trash receptacles, picnic tables, grills, camping facilities, picnic facilities, and viewing areas, as described in the U.S. Access Board Standards for Outdoor Developed Areas. Additionally, training key staff in CPTED principles will also benefit the Parks and Recreation Division; please see the Safety and Accessibility Design Guidelines sections for additional information pertaining to park safety and accessibility.

Maintenance and Operational Guideline 5: Sustainability and Cost Efficiency Design Guidelines Section 6: Natural Resources Sustainability provides direction on how to develop protocols to protect sensitive Natural Resources with the help of environmental resources staff. Once the locations of the Natural Resources have been identified and protocols have been established, maintenance staff should be provided with maps highlighting these locations and training regarding how to protect the resources. This information will need to be repeated at a regular frequency (i.e. annually) due to staff turnover, and newly hired staff should also be provided with a map/list of the natural resource locations and the appropriate training. Since the City maintains landscape areas using contracted maintenance companies, this same natural resources protection information will need to be provided to maintenance contractors at reoccurring intervals. Protecting sensitive natural resources with third party maintenance contractors will require diligence considering new maintenance staff that is unfamiliar with the nuances of site specific natural resource protection will frequently be used to maintain the park. Inconspicuous signage that informs maintenance staff while minimally adversely impacting the natural experience of the park may be warranted in some areas. Once Natural Resource protection protocols are in place it is advisable to include them

in maintenance contracts so that contractors can be encouraged for their good performance, or alternatively, held accountable for their negligence. In general, park projects should utilize landscape plant species adapted to Oceanside’s climate; those that require minimal supplemental irrigation, fertilization, or pruning once established. Existing parks which contain irrigated turf areas that experience infrequent use could be converted into native grass areas or low water use planting beds to conserve water. If potable water is currently being used to irrigate landscapes an analysis of reclaimed water utility infrastructure may reveal opportunities to retrofit existing park irrigation systems and connect to adjacent reclaimed water utilities. To protect Oceanside’s water bodies, staff should be trained in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles which effectively control pests while also minimizing the application of toxic chemicals. Staff that oversees construction projects where soil is disturbed should take National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) training courses to gain an understanding of stormwater best management practices and ensure soils from construction related activities are not transported away from the construction site. Where irrigated turf currently exists directly adjacent to water bodies, consider providing a vegetated buffer with plants/grasses that do not require fertilization between the turf and the water body to help protect the water body from eutrophication.

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

139

Because Oceanside has a high percentage of older parks within its park system, long range budgeting for complete replacement of aging facilities may be warranted. While it can be difficult to secure funding to completely rebuild an existing facility, good record keeping regarding the costs to address outdated facilities in need of replacement using a “band aid” maintenance strategy can be helpful. Si-

140

CITY OF OCEANSIDE PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN

multaneously casting a new, energy efficient, exciting vision for new facilities may prove successful, especially if the vision for the park replacement is master planned utilizing a phased approach. Lastly, an Energy Audit of existing facilities will help identify areas where energy efficiency can be improved, and may also provide useful information that helps prioritize the replacement of the least energy efficient parks.

Oceanside Parks Master Plan

Articles inside

Figure 5-12: Parkshed Gaps Assuming Future MOUs with All Schools

Figure 5-9: Potential Site C1

Figure 5-10: Potential Trail Corridors to be Considered

Figure 4-13: Top Three Future Facility Priorities – Intercept Survey

Figure 4-9: Top Three Future Facility Priorities – Invitation Survey

Table 2-2: Level of Service for Current Population

Table 3-2: Future Geographic Park Distribution and Population Served

Figure 3-6: Council Districts

Table 3-3: Level of Service for 2035 Population

Figure 4-6: Current Usage – Random Invitation Survey

Figure 3-2: Smart Growth Opportunity Areas in the City of Oceanside

Figure 2-1: Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities

Figure 1-3: Population Age Distribution: 2010 to 2050