HomeMy WebLinkAbout8726
1
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Cover Page
2
PARKS MASTER PLAN
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3
PARKS MASTER PLAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON______ 2026
THANK YOU TO THE ENTIRE REDLANDS COMMUNITY FOR YOUR INPUT THROUGHOUT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PLAN
REDLANDS CITY COUNCIL
Mr. Mario Saucedo, Mayor
Ms. Marc Shaw, Mayor Pro Tem
Mr. Paul Barich, Councilmember
Mr. Eddie Tejada, Councilmember
Mr. Denise Davis, Councilmember
REDLANDS FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES STAFF (PROJECT TEAM)
Ms. Tabitha Crocker, Director
Ms. Chandra Thomas, Senior Manager
CONSULTING TEAM
Doug Grove, President, RHA Landscape Architects-Planners
Arielle Talley, GIS Technician, RHA Landscape Architects-Planners
Neelay Bhatt, Founder & CEO, Next Practice Partners
Jason Ellisalde, Vice President, Next Practive Partners
4
PARKS MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER ONE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 6
1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 VALUES, VISION, MISSION & BIG MOVES ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
1.4 PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.5 RECREATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT ..............................................................................................................................................................13
1.6 PARK AND FACILITY EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................... 16
1.7 EQUITY MAPS......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
1.8 RECOMMENDED PARKS IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ............................................................................................................................................. 19
1.9 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER TWO COMMUNITY PROFILE ................................................................................. 23
2.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
2.2 LIVABILITY AND ACCESS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
2.3 DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
2.4 LOCAL RECREATIONAL TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35
2.5 KEY TAKEAWAYS .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 52
CHAPTER THREE PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY ........................................................................ 54
3.1 KEY LEADER INTERVIEWS & FOCUS GROUPS ................................................................................................................................................. 55
3.2 PUBLIC WORKSHOPS .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
3.3 STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 61
3.4 SURVEY COMPARISON ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................................... 66
CHAPTER FOUR RESOURCE ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 80
4.1 RECREATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................................................ 80
4.2 PARK AND FACILITY EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 96
4.3 INVENTORY, ASSESSMENT, AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ................................................................................................................................. 107
4.4 EQUITY MAPPING ..............................................................................................................................................................................................109
4.5 RECOMMENDED PARKS IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .......................................................................................................................................... 129
CHAPTER FIVE VISIONING AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 134
5.1 MISSION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 134
5.2 VISION STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 134
5.3 VALUES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 135
5.4 BIG MOVES .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 136
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 137
CHAPTER SEVEN APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 138
APPENDIX A - STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY CHARTS & GRAPHS ................................................................................................................ 139
APPENDIX B - ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY CHARTS & GRAPHS ................................................................................................................. 166
APPENDIX C - PROGRAM INVENTORY .................................................................................................................................................................. 185
APPENDIX D - SIMILAR PROVIDERS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 187
APPENDIX E - PARK & FACILITY EVALUTATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 188
APPENDIX G - NATIONAL TRENDS IN RECREATION .......................................................................................................................................... 262
APPENDIX H – PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION PRIORITY PROJECT LIST ........................................................................... 274
5
PARKS MASTER PLAN
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6
PARKS MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER ONE EX ECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Redlands Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Plan presents a collective vision
shaped by the voices, values, and aspirations of our community. It responds to changing needs
and outlines a forward-looking approach to providing programs and places that are welcoming,
innovative, and inclusive for all residents.
With the guiding vision “To be the go-to place,” the city is committed to Preserving history,
celebrating community, and delivering exceptional service. This vision drives the department’s
efforts to create dynamic public spaces, offer experiences that inspire, and strengthen the
connections that bring people together.
This Plan demonstrates Redlands’ ongoing dedication to health and wellness, environmental
responsibility, and a strong sense of belonging. It sets the stage for lasting benefits—today,
tomorrow, and for generations that will call Redlands home.
1.1.1 OUTCOMES
The Plan is guided by the following key goals:
• Listen and Connect: Engage Redlands residents through meaningful outreach to better
understand their needs, priorities, and aspirations.
• Foster Creativity and Innovation: Explore new ideas, practices, and trends to elevate
Redlands’ parks, recreation, and community services.
• Advance Fairness and Inclusion: Provide opportunities for all community members to
enjoy equitable access to facilities, programs, and open spaces.
• Invest in Sustainability: Strengthen financial and organizational capacity by cultivating
partnerships and securing resources that support long-term success.
• Create a Unified Path Forward: Work side by side with the community to shape a vision
that reflects shared values of inclusion, belonging, and connection.
1.1.2 ABOUT THE CITY
The City of Redlands is a historic and vibrant community in San Bernardino County, celebrated
for its citrus heritage, tree-lined neighborhoods, and strong sense of place. Known as the “Jewel
of the Inland Empire,” Redlands blends its rich past with a forward-looking spirit, offering
residents and visitors alike a high quality of life through diverse parks, recreational opportunities,
and cultural experiences.
Redlands’ parks and recreation system is central to community life—providing spaces that
encourage active living, wellness, and social connection. From iconic landmarks like the Redlands
Bowl and historic Prospect Park, to neighborhood playgrounds, sports complexes, trails, and
open spaces, the city ensures accessible places for recreation, culture, and gathering. These
amenities nurture community pride and contribute to Redlands’ unique identity.
7
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Looking ahead, Redlands is committed to honoring its history while preparing for the future.
Through thoughtful planning, investment in facilities and programs, and an emphasis on inclusion
and equity, the city will expand opportunities for recreation, foster environmental stewardship,
and strengthen partnerships. This commitment ensures that Redlands continues to be a
welcoming, connected, and thriving community for generations to come.
1.2 V ALUES , V ISION, M ISS ION & BIG MOVES
1.2.1 VALUE S
The values of Teamwork, Integrity, Enjoyment and Safety are paramount in the day-to-day
operations and how to plan for the future.
1.2.2 VISION
The updated vision statement is
To be the go-to-place
1.2.3 MISSION
The updated mission statement is
Preserve history, celebrate community, and deliver exceptional service
1.2.4 BIG MOVES
• Secure and Expand Dedicated Funding Sources
• Enhance Safety, Security, and Accessibility
• Address Deferred Maintenance and Facility Upgrades
• Develop a Comprehensive Marketing Plan
• Optimize Staffing and Operations
A full summary of the visioning process can be found in CHAPTER FIVE
8
PARKS MASTER PLAN
1.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE
The Community Profile establishes baseline conditions to guide the Plan. It integrates livability
and access indicators (cost of living, 10-minute park access, tree equity), City demographics and
projections (Census 2020; ESRI July 2023 with forecasts to 2038), local recreation market
potential (ESRI Market Potential Index, MPI), and national recreation participation trends (SFIA
2023). Results are presented with state and national comparisons where applicable.
1.3.1 KEY FINDINGS
LIVABILITY & ACCESS
• Cost of Living (index; U.S. baseline = 100): Redlands 118.6 vs California 149.9 vs U.S.
100.
o Housing: 173.2 (vs CA 234.8).
o Utilities: 108.3 (vs CA 102.4).
o Groceries, health, transportation, and miscellaneous costs are lower than
California averages.
• Park Proximity (TPL 10-Minute Walk): 50% of residents live within a 10-minute walk of a
park (vs U.S. median 55%).
• Tree Equity: Citywide Tree Equity Score 81 across 51 block groups—10 ≥90, 21 = 80–89,
20 <80. Lower scores generally occur in neighborhoods with higher proportions of
residents of color.
DEMOGRAPHICS (CENSUS/ESRI)
• Population trajectory: 73,168 (2020) → 73,999 (2023 est.) → 75,444 (2028) → 76,863
(2033) → 78,288 (2038); steady growth with gradual deceleration.
• Age structure: Median age 38.0 (2020) → 39.3 (2028). The 75+ cohort rises to 11% by
2038; shares of 0–17 and 18–34 decline modestly; 35–54 and 55–74 stabilize near
~26% and ~22% by 2038.
• Race: White Alone 53% (2020) → 42% (2038); Some Other Race 14%→20%; Two or
More Races 16%→21%. Black Alone 5% and Asian 10% stable; American Indian 1%→2%;
Pacific Islander ~0%.
• Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino (of any race) grows from 35% (2020) to 45% (2038) (37% in
2023; 40% in 2028; 42% in 2033).
INCOME & AT -RISK INDICATORS (CURRENT/2023)
• Per Capita Income: Redlands $46,548 vs California $45,201 vs U.S. $40,363.
• Median Household Income: Redlands $91,254 vs California $89,455 vs U.S. $72,414.
• Foreign-born: 14.2% (vs CA 26.5%, U.S. 13.6%).
• Language other than English at home: 27.8% (vs CA 43.9%, U.S. 21.7%).
• Owner-occupied housing: 58.6% (vs CA 55.5%, U.S. 64.6%).
• Disability: 8.5% (vs CA 6.8%, U.S. 8.7%).
• Uninsured: 5.8% (vs CA 7.5%, U.S. 9.3%).
• Poverty: 8.7% (vs CA 12.2%, U.S. 11.5%).
9
PARKS MASTER PLAN
LOCAL RECREATION MARKET POTENTIAL (ESRI MPI; U.S. AVERAGE = 100)
• General sports: Above average—Tennis 113, Golf 113, Soccer 102; near/below average—
Volleyball 99, Basketball 96, Football 95, Softball 93, Baseball 89.
• Fitness: Elevated demand—Yoga 112, Pilates 110, Zumba 109, Aerobics 109, Walking
106, Swimming 105, Weightlifting 104, Jogging/Running 103.
• Outdoor: Above average—Road Cycling 111, Mountain Biking 108, Backpacking 107,
Hiking 106; below—Freshwater Fishing 85 (and slightly below for Canoe/Kayak 98, Rock
Climbing 96, Horseback Riding 93, Archery 93).
• Commercial/Cultural: Above average—Art Galleries 116, Book Clubs 113, Live Theater
111, Adult Education 107, Museums 107; below—Indoor Water Parks 89, Portable Video
Games 92.
NATIONAL PARTICIPATION CONTEXT (SFIA 2023)
• Physically active Americans (2022): 77.6%; inactive 22.4% (<70M).
• Racquet sports: Pickleball +85.7% YoY; +158.6% (3-yr); Tennis +4.3% YoY; +33.4% (3-yr).
• Team sports: Rebounding toward 2019; Basketball +13% (3-yr).
• Fitness & Outdoor: Walking, free weights largest; multi-year gains in hiking, camping,
fishing, bicycling; some machine-based health-club formats remain below 2019 levels.
1.3.2 KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Redlands is comparatively affordable within California (overall 118.6 vs CA 149.9; U.S.
100 baseline) but faces elevated housing (173.2) and slightly higher utilities (108.3 vs CA
102.4), reinforcing the value of close-to-home, low-cost recreation.
• Park access is moderate (50% within a 10-minute walk vs U.S. 55%), and tree canopy
benefits are uneven (Tree Equity 81, with 20 block groups <80), highlighting geographic
equity gaps.
• The City is growing steadily to 78,288 by 2038, aging gradually (median age to 39.3; 75+
to 11%), and diversifying (White Alone down to 42%; Hispanic/Latino up to 45%;
multiracial identification rising).
• Income levels exceed state and national benchmarks (Per Capita $46,548; Median HH
$91,254), while poverty (8.7%) and uninsured (5.8%) are lower than California and U.S.
rates—supporting a mix of premium and affordable offerings.
• Market potential is strongest for fitness, cycling/hiking, and court sports (notably tennis
and golf), and high for cultural/educational activities—aligning with national participation
gains in racquet sports and outdoor pursuits.
• Planning implications: prioritize access and shade in underserved areas; align amenities
and programs with aging and culturally diverse households; and emphasize activities with
demonstrated local interest while maintaining equitable affordability.
Full community profile can be found in CHAPTER TWO
10
PARKS MASTER PLAN
1.4 PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY
Public input for the City of Redlands Parks and Recreation Master Plan was gathered through a
multi-channel, inclusive process: 20+ key leader interviews and focus groups; two public
workshops (in-person and virtual with live polling); a statistically valid survey by ETC Institute
(n=414; ±4.8% at 95% confidence); and an online community survey (n=755). Together, these
tools captured day-to-day experiences, priorities for facilities and programs, barriers to use,
investment preferences, and willingness to fund improvements.
1.4.1 KEY FINDINGS
KEY LEADER INTERVIEWS & FOCUS GROUPS
• Strengths: breadth of parks and programs for all ages; signature places (Redlands Bowl,
Emerald Necklace, trail system); engaged leadership and responsive maintenance;
growing sports offerings (e.g., pickleball); strong community support.
• Opportunities: upgrade basics (restrooms, lighting, shade/splash pads, ADA access); add
facilities (pickleball/playground upgrades); safety and universal accessibility; diversify
programming (arts, culturally relevant events, tech-enabled centers); improve
communication and partnerships; bolster maintenance/staffing.
• Top Priorities: modernize and make parks accessible/safe; add community and
youth/family amenities (e.g., aquatics, sand volleyball, teen space); tell the story of each
park; plan proactively and secure land for future needs.
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS (LIVE POLLING)
• Use & Access: 82% use parks/trails/facilities weekly (another 11% monthly); 67% live
within a 10-minute walk of a park/trail. Travel modes: car 55%, walk 31%, bike 10%.
• Most used amenities: Trails 57%, Open space/grass 43%, Sports fields 36%, Playgrounds
29%.
• Most desired additions/improvements: Adventure/destination playgrounds 45%; Splash
pads 36%; Outdoor pools 36%; Walking paths/trails 33%; Shade structures 21%; Indoor
rec centers 18%.
• Program interests: Arts & culture 47%; Special/cultural events 43%; Youth sports 37%;
Fitness & wellness 33%; Aquatics 27%; Outdoor recreation 23%.
• Top 10-year improvements: All-ability playgrounds 55%; Upgraded restrooms 55%; More
shade 48%; Expanded/new community centers 38%; Outdoor fitness/obstacle courses
38%; Splash pads 34%; Outdoor pools 34%; Safety/security 28%; Upgraded sports fields
28%.
• Barriers: Amenities lacking 46%; Feel unsafe 34%; Lack of restrooms 34%; Awareness
gaps and parking/signage also noted.
• Perception & communication: Satisfaction—45% satisfied, 34% neutral, 17% somewhat
dissatisfied; quality rated mostly Good (48%). Preferred channels: social 61%, email 42%,
text 42%, website 36%.
11
PARKS MASTER PLAN
STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY (ETC, N=414)
• Facility use: 87% visited parks/facilities in past year. Condition ratings: Excellent 10%,
Good 52%, Fair 30%, Poor 8%.
• Program use: 36% participated in programs/events; quality Excellent 23%, Good 57%,
Fair 15%, Poor 5%.
• Top barriers to visiting: Fear of criminal activity 39%; Don’t feel safe 35%; Lack of shade
31%; Lack of restrooms 20%; Maintenance 20%.
• Top barriers to programs: Don’t know what’s offered 51%; Too busy 20%; Times not
convenient 18%.
• How residents hear now: Word of mouth 63%; Social media 44%; Banners 33%. Top
three preferred going forward: Social media 53%, emails/eNewsletter 42%, City website
30%.
• Perceived benefits (agreement): Access to gathering & open spaces 87%; Makes Redlands
more desirable 84%; Preserves open space/protects environment 81%.
• Willingness to pay monthly: $9+ 23%, $7–8 9%, $5–6 20%, $3–4 21%, Nothing 26% (i.e.,
74% willing to pay at least $3).
• Facilities needs (highest unmet): Walking paths in parks; Open grass areas; Small
neighborhood parks.
• Facilities importance (top): Multi-use hiking/biking/walking trails; Walking paths in parks;
Small neighborhood parks; Restrooms.
• Facilities Priority Investment Ratings (top): Trails 177; Walking paths 166; Splash pads
162; Swimming pool 153; Restrooms 148; Small neighborhood parks 141; Bike/ped
access to parks 137; Large community parks 130; Community gardens 129;
Environmental/nature education 127.
• Program needs (highest unmet): Community special events; Cultural enrichment; Adult
fitness & wellness.
• Program importance (top): Community special events; Adult fitness & wellness; Outdoor
environmental education/nature camps; Recreation swim.
• Program Priority Investment Ratings (top): Adult fitness & wellness 189; Community
special events 184; Recreation swim 149; Outdoor environmental education/nature
camps 143; Cultural enrichment 138.
SURVEY COMPARISON HIGHLIGHTS (ETC VS ONLINE)
• Engagement: Online respondents reported higher visitation (96%) and more frequent use;
both surveys show broad use of the system.
• Quality/condition: Nearly identical—majority “Good,” few “Excellent,” signaling room to
elevate to exemplary.
• Barriers: Consistent themes of safety, shade, restrooms, and awareness; online
respondents also cited fees and outdated facilities more often.
• Investment preferences: Both prioritized maintaining/improving existing parks and
acquiring open space; online showed slightly higher support for new sports fields.
• Funding appetite: Majority in both are willing to pay more; online 31% would pay $9+.
12
PARKS MASTER PLAN
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Take care of the basics first. Community consensus centers on restrooms, shade, lighting,
safety, and maintenance—raising the entire system from “good” to consistent excellence.
• Build a walkable, connected network. Trails and walking paths are the top facility
priorities (highest PIR), along with bike/ped connections to parks and more small
neighborhood parks close to home.
• Invest in water and play. Strong demand for splash pads, an outdoor pool, and
adventure/all-ability playgrounds supports family-friendly, heat-resilient recreation.
• Program what people will use. Emphasize adult fitness & wellness, community special
events, recreation swim, and outdoor/nature education, while sustaining popular youth
sports and culturally relevant offerings.
• Design for inclusion and comfort. Universal access, all-abilities play, shaded seating, and
safe routes reflect values voiced by families, older adults, and people with disabilities.
• Strengthen communication. Close the “I don’t know what’s offered” gap (51%) with a
coordinated campaign prioritizing social media, email/eNews, and the City website,
complemented by banners and targeted outreach.
• Advance safety visibly. Address top barriers (fear of crime, not feeling safe) through
lighting, activation, sightlines, partnerships, and presence—paired with community
programming that draws positive use.
• Plan and partner for growth. There is broad support to maintain what we have and
acquire open space; a majority are willing to contribute at least $3/month, indicating
potential for strategic funding mechanisms and partnerships.
• Tell the story. Residents want parks that reflect Redlands’ identity—use interpretation,
arts, and events to celebrate culture, sustainability, and the Emerald Necklace, building
pride and participation.
These inputs provide a clear mandate: elevate fundamentals, connect the system, deliver cooling
and inclusive play, program for wellness and community, communicate clearly, and invest
strategically—so Redlands’ parks and recreation serve everyone, every day.
Full Public Input Summary can be found in CHAPTER THREE
13
PARKS MASTER PLAN
1.5 RECREATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The Recreation Program Assessment examines how Redlands’ current offerings align with
community needs, market trends, and operational realities. It blends local demographics,
participation interests (MPI), statistically valid survey results (ETC, n=414; ±4.8%), portfolio mix
and cost recovery profiles, lifecycle balance, delivery methods, proficiency levels, and marketing
effectiveness. The goal is to identify where to sustain, refine, and grow programs to maximize
public benefit, equity, and fiscal health.
1.5.1 KEY FINDINGS
COMMUNITY PROFILE SIGNALS FOR PROGRAMMING
• Steady growth, broad age mix: Growth to 2038 and an even age distribution (21% ≤17;
25% 18–34; 24% 35–54; 23% 55–74; 8% 75+) support multi-generational offerings—
from youth/family play and swim to adult fitness and active-aging.
• Cultural diversity: Hispanic/Latino (37%), Asian (10%), and multiracial (16.8%)
communities point to demand for culturally relevant programs, multilingual outreach, and
inclusive events.
• Economic context: Median household income $91,254 and per-capita $46,548 enable a
blend of premium and affordable options; 8.7% poverty underscores need for low-cost
and free access.
• Access needs: 14.2% foreign-born; 27.8% speak a language other than English at home;
8.5% have a disability—making ADA access, fee relief, and language access essential.
PARTICIPATION INTERESTS (MPI)
• High-interest sports & fitness: Tennis 113, golf 113, yoga 112, Pilates 110—support
courts, drop-in fitness, and instructional series.
• Outdoor demand: Road biking 111, backpacking 107, hiking 106—reinforce trails, walking
loops, and nature programming.
• Culture & learning: Art galleries 116, book clubs 113, live theater 111, adult education
107, photography 105—validate cultural enrichment and lifelong learning.
COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING PRIORITIES (ETC SURVEY)
• Highest unmet needs (programs): Community special events; cultural enrichment; adult
fitness & wellness.
• Most important programs: Community special events; adult fitness & wellness; outdoor
environmental education/nature camps; recreation swim.
• Priority Investment Ratings (programs): Adult fitness & wellness 189; community special
events 184; recreation swim 149; outdoor nature/education 143; cultural enrichment
138.
PORTFOLIO STRUCTURE AND ALIGNMENT
• Service classification (share of offerings):
o Community Benefit 18% (national 26%) → room to grow free/low-cost, broad-
benefit services.
o Community–Individual Blend 56% (national 32%) → strong mid-tier mix meeting
wide needs.
14
PARKS MASTER PLAN
o Individual Benefit 26% (national 41%) → fewer niche/fee-based programs than
typical.
• Cost recovery profile:
o Fully Subsidized 49% (national 32%) → strong access; watch fiscal balance.
o Somewhat Subsidized 4% (national 23%) → opportunity to expand moderate-fee
options.
o Self-Sufficient 0% (national 17%) → gap for cost-neutral offerings.
o Revenue Generating 47% (national 28%) → well above peers; supports
reinvestment.
• Lifecycle balance: Launch 11% + Rising 7% = 19% (national 34%) → increase
innovation/new pilots. Stable/Maxed 78% (national 61%) → strong participation but risk
of stagnation; Declining 4% (≈ national).
• Program direction (delivery type): Self-Directed 20% (national 22%); Staff-Directed 58%
(national 51%) → instruction-forward; Facilitated 2% (national 6%) → partner-enabled
offerings can grow; Cooperative 20% (national 21%).
• Proficiency mix: All-abilities 77% (national 81%); Beginner 10% (national 10%);
Intermediate 10% (national 10%); Advanced 4% (national 3%) → inclusive baseline with
room to scaffold skills.
FACILITIES & ACTIVITY COMPLEMENTS (FROM ETC FACILITY PRIORITIES)
• Top facility PIRs backing program delivery: Trails 177; walking paths 166; splash pads
162; swimming pool 153; restrooms 148; small neighborhood parks 141; bike/ped access
137—infrastructure that supports daily activity, heat resilience, and family use.
MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS
• Current channels: Website; print guides/newsletters; social (Facebook/Instagram; City on
X); email, direct mail, SMS; in-facility signage; paid ads; QR codes.
• Not used (opportunities): Online program guides, PSAs/radio, YouTube, blogs/vlogs,
webinars, podcasts, TikTok, an app, road-sign marquees.
• Observed performance: Family/seasonal event posts and interactive prompts perform
best; routine notices underperform. Posting cadence is strong, but visuals, timing, and
cross-promotion can lift engagement.
1.5.2 KEY TAKEAWAYS
Community Profile Insights
• Population Growth: Steady population and household growth, coupled with a balanced
mix of family-oriented and individual living arrangements, provides opportunities to
sustain long-term engagement.
• Diversity: Redlands’s cultural richness requires inclusive and culturally relevant recreation
services to celebrate the city’s heritage and diversity.
• Economic Stability: A relatively affluent community supports a blend of premium and
affordable offerings, ensuring access across income levels.
15
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Programming Priorities and Trends
• Community Needs and Importance: Community special events, cultural enrichment, and
adult fitness/wellness programs were identified as high-priority needs. Outdoor
environmental education and recreational swimming also ranked highly in importance.
• Activity Preferences: The Market Potential Index revealed strong interest in activities like
tennis, yoga, hiking, and cultural experiences such as visiting art galleries and live theater.
This underscores the demand for diverse recreational options, including outdoor and
cultural programs.
• Program Lifecycle: Most offerings are in the Stable or Maxed stages, reflecting consistent
participation, with opportunities to introduce more innovative and dynamic programming.
Program Services and Cost Recovery
• Service Balance: Redlands emphasizes Community-Individual Blend programs (56%),
exceeding the national average, showcasing a balanced approach to addressing both
public and individual benefits.
• Cost Recovery: The city excels in providing fully subsidized programs (49%), ensuring
broad accessibility. However, there is potential to expand somewhat subsidized and self-
sufficient programs to diversify funding models and align with national benchmarks.
Inclusive Programming
• Age and Skill Proficiency: Programs cater to all age groups and skill levels, with a focus on
inclusivity. However, there is room to expand offerings targeting specific skill
development for beginners and intermediates.
• Core Program Areas: Identified areas such as Athletics, Cultural Enrichment, and Health &
Fitness serve diverse interests while fostering multi-generational engagement.
Marketing and Communications
• Utilized Channels: Effective use of print media, social media platforms (Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter), and direct outreach methods promotes engagement.
• Opportunities for Growth: Expanding into underutilized platforms like YouTube, TikTok,
and blogs/vlogs, as well as leveraging visual and interactive content, can enhance reach
and community connection.
Full Program Assessment can be found in SECTION 4.1
16
PARKS MASTER PLAN
1.6 PARK AND FACILITY EVALUATIONS
The evaluation of park assets within the City of Redlands is a cornerstone of our strategic
planning and maintenance scheduling efforts. Each park and its amenities are carefully assessed
through thorough field observations by our dedicated staff, resulting in a comprehensive grading
based on current conditions. This systematic process ensures that we understand the
performance of individual assets, rather than evaluating the park system as a whole.
Our evaluation process uses a qualitative grading scale, complemented by numerical scores, to
reflect both the quantity and quality of recreational opportunities available. This approach
facilitates transparent prioritization for repairs, upgrades, and future enhancements. Each park is
rated consistently and comparatively against similar facilities across the system.
Amenity Rating Scale
17
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Park Evaluation Categories
Full Park and Facility Evaluations can be found in SECTION 4.2
18
PARKS MASTER PLAN
1.7 EQUITY MAPS
Service area maps and standards allow the City of Redlands to assess how parks and recreation
amenities are distributed across the community and whether they align with population density
and neighborhood needs. These maps are based on recommended levels of service for each park
and amenity type and help identify areas that may be underserved or oversupplied.
By comparing geographic access to population-based standards, the City can pinpoint gaps in
service and make informed decisions about future investments. This ensures that capital
improvement efforts not only address system-wide needs but also promote equitable access to
parks and facilities for all residents. The different service area rings highlight the reach of various
providers, reflecting the broader network of resources available to the Redlands community.
Full Equity Maps can be found in SECTION 4.4
19
PARKS MASTER PLAN
1.8 RECOMMENDED P ARKS IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
The Facilities and Community Services Recommended Parks Improvements Plan (RPIP) for
Redlands provides a strategic roadmap for prioritizing, funding, and delivering essential
infrastructure and facility projects that support the city’s livability, sustainability, and long-term
growth. The plan emphasizes targeted investments in parks, recreational amenities, community
centers, and public spaces to address the evolving needs of Redlands diverse and expanding
community.
A central element of the RPIP is aligning financial resources with improvement projects.
Redlands leverages multiple funding sources—including the General Fund, Development Impact
Fees (DIF), and a range of grant opportunities—to make these initiatives possible. By strategically
applying these resources, the City maintains responsible fiscal management while advancing
projects that foster environmental stewardship, community wellness, and economic vitality.
As Redlands continues to grow and thrive, this Recommended Improvements Plan offers a clear
and actionable framework for creating vibrant public spaces and strengthening community
infrastructure—both today and for generations to come.
To provide greater clarity and transparency, the RPIP is organized into three distinct categories:
1. Projects that are planned and have secured funding
2. Projects that are planned but not yet funded
3. Projects that have been completed in the last several years
20
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The following improvements are recommended:
• Ford Park – Phase 1 (FY 25/26)
Renovation of the existing restroom facility at Ford Park to improve accessibility,
functionality, and user experience; project completed in summer 2025.
• Orange Blossom Trail – Phase 1 (FY 25/26)
Phase 3 improvements to approximately 5 miles of the Orange Blossom Trail, including
upgrades to enhance safety, functionality, and overall user experience as part of the
City’s priority trail investment program.
• Coyazo Park – Phase 1 (FY 25/26)
Construction of a new equipment building at Coyazo Park to support park operations,
storage needs, and ongoing maintenance activities.
• Sylvan Park -Phase 2 (FY 26/27)
Renovation of the existing restroom facility at Sylvan Park to improve accessibility,
functionality, and user experience and add a BMX Pump Track.
• Texonia Park – Phase 2 (FY 26/27)
Renovation of Texonia Park with construction of a parking lot, installation of an inclusive
playground, splash pad, ADA walking paths, bathroom renovation and sports fields, dog
park, renovation of basketball courts, and shade structures.
• Smiley Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Install Family friendly amenities such as playground, ADA walking paths, restroom, etc. to
improve accessibility, functionality, and user experience.
• Brookside Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Development of new recreational amenities at Brookside Park, including replacement of
playground equipment, a splash pad, and a 10,000-square-foot skatepark to expand
active recreation opportunities and serve a wide range of age groups.
• Heritage Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Construction of a new restroom facility at Heritage Park to address visitor needs and
support increased park usage and programming.
• Crafton Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Installation and replacement of a playground, all-inclusive play and creating a destination
for the community by enhancing family friendly amenities.
21
PARKS MASTER PLAN
• Redlands Sports Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Installation of a playground, dog park, all-inclusive play and creating a destination for the
community by enhancing family friendly amenities.
• Jennie Davis – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Renovation of the existing restroom facility at Jeannie Davis Park to improve
accessibility, functionality, and user experience and add pickleball courts.
• Ed Hales Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Development of a new playground, or interactive play at Ed Hales Park to improve
recreational offerings for children and families within the downtown area. Fostering
family-friendly environments and art and cultural amenities (e.g. sensory and adaptive
equipment, accessible surfaces with cultural integration such as murals or artwork).
• New Trails – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Construction of approximately 2.60 miles of new trails to meet projected community
needs through 2034, expanding the City’s trail network and improving connectivity for
walking, biking, and other non-motorized recreation.
• Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and
Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
The Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center is a
city-owned and maintained facility that serves as a major community resource. While
most building systems remain functional, many are aging and several components are
rated Fair (C) or Poor (D). Multiple features, including ramps, service counters, and
electrical outlets, are non-compliant with ADA standards. An estimated $3 million
investment is required to address deficiencies and bring the facility into compliance with
modern accessibility, safety, and service standards.
• Joslyn Senior Center – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
The Joslyn Senior Center is a smaller, city-owned facility located in the downtown area.
The building is in mixed condition, with many elements rated Fair (C) to Poor (D), and
several features identified as non-compliant with ADA requirements. Key building
systems, including HVAC, lighting, and service counters, require upgrades, and adequate
storage is lacking. Approximately $1.5 million is needed to correct deficiencies and
maintain safe, accessible operations.
• Carriage House at Prospect Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
The Carriage House at Prospect Park is a historic facility constructed in 1896 and holds
significant cultural and community value despite its smaller size. The building is in mixed
condition, with many systems rated Fair (C) and some failing (F). The absence of a fire
sprinkler system and limited ADA compliance present major safety and accessibility
concerns. An estimated $1.25 million is required for rehabilitation and modernization,
with improvements designed to respect historic preservation requirements.
These recommendations are incorporated into the Recommended Park Improvement
Plan cost projections located in Section 4.5
22
PARKS MASTER PLAN
1.9 CONCLUSION
The Redlands Parks Master Plan is a forward-thinking guide to strengthen the city’s proud
legacy of parks, recreation, and community life. Shaped by Redlands’ historic charm and enriched
by robust community input, the Plan reflects the aspirations of residents, city staff, and partners
who are committed to honoring the past while creating opportunities for the future.
This process was a chance for Redlands to reconnect with its roots and chart a bold direction
forward. From the timeless beauty of Prospect Park and the community traditions of the
Redlands Bowl Summer Music Festival, to the open spaces, sports fields, and historic orange
groves that define the city’s character, Redlands’ identity is inseparable from its parks and
cultural resources. With this in mind, the city embraced a revitalized Vision: To Be the Go-To
Place, supported by a mission that centers on Preserve history, celebrate community, and
deliver exceptional service. These commitments reflect a promise to build welcoming, inspiring,
and inclusive spaces for all.
The Master Plan also identifies five “Big Moves” that respond to both current needs and future
opportunities:
• Expand and enhance Redlands’ recreation spaces and facilities
• Strengthen staffing and professional development to serve a growing community
• Deepen cultural programming and community engagement, building on traditions like
the Redlands Bowl
• Invest in infrastructure, safety, and the long-term care of parks, trails, and open spaces
• Secure sustainable funding and cultivate partnerships that extend Redlands’ impact
These priorities are grounded in the voices of residents who shared their perspectives through
surveys, workshops, and community forums. From families seeking more youth programs, to
older adults desiring expanded recreation opportunities, to neighbors calling for better
connections between trails and open spaces, the community’s message was clear: Redlands is
ready to grow while staying true to its values of equity, connection, and belonging.
As Redlands plans for the future, this Master Plan offers a clear and actionable roadmap—
balancing bold aspirations with practical solutions. With strong leadership, collaborative
partnerships, and continued investment, Redlands will remain a community defined by its parks,
cultural traditions, and gathering places—a true “go-to place” for residents and visitors alike,
today and for generations to come.
23
PARKS MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER TWO COMMUNITY PROFILE
2.1 OVERVIEW
A key component of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (“Plan”) is a Community Profile. The
purpose of this analysis is to provide the Parks and Recreation Department (“Department”) with
insight into the community it serves. It also helps quantify the market in and around the City of
Redlands (“City”) and assists in providing a better understanding of the types of parks, facilities,
programs, and services that are most appropriate to equitably address the residents’ needs.
2.2 LIVABILITY AND ACCESS
The community profile report prioritizes a thorough evaluation of the city's livability and
accessibility. This involves analyzing the cost of living, assessing how close residents live to parks,
and determining tree equity in the city. By examining these factors, we gain valuable insights into
the city's overall quality of life. These findings also serve as a guide for future strategic planning
and development aimed at improving accessibility and enriching the living conditions for all
residents.
2.2.1 COST OF LIVING
The cost-of-living index is a measure of how expensive it is to live in a particular area or city
compared to another area or city. The index is typically calculated by comparing the prices of a
basket of goods and services, such as housing, transportation, food, healthcare, and utilities in
different locations. You can see the detailed information at
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/city/california/redlands
The national cost-of-living index in the United
States (US) is set at 100, and the cost-of-living
index for a specific city or region is typically
reported as a percentage of the national
average.
In Redlands, the overall cost of living index
stands at 118.6, which is significantly lower
than the state average of 149.9. This is
reflected in most categories, with grocery,
health, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses all being lower in Redlands compared to the
state averages. However, housing costs in Redlands, while lower than the California average, are
still high at 173.2 compared to the state's 234.8. Additionally, utilities are slightly more expensive
in Redlands (108.3) than the state average (102.4), indicating a mixed but generally more
affordable cost of living in Redlands compared to California as a whole.
Figure 1: Cost of Living Index
24
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.2.2 10 -MINUTE WALK
The Trust for Public Land, with Urban Land
Institute and the National Recreation and
Park Association launched the "10-Minute
Walk Program" to ensure every person
residing in U.S. cities should have access to
a high-quality park that is located within a
10-minute walking distance from their
home. The Trust for Public Land has
conducted research, which has revealed
that parks that cater to predominantly
people of color are, on average, only half
the size of parks that primarily serve white
populations. Despite their smaller size,
these parks serve nearly five times as many
people. Additionally, parks that primarily
serve low-income households are, on
average, four times smaller than parks that
serve high-income households.
The current statistics indicate that 50% of
the residents of Redlands have a park within a 10-minute walk from their homes. This
percentage is moderately lower than the national median of 55%. Additional information about
the “10-Minute Walk Program” can be found at: https://www.tpl.org.
2.2.3 TREE EQUITY
Tree equity measures whether all
residents have fair access to tree
canopy coverage and the
environmental, health, and comfort
benefits that trees provide. Urban
trees reduce extreme heat, improve air
quality, manage stormwater, enhance
walkability, and make parks and
neighborhoods more usable year-
round.
The nationally recognized Tree Equity
Score evaluates canopy coverage relative to neighborhood need, using data on climate,
population density, income, race, age, and health indicators at the Census Block Group level.
Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating that canopy coverage more fully meets
community need.
Figure 2: 10-minute walk
Figure 3: Tree equity score map
25
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The City of Redlands currently has a Tree Equity Score of 81. Of the City’s 51 block groups:
• 10 score above 90
• 21 score between 80–89
• 20 score below 80
Areas with lower scores often correspond
to neighborhoods experiencing greater
heat exposure and fewer environmental
resources
Neighborhoods in Redlands with a higher
proportion of residents of color typically
exhibit lower tree equity scores,
indicating they have less tree canopy
coverage. (Figure 4)
Relevance to the Parks Master Plan
Tree equity is directly connected to park access, usability, and climate resilience. Shade
influences whether parks are comfortable, safe, and accessible during periods of extreme heat.
Tree canopy data helps guide:
• Prioritization of park improvements and tree planting
• Investment in shade enhancements and cooling strategies
• Greenway and corridor planning
• Long-term capital planning decisions
By incorporating tree equity into the Master Plan, the City can ensure that future park and open
space investments support environmental sustainability, public health, and equitable access to
outdoor recreation for all residents.
Additional information regarding tree equity can be found at https://www.treeequityscore.org/
Tr
e
e
C
a
n
o
p
y
% of People of Color
Tree canopy vs. People of color
Figure 4: Tree equity by % of people of color
26
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.3 DEMOGRAPHICS
The Demographic Analysis is a report that examines the characteristics of the population in the
City including age segments, race , ethnicity, and income levels. It covers the entire population of
the City and uses historical patterns to make future projections. It is possible that unforeseen
circumstances during or after the time of the analysis could impact the validity of these
projections.
Figure 5: Demographic Overview
27
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.3.1 METHODOLOGY
The analysis used demographic data from two sources: the U.S. Census Bureau and Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), a research and development organization specializing in
Geographical Information Systems and population projections. The data was obtained in July 2023
and reflects the actual numbers reported in the 2020 Census and information available as of July
2023.
ESRI used this data to estimate the current population in 2023, as well as a 5-year projection for
2028. The consulting team used straight-line linear regression to forecast demographic
characteristics for 10 and 15-year projections in 2033 and 2038.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS BOUNDARY
The City boundaries shown below were used for the demographic analysis.
Figure 6: Redlands site map
28
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.3.2 CITY POPULACE
POPULATION
There is a steady growth in the population from 73,168 in the 2020 Census to an estimated
73,999 in 2023. Future projections suggest a gradual increase, reaching 75,444 in 2028, 76,863
in 2033, and 78,288 by 2038. The annual growth rate is forecasted to slightly decrease over
time, starting at 0.57% in the period following 2023 and gradually declining to 0.37% by 2038.
Similarly, the population growth rate percentage shows a decreasing trend: starting at 1.14%
post-2020, it increases to 1.95% in the 2023-2028 period, then slightly decreases to 1.88% and
1.85% in subsequent five-year periods. This data indicates a consistent but slowly decelerating
population growth in the area over the next two decades.
73,168
73,999
75,444
76,863
78,288
0.57%
0.39%0.38%0.37%
2020
Census
2023
Estimate
2028
Projection
2033
Projection
2038
Projection
POPULATION
Total Population Population Annual Growth Rate
Figure 7: Population growth
29
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.3.3 AGE SEGMENT
The age segment distribution highlights a gradual aging trend in the community. In the 2020
Census, the age groups were fairly balanced, with each of the middle segments (0-17, 18-34, 35-
54, and 55-74) representing about 22-24% of the population, and those aged 75 and over
accounting for 8%. The median age at this time was 38.0 years.
By the 2023 estimate, minor shifts become apparent. The percentage of the youngest age group
(0-17) decreases to 21%, while the 18-34 segment increases to 25%, and the 55-74 age group
goes up to 23%. The median age slightly rises to 38.5 years.
Looking ahead to 2028, the projections show the 0-17 age group further decreasing to 20%, the
18-34 group reducing to 23%, and the 35-54 age group increasing to 25%. The median age is
expected to rise to 39.3 years, reflecting the aging trend.
By 2033 and 2038, this aging pattern continues, with the 0-17 and 18-34 age groups projected
to decrease to 19% and 22%, respectively. Meanwhile, the 35-54 and 55-74 groups remain
steady at about 26% and 22%. The population aged 75 and over shows a gradual increase,
expected to reach 11% by 2038.
Overall, these figures indicate a slow but consistent aging of the population, with a gradual
increase in the median age and a steady rise in the proportion of older age groups, coupled with
a slight decrease in the younger segments.
Figure 8: Population by age segments
30
PARKS MASTER PLAN
RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS
The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program
administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined below. The Census
2020 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 2010 Census and earlier
censuses; therefore, caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of
the US population over time. The latest (Census 2020) definitions and nomenclature are used
within this analysis.
• American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of
North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation
or community attachment
• Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far
East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China,
India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam
• Black or African American – This includes a person having origins in any of the black
racial groups of Africa
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any
of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands
• White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe,
the Middle East, or North Africa
• Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the
Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or
Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race
Census states that the race and ethnicity categories generally reflect social definitions in the U.S.
and are not an attempt to define race and ethnicity biologically, anthropologically, or genetically.
We recognize that the race and ethnicity categories include racial, ethnic, and national origins
and sociocultural groups.”
Please Note: The Census Bureau defines Race as a person’s self-identification with one or more of the
following social groups: White, Black, or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native,
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, or a combination of these. While
Ethnicity is defined as whether a person is of Hispanic / Latino origin or not. For this reason, the
Hispanic / Latino ethnicity is viewed separate from race throughout this demographic analysis.
31
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.3.4 RACE
The race demographic data from 2020 to 2038 indicates significant shifts in the racial composition
of the population. The proportion of individuals identifying as White Alone is on a steady decline,
dropping from 53% in the 2020 Census to a projected 42% by 2038. In contrast, the populations
identified as Some Other Race and Two or More Races are gradually increasing, from 14% to 20%
and 16% to 21%, respectively, over the same period.
The Black Alone and Asian categories remain stable at 5% and 10%, respectively, throughout the
years. A slight increase is observed in the American Indian group, which is expected to rise from
1% to 2% by 2038, while the Pacific Islander category consistently remains at 0%. These trends
highlight a diversifying racial landscape, with a decrease in the White Alone population and
increases in the diversity of other racial groups.
53%51%48%45%42%
5%5%5%5%5%
10%10%10%10%10%
14%15%17%18%20%
16%17%18%20%21%
2020
Census
2023
Estimate
2028
Projection
2033
Projection
2038
Projection
RACE
White Alone Black Alone American Indian Asian
Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races
Figure 9: Population by race
32
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.3.5 ETHNICITY
The City’s population was also evaluated
based on Hispanic/Latino ethnicity,
which the Census Bureau views as
separate from race. It is worth noting
that individuals who identify as
Hispanic/Latino may also belong to any
of the racial categories mentioned
earlier.
The data on Hispanic/Latino origin,
spanning from the 2020 Census to the
2038 projections, reveals a significant
increase in this demographic's
representation. In 2020, 35% of the
population identified as Hispanic or
Latino of any race.
This figure is expected to grow to 37%
by 2023, and further projections suggest
a continued rise to 40% by 2028, 42% by
2033, and reaching 45% by 2038. This trend highlights a substantial and ongoing demographic
shift, underscoring the growing presence of the Hispanic/Latino population over this 18-year
period.
35%37%40%45%
65%63%60%55%
2020
Census
2023
Estimate
2028
Projection
2038
Projection
HISPANIC POPULATION
Hispanic / Latino Origin (any race)All Others
Figure 10: Hispanic population
33
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.3.6 INCOME
The financial data comparing Redlands with California and the United States shows that Redlands
has higher income levels by both per capita and median household measures. Per capita income in
Redlands is $46,548, exceeding California’s $45,201 and the national average of $40,363,
indicating that individuals in Redlands, on average, earn more than those compared to state and
national contexts.
Similarly, the median household income in Redlands, at $91,254, is higher than both California’s
median of $89,455 and the national median of $72,414. This suggests that the typical household
in Redlands enjoys a higher standard of living compared to the rest of the state and country.
These measures collectively reflect a relatively affluent economic status in Redlands, with the per
capita income highlighting individual earnings and the median household income indicating the
economic well-being of typical households.
34
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.3.7 AT -RISK POPULATION
The Census Bureau has identified six "at-risk" factors, and the following statistics provide a
comparison of Redlands to state and national averages in these categories.
The 2023 comparison of these factors for Redlands, California, and the United States reveals
varying characteristics in at-risk population groups. In Redlands, 14.2% of the population is
foreign-born, which is less than California's 26.5% but slightly higher than the national average of
13.6%. The percentage of people who speak a language other than English at home in Redlands is
27.8%, lower than California's 43.9%, but higher than the U.S. average of 21.7%. Redlands has a
higher owner-occupied housing rate (58.6%) compared to California (55.5%) but is lower than the
national rate of 64.6%.
The proportion of individuals with a disability in Redlands is 8.5%, which is higher than California's
6.8% but comparable to the U.S. average of 8.7%. The percentage of people without health
insurance in Redlands is 5.8%, which is lower than both California's 7.5% and the national average
of 9.3%. Lastly, 8.7% of Redlands' population lives in poverty, which is lower than both the state
(12.2%) and national (11.5%) averages.
These figures indicate that Redlands generally fares better in terms of lower poverty rates and
uninsured population but has a higher disability rate compared to California and is on par with the
national average.
Figure 12: At risk population characteristics
35
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.4 LOCAL RECREATIONAL TRENDS
The Trends Analysis offers insights into recreational trends at the national, regional, and local
levels, as well as recreational interests segmented by age. This analysis utilizes data on trends
sourced from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), the National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA), and Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). The trends data
used in this analysis is based on participation rates that are current or historical and NRPA Park
Metrics.
2.4.1 LOCAL SPORT AND LEISURE MARKET POTENTIAL
ESRI provided the following charts depicting sports and leisure market potential data for Redlands’
residents. The Market Potential Index (MPI) is utilized to measure probable demand for a product
or service within defined service areas. MPI scores display the likelihood that an adult resident will
partake in certain activities when compared to the national U.S. average. The activities that
residents participate in do not necessarily have to be within the city’s boundaries. The national
average is set at 100, so scores below 100 indicate lower-than-average participation rates, while
scores above 100 indicate higher-than-average participation rates. The service area is evaluated
against the national average across four categories: general sports, fitness, outdoor activity, and
commercial recreation.
It is important to note that MPI metrics represent only one data point used to help determine
community trends. Programmatic decisions should not be solely based on MPI metrics.
The following charts compare MPI scores for 46 sport and leisure activities prevalent for residents
in the City. The activities are grouped by type and listed in descending order, from highest to
lowest MPI score. Index numbers of 100 or higher hold significance as they indicate a greater
likelihood that residents within service areas will actively participate in those department offerings.
Conversely, below-average MPI scores suggest lower levels of participation in specific activities.
36
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.4.2 GENERAL SPORTS MARKET POTENTIAL
In Redlands, tennis and golf both score above the national average with an index of 113, indicating
a significantly higher interest in these sports compared to the average across the United States.
Soccer also shows a slightly higher interest in Redlands with an index of 102.
In contrast, sports like volleyball, basketball, and football have slightly lower interest levels in
Redlands, scoring 99, 96, and 95 respectively, just below the national average. Interest in softball
and baseball is further below the national average, with softball at 93 and baseball at 89.
This data suggests that while Redlands has a notably higher interest in sports like tennis and golf,
it generally aligns closely with or is slightly below the national average in its interest in other major
sports.
113 113
102 99 96 95 93 89
Tennis Golf Soccer Volleyball Basketball Football Softball Baseball
GENERAL SPORTS MPI
Redlands National Average (100)
Figure 13: General sports MPI
37
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.4.3 FITNESS
When compared to national averages, Redlands demonstrates a notably higher interest in fitness
activities like Yoga and Pilates, with indices of 112 and 110 respectively. This indicates a
significantly greater enthusiasm for these activities than the average across the United States.
Zumba and Aerobics also score high in Redlands with an index of 109 each.
Walking for exercise and swimming are popular as well, scoring 106 and 105 respectively,
indicating a higher-than-average interest in these activities. Weightlifting and jogging/running also
see greater interest in Redlands compared to the national average, with indices of 104 and 103
respectively.
Overall, this data suggests that Redlands has a robust interest in various fitness and wellness
activities, consistently exceeding the national average in these areas.
112 110 109 109 106 105 104 103
Yoga Pilates Zumba Aerobics Walking for
Exercise
Swimming Weight
Lifting
Jogging/
Running
FITNESS MPI
Redlands National Average (100)
Figure 14: Fitness MPI
38
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.4.4 OUTDOOR ACTIVITY
In Redlands, road bicycling shows a significant interest with an index of 111, surpassing the
national average. Mountain bicycling also scores above average at 108. Backpacking and hiking
are popular as well, with indices of 107 and 106, respectively, indicating a greater interest in these
activities compared to the national norm. Saltwater fishing enjoys a modestly higher interest in
Redlands with a score of 103.
Conversely, activities like canoeing/kayaking, rock climbing, horseback riding, and archery show
slightly less interest in Redlands than the national average, with scores of 98, 96, 93, and 93
respectively. Freshwater fishing, in particular, shows a notably lower interest level in Redlands
with an index of 85. This data suggests that while Redlands has a stronger inclination towards
certain outdoor activities like bicycling and hiking, it generally exhibits varied interest levels, with
some activities falling below the national average.
111 108 107 106 103 98 96 93 93 85
Bicycling
(road)
Bicycling
(mountain)
Backpacking Hiking Fishing
(salt water)
Canoeing/
Kayaking
Rock
Climbing
Horseback
Riding
Archery Fishing
(fresh water)
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY MPI
Redlands National Average (100)
Figure 15: Outdoor activity MPI
39
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.4.5 COMMERCIAL RECREATION
Analyzing commercial recreation MPI, key findings indicate strong cultural and intellectual
engagement in the community. Redlands shows notably higher interest in culturally enriching
activities: visiting art galleries scores the highest at 116, participating in book clubs at 113, and
attending live theater at 111, all significantly above the national average. Additionally, attending
adult education courses and going to museums are also popular, each scoring 107.
In contrast, the interest in more traditional recreational activities like visiting indoor water parks
and playing portable video games is lower than the national average, with indices of 89 and 92
respectively. These key findings highlight Redlands' distinct inclination towards cultural and
educational pursuits that could be encouraged and grown over time..
89
92
93
93
94
97
98
99
99
100
101
101
103
104
105
107
107
111
113
116
Visited an indoor water park
Played video/electronic game (portable)
Woodworking
Spent $1-99 on sports/rec equip
Played video/electronic game (console)
Birdwatching
Painting/drawing/sculpting
Attended sports event
Went overnight camping
Spent $250+ on sports/rec equip
Played cards
Spent $100-249 on sports/rec equip
Played chess
Visited a zoo
Photography
Went to museum
Attended adult education course
Went to live theater
Participated in a book club
Went to art gallery
COMMERCIAL RECREATION MPI
(last 12 months)
Redlands National Average (100)
Figure 16: Commercial recreation MPI
40
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.4.6 NATIONAL TRENDS IN RECREATION
METHODOLOGY
The Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Leisure Activities Topline
Participation Report 2023 was utilized to evaluate National Recreation
Participatory Trends.
The methodology of this study is rooted in a nationwide survey
conducted in the 2022 calendar year by Sports Marketing Surveys USA (SMS), under the
supervision of the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) and in collaboration with seven
other sports industry associations comprising the Physical Activity Council (PAC). The study was
conceptualized and deployed by Digital Research Inc. (DRI), with all supplementary data being
credited to the joint research efforts of SFIA and SMS.
Throughout 2022, the study completed 18,000 online interviews involving a nationwide sample
of individuals aged six and older. These participants were selected from proprietary online panels
designed to be representative of the broader U.S. population. Strict quotas related to gender, age,
income, region, and ethnicity were implemented to assure a balanced and representative sample.
The survey's robust sample size of 18,000 completed interviews facilitates a high degree of
statistical accuracy. However, it's acknowledged that all surveys are subject to a standard error,
which indicates the extent to which the results may differ from those acquired through a
comprehensive census of the entire U.S. population. For instance, a sport with a participation rate
of five percent exhibits a confidence interval of plus or minus 0.32 percentage points at the 95
percent confidence level.
To further ensure the representation of the data, a weighting technique was employed. This
adjusted the data to mirror the entire U.S. population aged six and above, utilizing variables such
as gender, age, income, ethnicity, household size, region, and population density. The total
population figure applied was 305,439,858 individuals aged six and older.
The study reports activity based on a rolling 12-month participation rate. Unless explicitly
specified, all charts present data corresponding to U.S. populations aged six and over.
All category and activity names are those used by SFIA.
OVERALL PARTICIPATION IN THE U.S.
For the fifth year running, physical activity rates among Americans continued to rise. Specifically,
77.6% of all Americans, representing approximately 236.9 million individuals, took part in at least
one activity during the year. This figure denotes a 9.2% increase compared to 2017, and a 1.9%
rise compared to 2021. In essence, this means that 20 million more individuals participated in at
least one physical activity annually compared to 2017, suggesting a growing prioritization of
physical activity in American lifestyles.
Racquet sports experienced the most significant rise in participation in 2022, with a surge of 17.6%
or about 8 million participants from the previous year. All racquet sports monitored by SFIA saw
increased participation in 2022, with pickleball outpacing others with an 85.7% annual growth
rate. Conversely, individual and winter sports were the only categories that didn't register
increased participation in 2022.
41
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Team sports rebounded from the sharp downturn they faced in 2020 due to the pandemic, with
their participation rate climbing to 23.2% in 2022, almost reaching the 2019 level of 23.4%. In
2022, participation rates in water sports and outdoor sports similarly rose, comparable to the
increases seen in team sports, while the fitness participation rate remained steady.
When comparing participation rates from 2013 to 2022, it's evident that physical activity has
become a higher priority for Americans over the past decade. Every sports category saw an
increase in participation rates, except for individual sports, which experienced a slight decrease
from 43.3% to 41.3%. Fitness sports reported the largest growth in participation rate, rising from
60.1% in 2013 to 67.4% in 2022.
INACTIVITY IN THE U.S.
In a first since 2010, the number of totally inactive individuals in the U.S.—those not participating
in any of the sports or activities monitored by SFIA—fell below 70 million. In 2022, the count of
inactive individuals stood at 68.6 million or 22.4% of Americans, marking the fourth consecutive
annual decrease.
A decline in inactivity was observed across all age groups, except for those aged 18-24 and 25-34.
SFIA posits that the increase in inactivity within these groups might be due to significant life
transitions such as attending college or starting a family, which were temporarily paused during
the onset of the pandemic. Even though inactivity rates for these age groups have risen in 2022,
they remain lower than their 2017 rates. Thus, every age group reported lower inactivity rates in
2022 compared to 2017.
Further positive news emerged when examining inactivity rates across income levels. Every
income level saw a reduction in inactivity rates of more than 3% in 2022, with the most substantial
decrease of 5.2% occurring within the $25k-$49,999 income bracket. Similar to the age group
analysis, every income category in 2022 registered lower inactivity rates than in 2017. This trend
indicates a growing number of Americans are prioritizing and investing in physical activity (and
have better access to opportunities for participation) compared to previous years.
42
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.4.7 NATIONAL PARTICIPITATION
FITNESS TRENDS
The most popular fitness activity was Walking for Fitness, with 114.8 million participants, though
it experienced a small decrease of 0.9% from the previous year. Despite this, it showed a 3%
increase in participation over the last three years. The second most popular activity, Treadmill
exercising, had around 53.6 million participants, which was largely stable from 2021, but showed
a decrease of 5.7% since 2019.
Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights) also experienced growth in 2022, with approximately
53.1 million participants. This represents a 1% increase from 2021 and a 3.3% increase over three
years. Meanwhile, Yoga and Pilates Training showed significant growth over the three years with
an increase of 10.4% and 11.6% respectively.
The most significant three-year decreases were observed in Cross-Training Style Workouts and
Group Stationary Cycling, with a decrease of 31.7% and 36.9% respectively. Despite some
decreases, many fitness activities maintained or increased their number of participants, indicating
an ongoing interest in physical fitness among Americans.
Figure 17: Top national fitness activities by participation
43
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Figure 18: National fitness participation
44
PARKS MASTER PLAN
TEAM SPORTS TRENDS
Basketball continued to lead in team sports participation with over 28.1 million participants,
marking a 3.7% increase from 2021 and an impressive 13% increase over the past three years.
Baseball and outdoor soccer followed, with approximately 15.5 million and 13 million participants
respectively. While baseball saw a slight decrease of 0.7% in the past year, and a 2.1% decrease
over the past three years, outdoor soccer saw a healthy 3.7% increase from the previous year and
9.3% over three years.
Among other notable sports, gymnastics exhibited the most substantial growth from 2021 to
2022, with a 7% increase in participants, bringing the total to approximately 4.6 million.
Conversely, rugby had the most significant drop with a 5.8% decrease from the previous year and
a steep 16.2% decrease over the last three years.
Overall, despite some declines, many team sports either sustained or increased their participation
numbers in 2022, underlining the continued popularity of these activities.
Figure 19: Top national team sport activities by participation
45
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Figure 20: National team sports participation
46
PARKS MASTER PLAN
INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TRENDS
Individual sports activities demonstrated diverse trends in participation rates. Bowling remained
popular, with over 42.2 million participants, marking a 1.5% increase from the previous year.
However, golf, both on and off-course, stole the limelight with significant growth rates. On or off-
course golf combined experienced a substantial 9.7% increase from 2021, with over 41 million
participants, underpinned by a massive 25.7% increase in off-course golf participation (driving
range, golf entertainment venue, indoor simulator) that skyrocketed to about 15.5 million
participants.
Skateboarding also showed strong growth, with a 3.1% increase from 2021 and a substantial
36.4% growth over three years, bringing its total to just over 9 million participants. Meanwhile,
trail running and ice skating saw considerable growth of 5.9% and 6.4% from 2021, respectively.
On the contrary, adventure racing experienced a decrease in participation, dropping by 6.1% from
2021 and 20% over three years. Traditional road triathlons also suffered a decline, with an 11%
decrease in participants over the past three years. Despite these drops, individual sports and
activities generally saw an upward trend in participation in 2022.
Figure 21: Top national individual activities by participation
47
PARKS MASTER PLAN
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY TRENDS
Outdoor activities experienced a surge in participation. Hiking continued to lead with a 1.5% yearly
and a 19.9% three-year increase, with nearly 59.6 million participants. Bicycling on paved surfaces
and freshwater fishing also grew by 1.8% and 2.4% respectively. Camping saw a considerable 4.0%
annual growth, and birdwatching and saltwater fishing increased by 6.8% and 4.0% respectively.
Figure 22: National individual activity participation
Figure 23: Top national outdoor activities by participation
48
PARKS MASTER PLAN
However, target shooting with handguns and rifles experienced a decrease, as did overnight
backpacking. BMX bicycling and sport/boulder climbing reported significant growth rates of 8.3%
and 6.6%, underscoring a strong interest in outdoor activities despite some downturns.
Figure 24: National outdoor activity participation
49
PARKS MASTER PLAN
RACQUET SPORT TRENDS
Racquet sports saw a continued upward trend in participation in 2022, with tennis at the forefront,
with around 23.6 million participants and marking a 4.3% increase from 2021. This sport also
witnessed a significant three-year growth rate of 33.4%.
An even more impressive growth rate was found in pickleball, which experienced an incredible
85.7% increase from 2021, and a stunning 158.6% increase over three years, reflecting its rapidly
growing popularity. Meanwhile, other sports like table tennis and badminton also experienced
growth in 2022, with 2.8% and 7.1% increases from the previous year respectively.
Racquetball and cardio tennis showed a similar positive trend with 8.0% and 7.8% growth rates
from 2021, respectively. Despite its lower participation numbers compared to other racquet
sports, squash saw a modest increase of 3.6% from 2021, showing signs of sustained interest.
Overall, the data suggests a robust growth in the popularity of racquet sports in 2022.
Figure 26: National racquet sport participation
Figure 25: Top national racquet sports by participation
50
PARKS MASTER PLAN
WATER ACTIVITY TRENDS
Water activity participation in 2022 demonstrated a generally positive trend across various sports.
Recreational kayaking topped the list with approximately 13.56 million participants, seeing a
modest 1.6% increase from the previous year and a significant 19.1% rise over three years.
Canoeing and jet skiing also observed growth in 2022, with participant numbers reaching
approximately 9.52 million and 5.44 million, respectively. Canoeing saw a 3.5% increase from
2021, while jet skiing surged by 7.6%.
The popularity of surfing continued to rise, posting a 6.6% increase from 2021 and a notable 24.6%
growth over three years. Stand-up paddling and white-water kayaking grew by 1.0% and 3.9%
from 2021, respectively.
Sailing, rafting, and wakeboarding saw increases from the previous year, with rafting experiencing
a 6.3% increase. Despite the growth, water skiing saw a minor dip of 0.6% from 2021. Scuba diving
bounced back from a dip in participation with a 7.3% increase in 2022, although the three-year
change remains negative at -2.1%.
Finally, sea/touring kayaking and boardsailing/windsurfing showed minor growth rates from the
previous year but have essentially maintained their participant numbers over the last three years.
Figure 27: Top national water activities by participation
51
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.4.8 4 SUMMARY
• Group Fitness: Participation in group fitness-based activities continued to struggle but
showed some signs of recovery. Boot camp style training, cardio kickboxing, and stationary
cycling (group) all increased participation in 2022 but are still significantly down from their
2019 numbers.
• Health Clubs: Health club-based activities continued to struggle. Elliptical motion/cross-
trainer, stair-climbing machine, stationary cycling (recumbent/upright), and weight
resistance machines all had participation decreases last year and are down over 10%
compared to 2019 numbers.
• Golf (on or off-course): Golf continues to maintain its momentum. Golf (on or off-course)
increased by 9.7 % last year and all forms of golf overall have grown over 20% since 2019.
• Outdoor Recreation: Camping, fishing, and bicycling activities recovered to 2020
participation levels after showing slight decreases in 2021.
• Personal Combat Sports: Personal combat sports had a good year. Martial Arts, boxing for
fitness, MMA for competition, MMA for fitness, and wrestling all posted participation
increases in 2022.
• Racquet Sports: For the first time since 2015, every racquet sport increased its total
participation number compared to the previous year.
o Pickleball continued to be the fastest-growing sport in America. Participation
almost doubled in 2022, increasing by 85.7% year-over-year and by an astonishing
158.6% over three years.
o Tennis increased by 4.3% last year and has grown over 20% since 2019.
• Running and Hiking: For the fifth straight year, trail running and hiking (day) total
participation increased.
Figure 28: National water activity participation
52
PARKS MASTER PLAN
• Team Sports: Basketball, soccer (outdoor), football (flag), and football (tackle) all posted
positive three-year total participation increases of over 4.5%. Basketball had the highest
three-year increase of 13.0%.
• Yoga, Barre and Pilates: Barre and Pilates showed solid participation increases in 2022,
while yoga decreased for the first time in the last decade. All have three-year participation
increases with yoga and Pilates increasing over 10% in the last three years.
2.5 KEY TAKEAWAYS
Cost of Living: Redlands' cost of living index stands at 118.6, notably lower than California's 149.9.
The city has more affordable grocery, health, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses
compared to state averages. However, housing and utilities are slightly higher than the state's
average.
Park Access and Tree Equity: About 50% of Redlands' residents have access to a park within a 10-
minute walk, slightly below the national median of 55%. The city has a tree equity score of 81,
with varied scores across different neighborhoods, indicating some disparity in tree canopy
coverage.
Demographics and Growth: Redlands is experiencing steady population growth, projected to
increase from 73,168 in 2020 to 78,288 by 2038. The growth rate, however, is slowly decreasing
over time. The community is witnessing a gradual aging trend, with an increase in the median age
and older age groups, and a decrease in younger segments.
Racial Composition and Ethnicity: The city is seeing a decline in the White Alone population and
an increase in the diversity of other racial groups, with a notable rise in the Some Other Race and
Two or More Races categories. The Hispanic/Latino population is also growing, expected to reach
45% by 2038.
Income Levels: Redlands’ residents are at higher income levels than California and the United
States, with higher per capita and median household incomes, indicating a moderately affluent
economic status.
At-Risk Population Characteristics: Compared to state and national averages, Redlands has a
lower percentage of foreign-born residents and individuals speaking a language other than English
at home compared to the state averages. The city has a higher owner-occupied housing rate than
California but lower than the national rate. It has a comparable disability rate to the U.S. average
and lower poverty and uninsured population rates.
Recreational Interests: In terms of sports and recreational activities, Redlands shows a higher
interest in tennis, golf, fitness activities like Yoga and Pilates, and outdoor activities like road
bicycling and hiking. However, the interest in more traditional recreational activities like visiting
indoor water parks and playing portable video games is lower than the national average, reflecting
a distinct inclination towards cultural and educational pursuits.
In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis of Redlands reveals a community characterized by
cultural diversity and an evolving demographic profile. The higher-than-average income levels
suggest a high standard of living, while the aging population and increasing Hispanic/Latino
presence highlight the need for diverse and age-appropriate services and infrastructure. The
residents' preference for health-focused and cultural activities suggests a community valuing
53
PARKS MASTER PLAN
wellness and intellectual engagement. Environmental concerns are apparent, but issues of equity
in green space access must be addressed. The city's stable yet changing population dynamics, along
with linguistic diversity, call for adaptable and inclusive community planning. Overall, these
findings underscore the unique attributes of Redlands, providing essential insights for future
development and policymaking.
54
PARKS MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER THREE PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY
A central goal of the City of Redlands Parks and Recreation Master Plan is to reflect the voices,
values, and visions of the community it serves. To achieve this, the planning process was guided
by a comprehensive and inclusive public engagement strategy. Over 20 key leader interviews
and focus groups were conducted to gather insight from stakeholders and community partners.
In addition, two public workshops—offered in both in-person and virtual formats—provided
residents with opportunities to participate in real time. Broader community feedback was also
captured through two survey efforts: a statistically valid survey administered by ETC Institute
and an online community survey hosted on SurveyMonkey. Together, these efforts ensured that
the plan was shaped by diverse perspectives, with both qualitative and quantitative data
informing its direction. The feedback gathered through this process serves as the foundation for
identifying current priorities, future opportunities, and the shared aspirations of Redlands
residents.
55
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.1 KEY LEADER INTERVIEWS & FOCUS GROUPS
To ground the Master Plan in the real-world experiences and insights of those closest to parks
and recreation in Redlands, the planning team conducted more than 20 key leader interviews
and focus groups. These sessions engaged a diverse cross-section of voices—including city
leadership, partner agencies, community advocates, and civic organizations—to understand the
current state and future potential of the City’s parks and recreation system. Participants were
asked three guiding questions:
1. What are the strengths of the city parks and recreation system?
2. What are the opportunities for improvement or innovation?
3. What would be your top priority outcome of this plan?
The responses provided a deeper understanding of both the city’s successes and the areas where
community and stakeholder priorities point to greater impact. This input has played a vital role in
identifying themes that will inform strategies, shape investment decisions, and ensure the Plan
reflects the needs and aspirations of Redlands.
3.1.1 STRENGTHS
The following are the top five common strengths from the key leader interviews and focus
groups:
• Diversity and Availability: This theme captures the large number and variety of parks, the
diversity of activities, and the availability of programming for all ages. It also includes the
presence of both passive and active parks, unique features like the Emerald Necklace,
and the addition of special facilities like a dog park.
• Community Engagement and Support: This includes the high level of community
involvement, relationships within the community, support to instructors for programming,
and events like movie nights which foster community gathering.
• Facilities and Infrastructure: The emphasis on good infrastructure is evident from the
mentions of the Redlands Bowl, the trail system, mature trees, and facilities like the
Community Center that are well-maintained and accessible.
• Sports and Recreation Programming: The shift to include sports like pickleball, the
availability of sports programming, and senior programming demonstrate a commitment
to offering recreational opportunities tailored to different interests and age groups.
• Leadership and Maintenance: There’s a clear appreciation for the engaged leadership, the
empathetic management, and the responsive and capable maintenance staff who keep
the parks in good shape, manage resources well, and ensure the trimming of trees and
overall upkeep.
56
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.1.2 OPPORTUNITIES
The following are the top five common opportunities from the key leader interviews and focus
groups:
• Facilities and Amenities Upgrade: This includes the need for better lighting, more
accessible restrooms, splash pads, and the addition of new facilities like pickleball courts.
There's also a call for more amenities that can handle the heat, such as water features
and shaded areas.
• Safety and Accessibility Improvements: There's a strong focus on making parks safer and
more accessible, especially for seniors, those with disabilities, and families with young
children. This extends to improving ADA compliance and adding features that are
universally accessible.
• Programming for All Ages: The need for more recreational league activities and diverse
programming is apparent. Suggestions include outdoor movies, arts in the park, culturally
diverse events, and tech upgrades for community centers to engage different age groups.
• Community Engagement and Use of Space: This includes better utilization of existing
spaces, integrating arts and educational opportunities, and re-envisioning parks for
community events. There's also a desire to improve communication with the community
and leverage partnerships for funding and development.
• Maintenance and Management: There's concern about the current state of maintenance
and the need for improved management plans, including better staffing levels, updated
playgrounds and parks, and consistent care to enhance the appeal and utility of the park
spaces.
3.1.3 TOP PRIORITY OUTCOME
The following are the top five common priority outcomes from the key leader interviews and
focus groups:
• Facility Upgrades and Accessibility: This theme includes upgrading restrooms, ensuring
parks and their amenities are accessible and safe, and improving infrastructure like
playgrounds, lighting, and irrigation systems.
• Recreational and Community Amenities: The development of new facilities such as sand
volleyball courts, a junior football field, and an aquatics center, as well as the installation
of basic fitness equipment along walkways, reflects a priority for enhancing recreational
opportunities.
• Youth and Family Focus: Creating a community center for teens, more family-friendly
parks, and more opportunities for children to enjoy parks, suggests an emphasis on
catering to the needs of young people and families.
• Community Engagement and Storytelling: There is an emphasis on the need to create a
narrative for the parks to increase engagement, including storytelling about each park's
contribution to the city and potentially the use of stages or amphitheaters for community
shows.
• Strategic Planning and Development: The priorities reflect a need for comprehensive
planning, including understanding community needs, setting proactive visions, and
purchasing properties to expand or improve park services, indicating a strategic approach
to park management and development.
57
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.2 PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Two public workshops were held on back-to-back evenings in March 2024 to give Redlands
residents an opportunity to participate directly in shaping the future of parks and recreation.
Designed to be interactive and inclusive, each session featured live polling through the
Mentimeter platform, allowing participants to share their thoughts in real time and see how their
perspectives aligned with those of others in the room. These workshops served as a valuable
forum for community members to voice ideas, surface priorities, and respond to key questions
about the City's parks, facilities, and recreation services. The feedback gathered through these
sessions added meaningful context to the overall engagement effort and provided immediate
insight into the values and preferences of those in attendance.
3.2.1 USE & ACCESS
Workshop participants demonstrated a high level of engagement with Redlands’ parks and
recreation system. An overwhelming 82% of respondents reported using parks, trails, or
recreation facilities at least weekly, with another 11% using them at least monthly. Notably, no
participants indicated using the system less than twice per year, and none reported not using it
at all—showing a strong culture of regular use among attendees.
When asked about proximity, 67% of participants stated they live within a 10-minute walk to a
park or trail, while 33% said they did not. This highlights a generally strong distribution of parks
across the city, though access gaps still exist for one-third of residents.
In terms of how residents travel to parks, the most common method was by car (55%), followed
by walking (31%), and biking (10%). A few participants humorously selected “teleporting” (3%),
underscoring the community’s creative spirit even in public feedback. The majority of
participants rely on a mix of active and vehicle-based transportation, emphasizing the
importance of both safe walkability and convenient parking when planning future improvements.
3.2.2 NEEDS & INTERESTS
Public workshop participants shared detailed insights into the types of amenities, programs, and
improvements they value most across the Redlands parks and recreation system. This input helps
prioritize community-driven investments and enhancements in the years ahead.
Regularly Used Amenities
• Participants were asked which amenities they use most often. The top responses
included:
• Trails (57%)
• Open Spaces/Grass Areas (43%)
• Sports Fields (36%)
• Playgrounds (29%)
Lower but notable use was reported for the Community Center (14%), Sports Courts (14%), and
the Senior Center (7%). These results reflect a strong preference for outdoor, flexible, and multi-
use environments that support informal recreation and social gathering.
58
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Most Desired Facilities
When asked which three facilities or amenities they were most interested in seeing added or
improved:
• Adventure or Destination-Style Playgrounds were the top choice at 45%
• Splash Pads and Outdoor Pools each earned 36%
• Walking Paths and Trails received 33%, reinforcing their high regular use
• Shade Structures (21%) and Indoor Recreation Centers (18%) also ranked highly
While skate parks and sports courts received low interest (0%), this may reflect either
satisfaction with current offerings or a lower perceived community need among attendees.
Program Participation Interests
When selecting the top three program types they would be most interested in:
• Arts and Culture ranked first at 47%
• Special and Cultural Events followed closely with 43%
• Youth Sports (37%) and Fitness and Wellness (33%) also received significant support
There was also notable interest in Aquatics (27%) and Outdoor Recreation (23%), suggesting a
broad community desire for active and culturally enriching experiences.
Top Priorities for Improvement
Looking forward, the highest-priority improvements for the next ten years included:
• Innovative, All-Ability Playgrounds and Upgraded Restrooms (each selected by 55%)
• More Shade Structures (48%)
• Expanded or New Community Centers and Outdoor Fitness/Obstacle Courses (38%
each)
• Splash Pads and Outdoor Pools (34% each)
• Safety and Security Measures and Upgraded Sports Fields (28%)
These responses reflect a strong desire for inclusive play, year-round comfort, enhanced safety,
and more welcoming, accessible facilities that serve a wide range of users.
3.2.3 COMMUNITY VALUES & VISION
In addition to identifying needs and usage trends, workshop participants shared valuable
feedback about the barriers they face, their level of satisfaction with current offerings, and how
they prefer to stay informed. This input provides important insight into the expectations,
communication needs, and underlying values that should guide the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
59
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Barriers to Participation
Participants identified a number of obstacles that prevent them from using parks, programs, and
facilities more frequently:
• Amenities in parks and centers was the top barrier, cited by 46% of respondents,
suggesting a need to modernize or diversify the offerings.
• Feeling unsafe and lack of restrooms were each selected by 34%, indicating that comfort
and security remain key concerns.
• Being too busy (29%) and lack of awareness of offerings (23%) also limit participation.
• Other challenges included lack of parking (23%) and wayfinding signage (11%), pointing
to the importance of improving basic infrastructure and communication tools.
Satisfaction with Parks and Services
When asked about their overall satisfaction:
• 45% of respondents said they were either “Very” (14%) or “Somewhat Satisfied” (31%).
• However, a significant 34% remained neutral, and 17% reported being somewhat
dissatisfied.
• Notably, no respondents selected “Very Dissatisfied,” indicating a generally positive
baseline—but also room for growth and improvement in how services are delivered.
Perception of Quality
• Nearly half (48%) rated the quality of facilities and experiences as “Good.”
• Another 41% said “Fair,” and just 4% selected “Excellent.”
• This suggests that while there is general satisfaction, few residents feel the system is
truly exceptional—highlighting a gap between basic function and excellence.
Preferred Communication Channels
To ensure ongoing awareness and engagement, participants shared how they prefer to learn
about parks and recreation opportunities:
• Social media was the top choice at 61%, followed by Email and Text Messages (each at
42%).
• Websites (36%) and Local News or Press Releases (33%) also remained relevant.
• Only 15% preferred an app, and 6% cited word of mouth.
These findings highlight the importance of using multiple communication platforms—especially
digital tools—to reach residents effectively and build trust through transparency and
responsiveness.
60
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.2.4 PRIORITY OUTCOMES
At the conclusion of each public workshop, participants were invited to share—in their own
words—the single most important outcome they hoped would result from this Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. The responses were thoughtful, detailed, and diverse, offering a
powerful snapshot of the values, hopes, and priorities of the Redlands community. The following
five themes emerged most consistently across the comments:
FAMILY -FOCUSED AND MULTI -GENERATIONAL SPACES
Many participants expressed a desire for parks and programs that support families of all types
and ages. This includes more family-oriented activities like arts, music, cultural events, and
fitness opportunities, as well as the development of spaces that can serve multi-generational
needs, from children to seniors.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND NATIVE LANDSCAPING
A strong and recurring theme was the call for sustainable design practices, including the use of
native plants, water capture systems, organic and non-toxic materials, and an overall
commitment to climate resilience. Participants want the plan to support both environmental
health and long-term park sustainability.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITY IMPROVEMENTS
Participants emphasized a wide range of physical improvements, with consistent calls for:
• Restroom upgrades
• Improved lighting
• Splash pads
• Shaded play structures
• Walking tracks and fitness features like dip/pull-up bars
These upgrades were seen as essential to comfort, safety, and usability.
COMMUNITY CONNECTION AND INCLUSIVITY
Many hoped the plan would create stronger community identity and buy-in, especially through
welcoming spaces, transparent public input processes, and park designs that reflect cultural
diversity. Several responses noted that parks should help bring people together—both physically
and socially.
OPEN SPACE, TRAILS, AND ECOLOGICAL ACCESS
Respondents also prioritized more connected trail systems, expanded natural open space, and
increased opportunities for passive recreation and ecological interaction. Ideas included linking
parks to the Santa Ana Trail, enhancing biodiversity, and ensuring that parks are walkable within
10 minutes of neighborhoods.
61
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.3 STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY
ETC Institute administered a parks and recreation needs assessment survey for the City of
Redlands, California during the summer months of 2024. The purpose of the survey was to help
determine parks and recreation priorities for the community.
3.3.1 METHODOLOGY
ETC Institute mailed a survey packet to a random sample of households throughout the City of
Redlands. Each survey packet contained a cover letter, a copy of the survey, and a postage-paid
return envelope. Residents who received the survey were given the option of returning the
survey by mail or completing it online.
After the surveys were mailed, ETC Institute followed up with residents to encourage
participation. To prevent people who were not residents of Redlands from participating,
everyone who completed the survey online was required to enter their home address prior to
submitting their survey. ETC Institute then matched the addresses entered online with the
addresses originally selected for the random sample. If the address from a survey completed
online did not match one of the addresses selected for the sample, the online survey was not
included in the final database for this report.
The survey aimed to collect a minimum of 400 completed responses from residents, and this
target was surpassed with 414 completed surveys collected. The overall results for the sample of
414 residents have a precision of at least +/‐4.80% at the 95% level of confidence.
The major findings of the survey are summarized in the following pages.
3.3.2 FACILITIES/PROGRAMS USAGE
Facilities Use: Majority of the respondents (87%) indicated that they have visited the City’s
facilities during the past year. Then, they were asked to rate how often they visited those
parks/facilities. 5% visited 5+ times a week, 24% visited 2-4 times a week, 17% visited once a
week, 30% visited 1-3 times a month, and 24% visited less than once a month. Then, they rated
the physical condition of the parks/facilities they have visited. 10% rated excellent, 52% rated
good, 30% rated fair, and 8% rated poor. For those that said they have not visited facilities in the
past year, they selected barriers that prevented them from visiting them more often or at all. The
common barriers were: fear of criminal activity in the park (39%), do not feel safe using
parks/facilities (35%), and lack of shade (31%). Programs Use: Thirty-six percent (36%) of
respondents indicated that they have participated in programs/ events in the past year. They
gave the number of programs/events they participated in. 37% participated in one, 46%
participated in 2-3 programs, 10% participated in 4-6 programs, and 7% participated in 7+
programs. Then, they rated the programs/events they participated in. 23% rated excellent, 57%
rated good, 15% rated fair, and 5% rated poor. For those that have said they have not
participated in programs or events in the past year, they selected barriers that prevented them
from participating more often or at all. The common barriers were: I don’t know what is offered
(51%), too busy/not interested (20%), and program times are not convenient (18%).
62
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.3.3 COMMUNICATION
Respondents selected all the ways they learn about the City’s parks, recreation facilities,
programs, and events. The common resources were: word of mouth (63%), social media (44%),
and banners (33%). Based on the sum of top three choices, the common resources were: social
media (53%), emails/eNewsletter (42%), and City website (30%).
3.3.4 OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS
Respondents selected the organizations that they used for recreation/sports activities during the
last year. The common selected organizations were: City of Redlands (62%), neighboring
cities/county (36%), and private clubs (26%).
3.3.5 BENEFITS, IMPORTANCE, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKS AND
RECREATION
Agreement: Respondents rated their level of agreement with the statements (listed in the
survey) about potential benefits of the City’s parks and recreation services. The statements that
respondents agreed the most were: provides access to gathering & open spaces (87%), makes
Redlands a more desirable place to live (84%), and preserves open space & protects the
environment (81%).
3.3.6 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
Additional Tax Revenue: Respondents were asked how much amount of additional tax revenue
they would be willing to pave to improve their parks and recreation services. 23% selected $9+
per month, 9% selected $7-$8 per month, 20% selected $5-$6 per month, 21% selected $3-$4
per month, and 26% selected nothing.
Importance: Respondents rated how important it was for the City to provide high quality parks,
recreation facilities, and programs. 78% rated very important, 15% rated somewhat important,
2% rated not important, and 6% were not sure.
63
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.3.7 RECREATION FACILITIES NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
Facilities Needs: Respondents were asked to identify if their household had a need for 28
recreation facilities and to rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based on
this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community that
had the greatest “unmet” need for various facilities.
The three facilities with the highest percentage of households that have an unmet need:
1. Walking paths in parks
2. Open grass areas
3. Small neighborhood parks
Facility Importance: In addition to assessing the needs for each activity, ETC Institute also
assessed the importance that residents placed on each item. Based on the sum of respondents’
top four choices, these were the four facilities that ranked most important to residents:
1. Multi-use hiking, biking, walking trails
2. Walking paths in parks
3. Small neighborhood parks
4. Restrooms
Priorities for Facility Investments: The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) was developed by ETC
Institute to provide organizations with an objective tool for evaluating the priority that should be
placed on recreation and parks investments. The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) equally weighs
(1) the importance that residents place on activities and (2) how many residents have unmet
needs for the activities.
Based the Priority Investment Rating (PIR), the following facilities were rated as high priorities
for investment:
• Multi-use hiking, biking, walking trails (PIR=177)
• Walking paths in parks (PIR=166)
• Splash pads or spray parks (PIR=162)
• Swimming pool (PIR=153)
• Restrooms (PIR=148)
• Small neighborhood parks (PIR=141)
• Bicycle & pedestrian access/connection to parks (PIR=137)
• Large community parks (PIR=130)
• Community gardens (PIR=129)
• Environmental/nature education (PIR=127)
The chart below shows the Priority Investment Rating for each of the 28 facilities assessed in the
survey
64
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.3.8 RECREATION PROGRAMS NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
Program Needs: Respondents were asked to identify if their household had a need for 29
recreation programs and to rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based
on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community
that had the greatest “unmet” need for various programs.
The three programs with the highest percentage of households that have an unmet need:
1. Community special events
2. Cultural enrichment programs
3. Adult fitness & wellness programs
Program Importance: In addition to assessing the needs for each program, ETC Institute also
assessed the importance that residents placed on each item. Based on the sum of respondents’
top four choices, these were the four programs that ranked most important to residents:
1. Community special events
2. Adult fitness & wellness programs
3. Outdoor environmental education/nature camps & programs
4. Recreation swim
65
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Priorities for Program Investments: The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) was developed by ETC
Institute to provide organizations with an objective tool for evaluating the priority that should be
placed on recreation and parks investments. The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) equally weighs
(1) the importance that residents place on programs and (2) how many residents have unmet
needs for the activities.
Based the Priority Investment Rating (PIR), the following programs were rated as high priorities
for investment:
• Adult fitness & wellness programs (PIR=189)
• Community special events (PIR=184)
• Recreation swim (PIR=149)
• Outdoor environmental education/nature camps & programs (PIR=143)
• Cultural enrichment programs (PIR=138)
The chart on the next page shows the Priority Investment Rating for each of the 29 programs
assessed in the survey.
66
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.4 SURVEY COMPARISON ANALYSIS
This section provides a comparative analysis of two surveys conducted for the City of Redlands
Parks and Recreation Master Plan: the ETC Institute Statistically Valid Survey and the Online
Community Survey via SurveyMonkey.
The goal of both surveys was to gather feedback from residents on satisfaction levels, priorities,
and future needs related to parks, facilities, and recreation programs.
The Statistically Valid Survey gathered responses from 414 randomly selected households,
surpassing its goal of 400. With a margin of error of ±4.8% at a 95% confidence level, it offers a
reliable and representative view of community sentiment. It was offered in multiple formats and
languages to ensure accessibility.
The Online Community Survey collected 755 responses from residents who self-selected to
participate. While not statistically representative, it mirrored the ETC survey in content and
broadened participation, providing additional insights from engaged community members.
By comparing results from both surveys, this analysis identifies key themes, points of alignment,
and unique insights—helping to ensure that both statistically reliable data and broader
community voices inform the future of Redlands’ parks and recreation system.
Statistically Valid Survey
•414 households (Goal of 400)
•Precision rate of at least +/-4.80% at the 95% level of confidence
•Residents were able to return the survey by mail, by phone or completing it online
•Only scientific & defensible method to understand community needs
•Translation services available in multiple languages including Spanish.
Online Community Survey
•755 responses
•No precision rate or level of confidence due to there being no selection criteria for respondents
•Questionnaire identical to the Statistically Valid Survey
•Provides further insight on community expectations
•Administered in English
67
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The following shows a side-by-side comparison of key results from each survey by question.
Full results from the Statistically Valid Survey can be found in the APPENDIX A
Full results from the Online Community Survey can be found in the APPENDIX B
3.4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS
In the demographic section of this report, we analyze the community demographics served by the
Department based on responses from the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the Online
Community Survey via SurveyMonkey. Due to ETC’s approach of random sampling and ensuring
a 95% level of confidence and a margin of error of +/- 5%, their survey results more accurately
reflect the community’s demographics and are statistically reliable in comparison to online-only
surveys.
We examine respondent demographics such as gender, tenure in City, and race/ethnicity to gain
insights into the community's composition. Our findings are compared with the 2023 demographic
estimates from The Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) to understand how the
survey data aligns with broader demographic trends.
Full demographic data can be found in Section (Insert link in report).
GENDER (EXCLUDES “PREFER NOT TO DISCLOSE”)
Female 50% 66% 52%
Male 49% 34% 48%
Non-Binary/Self-
describe
The gender breakdown varied notably between the two surveys. In the Statistically Valid Survey,
responses were nearly balanced, with 50% identifying as female and 49% as male, closely
reflecting the city’s actual demographic composition (52% female, 48% male). 1% of respondents
identified as non-binary or self-described.
In contrast, the Online Community Survey had a heavier skew toward female participants, with
66% identifying as female and just 34% as male, and no respondents selecting a non-binary or
self-described option.
These differences suggest that statistically valid sampling better captured the city's gender
demographics, while the online format may have engaged a disproportionately higher number of
women. This trend is common in open-access community surveys and should be considered
when interpreting broader input.
68
PARKS MASTER PLAN
YEARS LIVED IN CITY
0-5 13% 31%
6-10 25% 15%
11-15 12% 11%
16-20 10% 9%
21-30 20% 13%
31+ 31% 21%
The two surveys revealed differences in the length of residency among respondents. In the
Statistically Valid Survey, a majority of respondents (51%) reported living in Redlands for over 21
years, with 31% living in the city for 31 years or more, and 20% between 21–30 years. This
reflects strong input from long-term residents.
In contrast, the Online Community Survey attracted a higher proportion of newer residents, with
31% reporting they had lived in Redlands for 5 years or less, compared to just 13% in the
statistically valid sample. Respondents with 6–10 years of residency made up 15% of the online
survey, compared to 25% in the statistically valid group.
These differences highlight the value of both surveys: while the statistically valid results reflect
the perspectives of long-term residents, the online survey broadens the view to include newer
voices, helping to ensure the plan reflects the full spectrum of community experience.
69
PARKS MASTER PLAN
RACE/ETHNICITY
White Alone 58% 74% 51%
Black Alone 5% 2% 5%
American Indian 1% 2% 1%
Asian 9% 9% 10%
Pacific Islander 1% 1% 0%
Some Other Race 4% 11% 15%
Two or More Races N/A N/A 17%
Hispanic (Ethnicity) 37% 32% 37%
Comparing the survey responses to the actual demographics of Redlands highlights how well
each tool reflected the city’s racial and ethnic diversity.
In the Statistically Valid Survey, 58% of respondents identified as White Alone, slightly higher
than the actual city population (51%), but much more reflective than the Online Community
Survey, where 74% of respondents identified as White—indicating significant
overrepresentation.
Other notable comparisons include:
• Hispanic/Latino residents accounted for 37% of both the Statistically Valid Survey and
actual demographics, compared to 32% in the Online Survey.
• Black or African American residents were proportionally represented in the Statistically
Valid Survey (5%), but underrepresented in the Online Survey (2%), compared to 5%
citywide.
• Asian respondents were evenly represented across both surveys (9%) and matched
closely with city demographics (10%).
The category Two or More Races, which represents 17% of the city's population, was not
collected in either survey.
Overall, the Statistically Valid Survey more closely mirrors the racial and ethnic makeup of
Redlands, particularly in its alignment with Hispanic/Latino and Black resident percentages. The
Online Survey, while useful for broad input, tended to skew toward older and White
respondents, reinforcing the importance of using multiple methods to reach underrepresented
voices.
70
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.4.2 VISITATION/PARTICIPATION
HAVE YOU VISITED/PARTICIPATED…
Visited parks and/or
recreation facilities in the
past 12 months
the past 12 months
HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU VISITED DEPARTMENT PARKS AND/OR
RECREATION FACILITIES DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS?
5+ times a week 5% 17%
2-4 times a week 24% 36%
Once a week 17% 18%
1-3 times a month 30% 16%
Less than once a month 24% 12%
HOW MANY PROGRAMS OR EVENTS OFFERED BY DEPARTMENT HAVE YOU
OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATED IN DURING THE PAST
12 MONTHS?
1 program/event 37% 36%
2-3 programs/events 46% 48%
4-6 programs/events 10% 14%
7+ programs/events 7% 3%
71
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Both surveys indicate high levels of engagement with Redlands parks and recreation facilities,
though some variation appears in program participation and frequency of visits.
Park and Facility Visitation
• In the Statistically Valid Survey, 87% of respondents reported visiting a park or recreation
facility in the past 12 months, compared to 96% in the Online Community Survey.
• The online survey respondents also reported more frequent usage overall: 17% said they
visited 5 or more times per week, compared to just 5% in the statistically valid survey.
• Conversely, 30% of respondents in the statistically valid sample said they visited 1–3
times per month, compared to 16% of online participants—indicating a more moderate,
consistent use pattern.
• Overall, both surveys show that most residents are regular users, but the online survey
skewed toward more frequent park users.
Program Participation
• 36% of statistically valid survey respondents had participated in a program in the past
year, compared to 45% in the online survey.
• Among those who did participate, the majority attended 1 to 3 programs:
o 37% (SVS) and 36% (Online) reported attending 1 program/event
o 46% (SVS) and 48% (Online) participated in 2–3 programs/events
These results show that while most residents engage with the park system through facility use,
fewer participate in formal programs—and those who do tend to limit involvement to a few
activities per year. The higher participation rates in the online survey also suggest that
respondents with stronger engagement may have been more likely to opt in voluntarily.
72
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.4.3 PHYSICAL CONDITION/QUALITY
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF ALL DEPARTMENT
AND/OR RECREATION FACILITIES YOU HAVE VISITED?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL QUALITY OF DEPARTMENT
PROGRAMS OR EVENTS IN WHICH YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAS PARTICIPATED
IN ?
Survey responses reflect generally positive perceptions of Redlands’ parks, facilities, and
programs, though few rated them as truly exceptional. When asked about the physical condition
of parks and recreation facilities, 52% of statistically valid respondents and 53% of online
respondents rated them as “Good.” Only 10% in each survey considered conditions “Excellent,”
while about one-third rated them as “Fair” and a small portion as “Poor.”
Program and event quality received slightly higher marks. In the statistically valid survey, 57%
rated program quality as “Good” and 23% as “Excellent.” The online survey showed similar
results, with 63% selecting “Good” and 17% “Excellent.” Around 20% of respondents in each
survey rated the programs as “Fair” or “Poor.” Overall, the results suggest satisfaction with
current offerings, along with a clear opportunity to enhance quality and exceed expectations.
Excellent 10% 10%
Good 52% 53%
Fair 30% 31%
Poor 8% 5%
Excellent 23% 17%
Good 57% 63%
Fair 15% 18%
Poor 5% 3%
73
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.4.4 BARRIERS
REASONS THAT PREVENT YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLDS FROM
VISITING DEPARTMENT PARKS, AND/OR RECREATION FACILITIES MORE
OFTEN. (TOP FIVE RESPONSES)
REASONS THAT PREVENT YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD FROM
PARTICIPATING IN DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS MORE OFTEN. (TOP FIVE
RESPONSES)
Fear of criminal activity in the park (39%) Lack of shade (44%)
Do not feel safe using parks/facilities (35%) Absence of amenities we want to use (28%)
Lack of shade (31%) Lack of restrooms (26%)
Facilities/parks are not well maintained (20%) Parks/facilities are not well maintained (17%)
Lack of restrooms (20%) Feel unsafe using parks / facilities (14%)
I don't know what is offered (51%)
Too busy/not interested (20%)
Program times are not convenient (18%)
The program I want is not offered (12%)
Old & outdated facilities (11%)
74
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Both surveys revealed several key factors that limit how often residents visit parks or participate
in programs—many of which point to issues of safety, comfort, and awareness.
For parks and facilities, the most frequently cited barriers included concerns about safety and
amenities. In the statistically valid survey, 39% of respondents cited fear of criminal activity,
while 35% said they did not feel safe using parks or facilities. Similarly, 31% noted a lack of shade
and 20% pointed to poor maintenance or a lack of restrooms. The online survey echoed these
concerns, with 44% identifying a lack of shade, 28% noting missing amenities, and 26% pointing
to restroom shortages.
When it came to program participation, the top barrier in both surveys was a lack of
information—over half of all respondents (51% in the statistically valid survey and 53% online)
said they simply didn’t know what was offered. Other barriers included inconvenient program
times, being too busy or not interested, and the perception that desired programs were
unavailable. In the online survey, additional issues such as high fees and outdated facilities were
also mentioned.
These findings suggest that increasing visibility, improving park safety and comfort, and
modernizing communication could significantly improve access and engagement.
In March 2024 the Parks and Recreation Commission created a Priority Project List based on
input they had received from residents and their own observations. This list can be found in
Appendix H.
75
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.4.5 IMPORTANCE
FACILITIES/AMENITIES MOST IMPORTANT TO HOUSEHOLDS BY
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED THE ITEMS AS ONE OF
THEIR TOP F OUR CHOICES (TOP FIVE RESPONSES)
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES MOST IMPORTANT TO HOUSEHOLDS BY
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED THE ITEMS AS ONE OF
THEIR TOP FIVE CHOICES (TOP FIVE RESPONSES)
Multi-use hiking, biking, walking trails (29%) Restrooms (31%)
Walking paths in parks (27%) Splash pads or spray parks (31%)
Small neighborhood parks (19%) Multi-use hiking, biking, walking trails (30%)
Restrooms (18% Walking paths in parks (25%)
Bicycle & pedestrian access/connection to
parks (18%)
camps & programs (26%)
camps & programs (16%)
(19%)
76
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Across both surveys, several clear themes emerged around the types of facilities and programs
residents value most. These themes reflect the community’s desire for accessible outdoor spaces,
basic park infrastructure, and programs that support wellness, learning, and connection.
Access to Nature and Connectivity
One of the strongest themes was the importance of being able to easily access nature through
well-connected and versatile outdoor spaces. Multi-use trails and walking paths were consistently
ranked among the most important features for households. Residents emphasized the value of
being able to walk, hike, or bike for recreation and transportation, with many also prioritizing better
pedestrian and bicycle access to parks.
Essential Infrastructure and Comfort
Basic park infrastructure like restrooms and shade-producing amenities emerged as critical needs.
The high prioritization of restrooms and splash pads reflects a desire for comfortable, family-
friendly spaces that can support longer and more inclusive park visits.
Neighborhood and Community-Scale Parks
Residents expressed interest in both small neighborhood parks and larger community parks,
highlighting a need for nearby, walkable green spaces as well as destination-style parks that bring
people together from across the city.
Health and Wellness Opportunities
Programs focused on physical wellness were ranked highly by respondents. Adult fitness and
wellness classes were identified as top priorities, indicating strong community interest in
opportunities to stay active and healthy.
Cultural, Educational, and Social Connection
Events and programs that bring people together also ranked near the top. Community special
events, cultural enrichment opportunities, and outdoor environmental education programs were
seen as important offerings that foster learning, celebration, and connection across generations.
77
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.4.6 OVERALL PERCEPTIONS
IF YOU HAD $100, HOW WOULD YOU ALLOCATE THE FUNDS AMONG THESE
PARKS AND RECREATION CATEGORIES? (TOP FIVE RESPONSES)
When asked how they would allocate $100 across various parks and recreation priorities,
respondents from both the statistically valid and online surveys showed clear alignment on key
investment areas, while also highlighting a few notable differences in secondary priorities.
The top priority in both surveys was maintaining and improving existing parks, pools, and
outdoor recreation amenities. Statistically valid respondents allocated an average of $33.61,
while online respondents allocated even more—$37.91—underscoring widespread support for
taking care of what the City already has before building new.
Acquiring new park land and open space ranked as the second-highest priority in both surveys,
receiving $21.81 from the statistically valid survey and $24.34 from online respondents. This
shows strong interest in preserving green space and expanding access to parks, particularly as
the city continues to grow.
Priorities diverged slightly in the next tier. The construction of new sports fields was valued
slightly more by online respondents ($14.23) than those in the statistically valid survey ($10.87),
suggesting broader support among more engaged park users. Meanwhile, expanding program
offerings remained a consistent mid-level priority across both surveys, with allocations of $12.10
(SVS) and $12.00 (Online).
Improvements to existing indoor recreation facilities rounded out the top five in both surveys,
with modest but steady support: $10.81 (SVS) and $11.51 (Online).
Overall, the results show a shared emphasis on caring for current facilities and expanding access
to open space, while also maintaining balanced interest in new development and programming.
These insights provide a strong foundation for strategic investment aligned with the community’s
values.
Improvements/maintenance of existing
parks, pools, and outdoor recreation
amenities ($33.61)
parks, pools, and outdoor recreation
amenities ($37.91)
($21.81) ($24.34)
facilities ($10.81) facilities ($11.51)
78
PARKS MASTER PLAN
WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE YOU
WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY TO IMPROVE THE TYPES OF PARKS, TRAILS,
RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS YOU HAVE INDICATED ARE MOST
IMPORTANT TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD?
Survey results indicate that a majority of Redlands residents are open to contributing additional
tax revenue to support improvements in parks, trails, facilities, and programs. In both surveys,
over 70% of respondents expressed a willingness to pay at least $3 per month, with 23% (SVS)
and 31% (Online) willing to contribute $9 or more monthly.
Roughly one in four respondents in the statistically valid survey (26%) and one in five online
(19%) stated they would not support any additional tax.
These results suggest solid public support for enhanced investment in the park system,
particularly among those engaged in the online survey, while also indicating a need for continued
outreach to those more hesitant about increased public funding.
$9 or more per month 23% 31%
$7-$8 per month 9% 10%
$5-$6 per month 20% 21%
$3-$4 per month 21% 20%
Nothing 26% 19%
79
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.4.7 SUMMARY
The Survey Comparison provides a well-rounded perspective on community needs, priorities,
and experiences by analyzing responses from both the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the
Online Community Survey. While the statistically valid survey offers a representative snapshot
of Redlands’ diverse population, the online survey captured deeper engagement from more
active park users and newer residents—providing both breadth and depth of insight.
KEY FINDINGS:
• Demographics: The statistically valid survey more closely mirrors Redlands’ actual
demographic makeup, while the online survey skewed toward female and newer
residents, highlighting the importance of inclusive outreach strategies.
• Use and Participation: Both surveys show high usage of parks and facilities, with the
online survey indicating more frequent visits. Program participation is more limited,
though a majority of users who do participate attend 1–3 events per year.
• Condition and Quality: Respondents generally rate park and program quality as “good,”
but few rate it as “excellent,” suggesting satisfaction with clear opportunities for
enhancement.
• Barriers: Key obstacles to park use include safety concerns, lack of shade and restrooms,
and poor maintenance. For programs, the most cited barrier was a lack of awareness—
over half of all respondents didn’t know what was offered.
• Community Priorities: Residents consistently prioritized access to trails, walking paths,
restrooms, splash pads, and family-friendly amenities. Desired programs centered on
wellness, special events, and outdoor learning experiences.
• Investment Preferences: Both surveys revealed strong support for maintaining existing
parks and acquiring new open space. While preferences diverged slightly on sports fields
and program expansion, the shared emphasis was clear: take care of what we have and
ensure future growth is thoughtful and inclusive.
• Willingness to Pay: Over 70% of respondents in both surveys were willing to contribute
additional monthly taxes to fund improvements—an encouraging signal for potential
funding strategies.
CONCLUSION:
Together, the two surveys provide a powerful, complementary view of the Redlands community.
The statistically valid data ensures reliability and representativeness, while the online survey
adds broader community voice and advocacy. The consistent alignment between both tools on
core priorities—maintenance, open space, safety, wellness, and family-focused amenities—
creates a strong foundation for decision-making. These insights will guide targeted investments
that honor the values of Redlands residents and support a park and recreation system that is
equitable, inclusive, and built for the future.
80
PARKS MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER FOUR RESOURCE ANALYSIS
4.1 REC REATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Redlands (“City”) Parks and Recreation Department (“Department”), in partnership
with Next Practice Partners, is conducting a comprehensive Recreation Program Assessment as a
foundational component of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (“Plan”). This initiative
underscores Redlands’s commitment to enhancing community well-being by aligning its
recreation services with the unique character and dynamic needs of its residents.
The assessment includes a detailed analysis of current programs and a forward-looking
exploration of opportunities to elevate the City’s recreational offerings. Guided by principles of
inclusivity, innovation, and community engagement, the city aims to ensure that Redlands’s
recreational experiences continue to enrich lives and strengthen connections for years to come.
This initiative represents more than a program evaluation; it is a reflection of Redlands’s
dedication to celebrating its heritage, fostering meaningful relationships, and delivering
exceptional recreational opportunities that honor the spirit and aspirations of its community.
4.1.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Redlands, California, presents a vibrant and evolving community whose demographic and
lifestyle characteristics shape the vision for recreation services. This profile provides a detailed
look at population trends, household composition, diversity, economic factors, and cost-of-living
influences, offering critical insights for designing inclusive and impactful recreational
programming.
POPULATION TRENDS AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS:
Redlands is experiencing steady growth, with an annual population growth rate of 0.57% (2020–
2023) and a projected rate of 0.39% through 2038. Similarly, household growth has been strong
at 0.75%, outpacing California (0.64%) and the national average (0.73%). The average household
size in Redlands is 2.69, smaller than the state average but larger than the national average,
indicating a balanced mix of family-oriented and individual living arrangements.
These trends suggest a stable and growing community where recreation programs can prioritize
sustained engagement and accommodate emerging interests across all demographics.
81
PARKS MASTER PLAN
AGE DISTRIBUTION:
Redlands displays a balanced age distribution, reflecting a broad range of recreational needs:
• 21% under 17 years
• 25% aged 18–34
• 24% aged 35–54
• 23% aged 55–74
• 8% aged 75 and older
This even distribution highlights the importance of multi-generational programming, from youth
sports and family activities to active adult and senior programs. The significant presence of
young adults and middle-aged residents suggests demand for fitness, social, and outdoor
recreation opportunities.
DIVERSITY AND CULTURAL INFLUENCE :
Redlands is a diverse community, with:
• 51.4% identifying as White alone,
• 37.0% identifying as Hispanic or Latino (any race),
• 10.0% identifying as Asian, and
• 16.8% identifying as two or more races.
This cultural richness underscores the need for inclusive and culturally relevant recreation
services. Programs that celebrate Redlands’s diversity—through events, art, and activities—will
resonate with the community’s values.
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
With a median household income of $91,254 and a per capita income of $46,548, Redlands is a
relatively affluent community compared to California and national averages. These indicators,
combined with a poverty rate of 8.7%, suggest a stable economy where recreational services can
blend premium offerings with affordable options to serve all income levels.
The owner-occupied housing rate is 58.6%, reflecting a strong base of long-term residents who
are likely to invest in and value community amenities, including recreation programs.
AT -RISK POPULATIONS AND ACCESSIBILITY
Key considerations for inclusive programming include:
• 14.2% of residents are foreign-born.
• 27.8% speak a language other than English at home, highlighting potential language
access needs.
• 8.5% of residents have a disability, emphasizing the importance of accessible facilities and
programs.
• 5.8% are uninsured, a figure below state and national averages.
Recreation programs should ensure accessibility across economic and language barriers while
promoting health equity through affordable options.
82
PARKS MASTER PLAN
COST OF LIVING CONSIDERATIONS
Redlands’s cost of living index (118.6) is lower than California’s average (149.9), though housing
costs (173.2) remain a notable burden. Recreation services should balance affordability with
quality, incorporating resident discounts, subsidies, and free activities to ensure access for all
community members.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATION PROGRAMMING
Redlands’s unique characteristics create opportunities to design recreational programs that:
• Engage Families: Develop multi-generational activities and youth-centered programs.
• Celebrate Diversity: Integrate culturally relevant events and programs that reflect the
community’s heritage.
• Ensure Accessibility: Prioritize affordability and language accessibility to serve all
demographics.
• Provide Variety: Offer a mix of premium experiences and cost-effective options to meet
diverse resident needs.
By embracing these priorities, Redlands can enhance quality of life and build stronger community
connections through its recreational offerings.
More information regarding the Community Profile can be found CHAPTER 2
4.1.3 RECREATION AND LEISURE TRENDS
The Market Potential Index (MPI) measures how likely residents are to participate in activities
compared to the national average (100 as baseline). Redlands consistently exceeds the national
average, indicating strong community interest in accessible recreation opportunities.
Sports like tennis and golf (113 MPI each) and fitness activities such as yoga (112) and Pilates
(110) are highly favored. These trends emphasize the need for quality sports facilities, fitness
programs, and trails to support an active lifestyle.
Outdoor activities, including road bicycling (111), hiking (106), and backpacking (107), are
particularly popular, while water-based activities like kayaking (98) also show potential. Lower
MPI scores for freshwater fishing (85) suggest less demand or access.
Cultural and social pursuits, such as visiting art galleries (116), live theater (111), and book clubs
(113), rank highly. Activities like photography (105) and adult education courses (107) reflect
Redlands’s strong intellectual and creative engagement.
To meet these interests, Redlands should expand outdoor recreation, cultural programs, and
inclusive fitness options to align with its residents' diverse needs and passions.
More information regarding recreation and leisure trends can be found APPENDIX G
83
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.1.4 COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING PRIORITIES
ETC Institute administered a parks and recreation needs assessment survey for the City of
Redlands, California during the early months of 2024. The purpose of the survey was to help
determine parks and recreation priorities for the community.
Programs Needs: Respondents were asked to identify if their household had a need for 29
recreation programs and to rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based
on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community
that had the greatest “unmet” need for various programs.
The three programs with the highest percentage of households that have an unmet need:
1. Community special events
2. Cultural enrichment programs
3. Adult fitness & wellness programs
Program Importance: In addition to assessing the needs for each program, ETC Institute also
assessed the importance that residents placed on each item. Based on the sum of respondents’
top four choices, these were the four programs that ranked most important to residents:
1. Community special events
2. Adult fitness & wellness programs
3. Outdoor environmental education/nature camps & programs
4. Recreation swim
Priorities for Program Investments: The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) was developed by ETC
Institute to provide organizations with an objective tool for evaluating the priority that should be
placed on recreation and parks investments. The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) equally weighs
(1) the importance that residents place on programs and (2) how many residents have unmet
needs for the activities.
Based the Priority Investment Rating (PIR), the following programs were rated as high priorities
for investment:
• Adult fitness & wellness programs (PIR=189)
• Community special events (PIR=184)
• Recreation swim (PIR=149)
• Outdoor environmental education/nature camps & programs (PIR=143)
• Cultural enrichment programs (PIR=138)
84
PARKS MASTER PLAN
85
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.1.5 CORE PROGRAM AREAS
A Core Program Area is a crucial category of services and activities offered by an organization,
essential to its mission and community service. These areas, varying based on the organization's
goals and community needs, are the foundation of its offerings and reputation.
Characteristics of Core Program Areas include:
• Community-Relevance: Tailored to community needs and feedback.
• Consistency: Regular and reliable in the organization's schedule.
• Mission Alignment: Supports the organization's goals and values.
• Diversity of Offerings: Caters to various ages, abilities, and interests.
• Outcome-Driven: Measurable objectives and impacts.
• Resource Prioritization: Essential for resource allocation.
• Regular Evaluation: Continuously assessed for relevance and effectiveness.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Involves community members in planning and evaluation.
• Flexibility: Adaptable to changing needs and trends.
• High Quality: Represents the organization's best in content and experience.
Redlands staff identified the following core program areas:
Active Adult Athletics Culture Enrichment
Events Health & Fitness
86
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.1.6 GOALS AND DESCRIPTIONS
4.1.7 AGE SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The age segment analysis provides insight into how each core program area serves different age
groups within Redlands's recreation offerings. The chart illustrates the specific age demographics
targeted by various program areas.
Redlands’s recreation programs demonstrate a strong commitment to inclusivity while catering
to specific age groups. Core program areas like Athletics, Cultural Enrichment, Events, and
Health & Fitness are designed to serve residents of all ages, fostering community-wide
participation.
The Active Adult program focuses on adults (18+), providing opportunities that align with the
interests and needs of this segment. While no specific programs are listed for preschoolers,
elementary-aged children, or teens, the broad appeal of all-ages offerings ensures that youth and
families are not excluded.
This age-focused approach ensures that programs address the diverse needs of Redlands’s
residents, balancing inclusivity with targeted services to enrich the community.
Core Program Area Brief Description Internal Goals and/or Desired Outcomes
87
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.1.8 PRICING STRATEGIES
Pricing strategies serve as a critical tool for agencies to achieve cost recovery, manage demand,
ensure equitable access, and align with market dynamics.
The table below shows the current pricing methods used by each core program area, along with
potential strategies that could be adopted in the future.
4.1.9 PROGRAM SERVICES CLASSIFICATION
The program services classification system ensures Redlands’s recreational offerings balance
inclusivity, accessibility, and financial sustainability while aligning with the department’s mission.
Programs are categorized into three classifications: Community Benefit, Community-Individual
Blend, and Individual Benefit, reflecting varying levels of public or private benefit.
Community Benefit programs prioritize accessibility and inclusivity, focusing on community well-
being. These services are typically publicly funded and include community playgrounds, public
libraries, free community events, and low-cost swim lessons. In Redlands, these programs make
up 18% of offerings, below the national average of 26%, suggesting room to expand these
foundational services.
Community-Individual Blend programs serve both general and individual interests, often
requiring nominal fees or memberships. Examples include sports leagues, workshops, and
88
PARKS MASTER PLAN
afterschool programs. These programs constitute the majority of Redlands’s portfolio at 56%,
significantly exceeding the national average of 32%, showcasing a balanced approach to meeting
diverse needs.
Individual Benefit programs cater to personal interests and are typically fee-based, offering
niche services like rentals, personal training, and special interest camps. In Redlands, these
programs represent 26% of offerings, below the national average of 41%, emphasizing a stronger
focus on community-wide services over individual, exclusive activities.
This framework reflects Redlands’s commitment to community-oriented programming while
maintaining a diverse portfolio that supports a range of interests and needs.
4.1.10 COST RECOVERY
To ensure fiscal sustainability and community accessibility, Redlands’s recreation programs are
categorized into four cost recovery classifications: Fully Subsidized, Somewhat Subsidized, Self-
Sufficient, and Revenue Generating. These categories guide budgeting and pricing decisions,
balancing public benefit and financial responsibility.
Fully Subsidized programs account for 49% of Redlands’s offerings, significantly exceeding the
national average of 32%. These programs, funded entirely by external sources, ensure free
access to vital community services such as public parks maintenance, and safety training.
Somewhat Subsidized programs represent only 4% of offerings, well below the national average
of 23%. These programs, partially funded by external sources, require participants to pay a
portion of costs. Examples include youth sports leagues and community workshops.
Self-Sufficient programs, which cover their own operational costs through participant fees, make
up 0% of Redlands’s offerings, far below the national average of 17%. Typical examples, such as
specialized workshops or fitness memberships, are currently absent from Redlands’s portfolio.
89
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Revenue Generating programs comprise 47% of offerings, nearly matching the national average
of 28%. These programs generate surplus revenue beyond their costs, funding premium services,
exclusive retreats, and facility rentals.
Redlands emphasizes fully subsidized and revenue-generating programs, ensuring broad access
to essential services while maintaining financial sustainability through premium offerings.
However, there is potential to expand somewhat subsidized and self-sufficient programs to
better align with national benchmarks and diversify funding models.
4.1.11 PROGRAM LIFECYCLE
The Program Lifecycle Analysis helps the City of Redlands strategically manage its recreation
offerings by evaluating the distribution of programs across lifecycle stages. This approach
ensures a balance of innovative, established, and evolving programs while minimizing outdated
options.
New and Growing Programs: Programs in the Launch (11%) and Rising (7%) stages represent
19% of Redlands’s offerings, below the national average of 34%. This indicates potential for
increasing innovation and new program development to match national trends and community
needs.
Stable and Maxed Programs: Programs with sustained participation or minimal growth make up
78% of Redlands’s portfolio, above the national average of 61%. This reflects a strong focus on
maintaining established programs that consistently fill, although it may indicate opportunities to
introduce more dynamic offerings.
Declining and Cancelled Programs: Declining programs represent 4% of offerings, consistent
with the national average, while no programs are currently categorized as Cancelled. This
suggests that the department is proactive in evaluating and adapting underperforming programs
to ensure relevance.
90
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Redlands’s lifecycle distribution emphasizes stability, with room to enhance innovation and
growth through increased focus on new and rising programs. This balanced approach supports
the department’s goal of offering relevant and diverse recreational opportunities.
4.1.12 PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Program Direction Analysis categorizes recreation offerings to align with community needs
and operational capabilities. Redlands’s programs are classified into four types: Self-Directed,
Staff-Directed, Facilitated, and Cooperative, based on the level of guidance and partnership
involved.
• Self-Directed programs, where participants engage independently with general
supervision, represent 20% of Redlands’s offerings, close to the national average of 22%.
• Staff-Directed programs, involving leadership or instruction, make up 58% of the
distribution, exceeding the national average of 51%, indicating a strong emphasis on
guided activities.
• Facilitated programs, where the department assists external providers in delivering
services, account for only 2%, below the national average of 6%, suggesting an area for
growth.
• Cooperative programs, formed through partnerships with public, private, or nonprofit
organizations, represent 20%, aligning closely with the national average of 21%.
This distribution highlights Redlands’s strong focus on staff-directed programs and partnerships
while identifying opportunities to expand facilitated offerings to diversify recreation services.
91
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.1.13 PROGRAM PROFICIENCY
A program proficiency analysis evaluates how recreation offerings meet the diverse skill levels
and learning goals of participants. Programs are classified as Beginner (for newcomers),
Intermediate (for skill refinement), Advanced (for high-level challenges), and All Abilities
(inclusive for all skill levels).
In Redlands, 77% of programs are categorized as All Abilities, closely aligning with the national
average of 81%, reflecting a strong commitment to inclusivity. Beginner and Intermediate
programs each make up 10% of the offerings, matching their respective national averages,
ensuring opportunities for skill development. Advanced programs account for 4%, slightly
exceeding the national average of 3%, highlighting some focus on specialized, high-level training.
This distribution emphasizes Redlands’s inclusive approach while providing a balanced range of
offerings for participants across all proficiency levels, from newcomers to advanced learners.
4.1.14 CURRENT MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS
The Department utilizes a range of marketing methods to promote its recreation programs,
focusing on both digital and traditional outreach strategies:
Methods Currently Used
• Print Media: Program guides (print), newsletters (print), flyers, brochures.
• Digital Media: Website, mobile-enabled site, newsletters (online), SMS/text message
marketing.
• Direct Outreach: Direct mail, email blasts, and in-facility signage.
• Paid Advertising: Paid advertisements, TV (including movie ads).
• Social Media: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter.
• Interactive Tools: QR codes.
92
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Methods Not Currently Used
• Online Program Guides: Online versions of program guides are not in use.
• Broadcast and Online Media: Public Service Announcements (PSAs), radio, YouTube,
blogs/vlogs, webinars, podcasts, on-hold phone messages, and online versions of
program guides are not in use.
• Social Media Platforms: TikTok remains unused.
• Digital Tools: Apps and road sign marquees are not part of the current marketing
strategy.
Opportunities for Growth
The city can enhance its marketing reach by incorporating unused methods such as apps, TikTok,
YouTube, and blogs/vlogs to engage younger demographics. Expanding into PSAs, radio, and
webinars could improve outreach to a broader audience. These additional channels could help
diversify communication strategies and ensure comprehensive community engagement.
DEPARTMENT WEBSITE
The City of Redlands' Parks and Recreation webpage
serves as a comprehensive resource for residents
and visitors seeking information on the city's
recreational offerings. The page is organized into
several key sections:
Parks & Trails: This section provides details about the
city's extensive network of parks and trails, including
descriptions of individual parks, their amenities, and
available recreational activities. Users can access maps and information on park reservations,
facilitating easy planning for visits and events.
Recreation: Here, visitors can explore various programs and classes offered by the Recreation
Division, such as sports leagues, arts and crafts, and fitness classes. The section also includes
information on facility rentals and current programming schedules.
Community Gardens: This area highlights the city's community garden program, detailing how
residents can participate in growing organic fruits and vegetables. Information on garden
locations, plot rentals, and guidelines is provided to encourage community involvement.
Bike Redlands: This section offers insights into the city's bicycle infrastructure, including bike
paths and trails. It promotes cycling as a mode of transportation and recreation, supporting the
city's commitment to active lifestyles.
Senior Services: Dedicated to the senior community, this segment provides information on
programs, events, and resources available at the Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center and the
Joslyn Senior Center. Operating hours and contact details are also included.
Overall, the webpage is user-friendly, offering clear navigation and detailed information to
support the recreational needs of the Redlands community.
The website can be viewed at https://www.cityofredlands.org/parks-and-recreation
93
PARKS MASTER PLAN
SOCIAL MEDIA OVERVIEW
The Recreation Department maintains dedicated accounts on Facebook and Instagram, while the
City manages an account on X (formerly Twitter). However, the Recreation Department's
Instagram account is not set up as a "Business Profile," which limits the ability to perform
detailed analysis. Additionally, no analysis is conducted on accounts that are not specifically
dedicated to the Department. Therefore, the following analysis focuses on the Department’s
Facebook engagement. The data was collected in November 2024 and reflects activity from the
previous 12 months.
FACEBOOK
• 2,516 followers
• Average a little less than one post a day
KEY ENGAGEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
Popular Content:
• Holiday and Family Events: Posts about Halloween activities (10/15/24) and a free
family-friendly event on 10/28/24 generated high engagement, with 25 and 20
reactions, respectively. These posts effectively appealed to families and highlighted
community fun.
• Community Participation Events: Posts promoting events such as tree lighting (11/13/24)
and historical talks put on by the library (10/14/24) also saw solid interaction, showing a
community interest in cultural and festive programming.
• New Classes or Initiatives: Posts gauging interest in Spanish classes (11/14/24) or
promoting creative programs like sound baths (10/7/24) generated moderate interaction,
reflecting curiosity about novel offerings.
Consistently Low Engagement:
• Posts about routine updates (e.g., closures due to air quality or holidays) and general
information (e.g., ShakeOut day participation, 10/17/24) generally performed poorly,
receiving fewer than five reactions.
CONTENT THEMES
• Family-Oriented and Seasonal Activities: Posts promoting family-inclusive, free, or low-
cost activities, especially with a holiday or community-centered theme, received the
highest engagement. This highlights the strong appeal of activities that cater to diverse
age groups and bring people together.
• Event Announcements: Posts about upcoming events (e.g., water conservation, pop-ups)
tended to have moderate engagement, indicating that timing and presentation may
influence their reach and effectiveness.
• Emergency Updates:Updates about cancellations due to weather or air quality (e.g.,
10/3/24, 10/2/24) saw minimal interaction, though such posts serve an essential
operational purpose.
94
PARKS MASTER PLAN
ENGAGEMENT METRICS
• Top Performers: Posts with photos or event details (e.g., 10/15/24 Halloween event)
showed significantly higher engagement compared to text-heavy or routine updates.
• Lowest Performers: General updates, such as ShakeOut reminders (10/17/24, 10/16/24)
or generic appreciation posts (11/7/24), struggled to engage audiences, suggesting a
need for more visual or interactive elements in these types of posts.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
• Visual and Interactive Content: Posts with images, graphics, or videos significantly
outperform text-heavy posts. Incorporating eye-catching visuals into all posts could
increase engagement.
• Targeted Timing and Frequency: Posts scheduled closer to event dates and at peak
browsing times (e.g., evenings) performed better. Refining posting schedules could
improve visibility and interaction.
• Community Input and Polls: The 11/14/24 post asking for input on a Spanish class
generated engagement through audience participation. Expanding interactive content
(e.g., polls or questions) could foster stronger community involvement.
• Repackaging Routine Updates: Emergency notifications and general updates could be
repackaged with more visuals or user-friendly calls to action to boost interaction.
CONCLUSIONS
The City of Redlands successfully engages its audience through family-oriented, seasonal, and
interactive posts. However, there is room to improve engagement for informational and
emergency updates through better visuals and targeted timing. By leveraging interactive features
and broadening promotion for niche events, the city can further strengthen its connection with
the community and enhance participation.
95
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.1.15 KEY FINDINGS
Community Profile Insights
• Population Growth: Steady population and household growth, coupled with a balanced
mix of family-oriented and individual living arrangements, provides opportunities to
sustain long-term engagement.
• Diversity: Redlands’s cultural richness requires inclusive and culturally relevant recreation
services to celebrate the city’s heritage and diversity.
• Economic Stability: A relatively affluent community supports a blend of premium and
affordable offerings, ensuring access across income levels.
• Accessibility Considerations: The city must prioritize accessibility for foreign-born
residents, non-English speakers, and those with disabilities.
Programming Priorities and Trends
• Community Needs and Importance: Community special events, cultural enrichment, and
adult fitness/wellness programs were identified as high-priority needs. Outdoor
environmental education and recreational swimming also ranked highly in importance.
• Activity Preferences: The Market Potential Index revealed strong interest in activities like
tennis, yoga, hiking, and cultural experiences such as visiting art galleries and live theater.
This underscores the demand for diverse recreational options, including outdoor and
cultural programs.
• Program Lifecycle: Most offerings are in the Stable or Maxed stages, reflecting consistent
participation, with opportunities to introduce more innovative and dynamic programming.
Program Services and Cost Recovery
• Service Balance: Redlands emphasizes Community-Individual Blend programs (56%),
exceeding the national average, showcasing a balanced approach to addressing both
public and individual benefits.
• Cost Recovery: The city excels in providing fully subsidized programs (49%), ensuring
broad accessibility. However, there is potential to expand somewhat subsidized and self-
sufficient programs to diversify funding models and align with national benchmarks.
Inclusive Programming
• Age and Skill Proficiency: Programs cater to all age groups and skill levels, with a focus on
inclusivity. However, there is room to expand offerings targeting specific skill
development for beginners and intermediates.
• Core Program Areas: Identified areas such as Athletics, Cultural Enrichment, and Health &
Fitness serve diverse interests while fostering multi-generational engagement.
Marketing and Communications
• Utilized Channels: Effective use of print media, social media platforms (Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter), and direct outreach methods promotes engagement.
• Opportunities for Growth: Expanding into underutilized platforms like YouTube, TikTok,
and blogs/vlogs, as well as leveraging visual and interactive content, can enhance reach
and community connection.
96
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.2 PARK AND FACILITY EVALUATIONS
The evaluation of park assets within the City of Redlands is a cornerstone of our strategic
planning and maintenance scheduling efforts. Each park and its amenities are carefully assessed
through thorough field observations by our dedicated staff, resulting in a comprehensive grading
based on current conditions. This systematic process ensures that we understand the
performance of individual assets, rather than evaluating the park system as a whole.
Our evaluation process uses a qualitative grading scale, complemented by numerical scores, to
reflect both the quantity and quality of recreational opportunities available. This approach
facilitates transparent prioritization for repairs, upgrades, and future enhancements. Each park is
rated consistently and comparatively against similar facilities across the system.
4.2.1 METHODOLOGY
As part of the City of Redlands park system
assessment, each asset is evaluated using a
standardized grading system. These evaluations
are based on in-depth field observations
conducted by qualified staff, focusing on the
condition and functionality of individual amenities.
Rather than assessing parks as a whole, each
amenity is reviewed on its own merits. When an
amenity or facility is found to be in noticeably
poorer condition compared to similar features in
other parks, it is clearly noted. Numerical scores are assigned to summarize both the quantity
and overall quality of recreational opportunities available at each location.
THE FOLLOWING SCORING SYSTEM WAS USED
4.2.2 GREAT (SCORE: 4 –5)
Site amenities are in excellent condition, displaying high levels of functionality and appearance
with little to no visible maintenance concerns. These amenities are well-maintained, up to date,
and fully operational. Users can expect a safe, clean, and enjoyable experience, and only routine
preventative maintenance is required at this level.
4.2.3 GOOD (SCORE: 3)
Site amenities are in good condition and remain fully functional but may show signs of minor
wear and tear. Maintenance issues, if present, are typically superficial and the result of normal
aging or heavy usage. While amenities are still safe and attractive, some may benefit from minor
repairs or cosmetic improvements to maintain long-term quality.
97
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.2.4 FAIR (SCORE: 2)
Site amenities are in fair condition, indicating ongoing maintenance issues and a noticeable
decline in appearance or functionality. The wear and tear observed is often due to age and high
usage, and while amenities remain usable, they may detract from the overall experience. More
frequent maintenance and moderate repairs are needed to prevent further deterioration.
4.2.5 POOR (SCORE: 0 –1)
Site amenities are in poor condition and clearly exhibit significant maintenance problems. These
issues may compromise safety or usability, potentially requiring the closure of the amenity for
repairs or replacement. Immediate action is needed to address structural concerns, functional
deficiencies, or serious aesthetic deterioration. Amenities in this category are a priority for repair
or replacement in future improvement plans.
As part of the comprehensive evaluation of the City of Redlands park system, all parks were
assessed using a standardized set of criteria to ensure consistent, objective, and meaningful
evaluations. This assessment helps identify strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for
future investments. Each park was reviewed based on its accessibility; physical condition, user
safety, and ongoing maintenance needs to support the long-term success and enjoyment of
Redlands public spaces. Each category was given a numerical score between 0-5, with 5 being
best.
Access and Connectivity
This category evaluates how easily and safely park users can reach and navigate through each park.
It considers the availability and condition of adjacent trails or trailheads, street crossings, sidewalks,
and internal park pathways. Additionally, it assesses the effectiveness of wayfinding signage,
connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods, and compliance with accessibility standards to ensure
all visitors, including those with mobility challenges, can comfortably access and enjoy park
amenities.
Condition and Functionality
This assessment focuses on the physical state and usability of individual park amenities, such as
playground equipment, sports facilities, seating areas, and restrooms. It also evaluates the health
and coverage of the tree canopy and other vegetation, the condition of paved surfaces like
walkways and courts, and the quality of lighting and site furnishings. Parks that score well in this
category have well-maintained, attractive, and fully functional amenities that meet community
needs.
Safety and Comfort
This category addresses how safe and comfortable visitors feel while using the park. It considers
factors such as visibility and clear sightlines, adequate lighting for evening use, and the presence of
active park users that promote a welcoming environment. The evaluation also looks for signs of
misuse or vandalism, ease of navigation within the park, proximity to busy roadways, potential
physical hazards (e.g., damaged surfaces or unsafe structures), and the management of natural
features like slopes and water bodies to minimize safety risks.
98
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Maintenance
Maintenance evaluates the ongoing care required to keep the park attractive, functional, and safe.
This includes reviewing the presence of litter, graffiti, worn or damaged amenities, and landscaping
issues such as overgrown vegetation or unhealthy trees. A strong maintenance program ensures
that parks remain welcoming, enjoyable, and in good condition, supporting their continued use and
long-term sustainability.
It is important to note that the consultant team conducted in-person site assessments of
Redlands parks over the summer of 2023. This assessment establishes a baseline understanding
and a “snapshot” in time of the system’s existing conditions, facilities, and amenities. This
assessment does not account for additions and improvements to the system that were not
completed in the 2023 fiscal year or other improvements to the system that have occurred since
the site assessments were conducted.
Each summary includes key information on existing amenities and features available at each site.
To visually support this information, an aerial site plan is included for each park, clearly
identifying the location of all existing amenities. Additionally, all data has been compiled and
stored in a comprehensive Geographic Information System (GIS) database, which has been
provided to the City. This valuable resource supports ongoing planning, project management,
and informed decision-making as the City continues to develop and enhance its parks and
recreational facilities.
Summaries and maps for all parks like the ones below can be found in APPENDIX E along with
assessments for the Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center,
Joslyn Center, and Carriage House at Prospect Park.
99
PARKS MASTER PLAN
PARKS & FACILITIES ASSESSED
PARK ACRES PARK ACRES
Brookside Park 9.50 Lincoln Park 8.51
Caroline Park 18.20 Martinez Park 18.20
Clement Middle School Fields (RUSD)11.00 Oakmont Park 14.60
Crafton Park 6.80 Orange Street Alley 0.10
Ed Hales Park 0.20 Orangewood High School Fields (RUSD)3.12
Ford Park 20.40 Prospect Park 31.60
Franklin Park 0.70 Redlands Sports Park 36.20
Galway Avenue Park (CFD) 0.29 Simond's Parkway 0.80
Heritage Park 18.40 Smiley Park 8.30
Israel Beal Park 8.10 Sylvan Park 18.40
Jennie Davis Park 2.80 Texonia Park 8.50
Judson Park East (CFD) 1.34 The Annex 0.69
Judson Park West (CFD) 5.34 The Terrace 2.40
Laramie Park 1.60 Triangle Park 0.01
Total Acres
256.10
REDLANDS PARK SITES ASSESSED
REDLANDS FACILIITES ASSESSED
Joslyn Senior Center
Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center
Carriage House at Prospect Park
100
PARKS MASTER PLAN
LOCATION MAP
101
PARKS MASTER PLAN
FINDINGS
Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center
• Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center is a one
story, Exterior CMU Walls. Overall, the building structural system and infrastructure
seem to be okay, however due to lack of regular maintenance and repair, the rest of the
building, especially the finishes, must be replaced or repaired. The exterior finishes are in
good condition; however, it is dirty and needs to be pressure washed. The existing built-
up and PVC roof are in good condition and is approximately 10 years old. The existing
HVAC system is working fine for about 15 yrs. but will soon need to be replaced and the
existing Swamp cooler needs replacement withing the next 5 years.
• The existing Men’s and Women’s restrooms in the community center are non A.D.A.
compliant and need to be renovated for compliance.
• The existing Accessible stall and counter tops in the Women’s restroom in the Senior
center is non-A.D.A compliant and need to be renovated.
• The two existing ramp handrails do not have the required handrail extensions. Currently,
this does not meet ADA requirements.
• The service counter in the lobby is too high and non-A.D.A compliant.
• Most of the buildings’ lighting fixtures are fluorescent, and do not illuminate sufficiently
in areas and should be replaced with new LED light fixtures.
• The carpet flooring is dirty, worn-out, and needs replacement.
• The existing 2x4 and 2x2 tile ceilings are old and in need of being replaced.
PARK
AC
C
E
S
S
&
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
&
FU
N
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
T
Y
SA
F
E
T
Y
&
CO
M
F
O
R
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
OV
E
R
A
L
L
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
SC
O
R
E
PARK
AC
C
E
S
S
&
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
&
FU
N
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
T
Y
SA
F
E
T
Y
&
CO
M
F
O
R
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
OV
E
R
A
L
L
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
SC
O
R
E
Brookside Park 1.80 3.50 3.20 3.25 2.94 Laramie Park 3.10 3.57 3.60 3.75 3.51
Caroline Park 1.80 3.67 2.00 3.75 2.80 Lincoln Park 2.10 2.83 3.60 3.00 2.88
Clement Middle School Fields (RUSD)1.20 2.86 3.20 2.00 2.31 Oakmont Park 2.60 3.13 3.60 4.00 3.33
Martinez Park 1.60 3.50 3.40 2.00 2.63 Orange Street Alley 2.30 2.83 4.20 3.00 3.08
Crafton Park 1.30 3.20 3.60 2.50 2.65 Orangewood High School Fields (RUSD)0.20 2.89 3.20 3.00 2.32
Ed Hales Park 3.90 4.13 3.80 3.75 3.89 Prospect Park 2.20 3.44 3.80 4.75 3.55
Ford Park 1.70 3.30 3.60 3.75 3.09 Redlands Sports Park 1.70 3.22 4.20 3.75 3.22
Franklin Park 0.80 2.50 2.80 3.50 2.40 Simond's Parkway 0.80 3.33 5.00 2.50 2.91
Galway Avenue Park (CFD) 2.50 3.89 4.00 4.75 3.78 Smiley Park 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.25 3.81
Heritage Park 2.40 3.89 4.00 4.00 3.57 Sylvan Park 2.70 3.40 3.60 3.25 3.24
Israel Beal Park 1.80 3.90 4.00 4.25 3.49 Texonia Park 2.00 2.90 4.00 3.50 3.10
Jennie Davis Park 2.10 3.11 3.20 3.25 2.92 The Annex 2.00 3.40 3.60 4.00 3.25
Judson Park East (CFD) 2.50 4.11 4.00 4.75 3.84 The Terrace 2.60 3.38 4.20 4.25 3.61
Judson Park West (CFD) 2.50 4.11 4.00 4.75 3.84 Triangle Park 3.50 3.86 3.60 3.50 3.61
Poor 0-1, Fair 2, Good 3, Great 4-5
REDLANDS PARK ASSESSMENT SCORES
102
PARKS MASTER PLAN
• The existing drinking fountains in the Gloria Flores Senior Center and the Joe R. Gonzales
Community Center do not meet ADA requirements and need replacement with low-hi
type drinking fountains to comply with accessible requirements.
• The existing light switches and outlets are non-compliant and must be lowered to meet
ADA compliant height.
• The existing walls and flooring in game room #2 are worn out, dented, and need to be
replaced.
• Some of the building’s door hardware are knobs which are non-A.D.A compliant and need
to be replaced with compliant type.
• The thresholds at both Raquette Ball courts entrances are non-A.D.A compliant and must
be replaced.
• The vinyl tile and carpet flooring in the Joe R. Gonzales Community Center are dirty and
worn-out and need replacement.
Joslyn Senior Center
• Joslyn Senior Center is a one story, Exterior wood framing Walls & wood roof frame
building. Overall, the building structural system and infrastructure seem to be okay.
The existing Kitchen was newly renovated and in good condition. The men’s and
women’s restroom were also newly renovated and A.D.A compliant. Alarming is the
existing built-up roofing systems, which appears to be very old with exposed felt and
rusted parapet caps. This must be replaced with a new roof system very soon. The
existing HVAC system for the entire facility is over 20 years old and needs to be
replaced. Faculty has no control over the temperature; it is either too cold or does not
get cold enough.
• The existing stage in the dining area is non-A.D.A compliant and needs a compliant ramp
or lift.
• The two exterior stair handrails do not have the required extension and are not up to
code.
• The threshold at the exterior door in the dining area are raise and non-A.D.A compliant.
• The service counter in the lobby is too high and non-A.D.A compliant.
• The Rap Room needs extra storage, currently there is an area behind a curtain that is
being used as storage.
• The existing sliding door in the game room is non A.D.A. compliant.
• The carpet flooring is dirty, worn-out, and needs replacement.
• The existing 2x4 ceiling tiles are old and in need of being replaced.
• Most door hardware is non A.D.A. compliant with knobs and vertical bars, that must be
replaced with compliant type.
• The existing light switches and outlets are non-compliant.
• The building lighting fixtures are old fluorescent; we recommend replacement of all
the existing light fixtures with new LED fixtures.
103
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The Carriage House at Prospect Park
• The Carriage House at Prospect Park is a two story, wood frame building with wood
shingle siding and stone retaining walls. Overall, the building structural system and
infrastructure seem to be okay, however due to lack of regular maintenance and
repair, the rest of the building, especially the finishes, must be replaced or repaired.
The exterior wood shingle siding needs some repairs and patching. However, the
existing stone retaining walls on the exterior are in good condition. The existing
asphalt roof shingles and HVAC are over 15 years old and worn-out and will soon
need to be replaced within the next 5 years.
• The existing Men’s and Women’s restrooms on the lower level and top level do not
meet all A.D.A standards and require renovation.
• The existing countertop height in the kitchen in the main building and the adjacent
building are non- A.D.A compliant and must be replaced.
• The existing drinking fountain needs to be replaced with a low-hi type drinking
fountain to comply with accessible requirements.
• The wood flooring in the living room area on the top floor needs some repairs and
refinishing as there are cracks and dents in the floor.
• The existing restroom and bathing room in the adjacent single bedroom building do
not meet the A.D.A requirements and must be renovated.
• Most of the building lighting fixtures are fluorescent, and do not illuminate
sufficiently in areas and should be replaced with LED light fixtures.
• The carpet flooring in the lower level is dirty, worn-out, and needs replacement.
• Access to the single bedroom provides a level change of approximately 3” and does not
meet A.D.A. requirements. A compliant A.D.A. ramp must be provided.
• The wood shingle siding on the south side exterior have many shingles that are
cracked, cupped, and needs to be replaced. We recommend refinishing the wood
shingle siding to maintain its longevity.
Key Takeaways
• The Gloria Flores Senior Center and the Joe R. Gonzales Community Center facility is
city-owned and maintained and serves as a large community resource.
• Most building systems are functional but aging, with several elements rated Fair (C) or
Poor (D).
• Several features are Non-Compliant with ADA standards (ramps, service counters,
outlets).
• Significant investment (approx. $3M) is required to address deficiencies and bring the
building up to modern compliance and service standards.
104
PARKS MASTER PLAN
• The Joslyn Senior Center is a smaller downtown facility, city-owned and maintained.
• The building is in mixed condition, with many elements rated Fair (C) to Poor (D), and
several items Non-Compliant (NC) with ADA standards.
• HVAC, lighting, and service counters are in need of upgrades; storage is missing.
• Estimated $1.5M is needed to address deficiencies and maintain safe, accessible
operations.
• The Carriage House at Prospect Park is a historic facility (built in 1896), smaller in size
but significant in cultural and community value.
• Condition is mixed, with many systems rated Fair (C) and some Failing (F).
• The facility lacks a fire sprinkler system and likely has limited ADA compliance, both
major concerns.
• Estimated $1.25M is required for rehabilitation and modernization while respecting
historic preservation needs.
4.2.6 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
1. Access & Connectivity Evaluation
• Parks are linked to regional trails (Orange Blossom, Zanja, canyon/nature trails).
• Pathway systems vary: some have concrete walks, DG paths, or interpretive trails with
signage; others lack internal pathways (all turf only).
• Crosswalks and traffic signals noted at some adjacent intersections improve safety.
• Street buffers: shrubs, turf, and planters help define edges and provide permeability.
• Transit: A few parks are served by nearby bus stops; most rely on walking/biking or
adjacent parking.
2. Topography & Site Conditions Evaluation
• Flat parks are common, especially those with sports fields.
• Some sites feature sloped topography: terraced turf, raised picnic areas overlooking
ponds, or amphitheater seating.
• Unique landscapes: Redwood grove, oak/citrus groves, canyon slopes, carriage house
hilltop.
• Vegetation: Native plantings (oak, citrus, redwoods) add ecological value. Some areas lack
plantings or show stressed turf.
• Drainage/erosion: No major issues mentioned, but cracked paving and turf stress indicate
site wear.
105
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3. Parking & Circulation Evaluation
• Parking types: Street parking, angled street parking, and small lots near schools. Some
parks only have one lot serving multiple facilities.
• Circulation: Concrete walks connect most major amenities; some areas limited to DG
paths or turf access only.
• Accessibility: Playgrounds and skatepark noted as accessible; some cracked/sloped
paving at playgrounds reduces usability.
• Edge permeability: Planting buffers along 75% of some park hardscapes; others are open
turf directly to sidewalk.
4. Facilities & Maintenance Evaluation
• Restrooms: Present in most parks, generally functional.
• Maintenance: Generally regular and effective, though issues persist:
o Turf quality inconsistent (well-maintained in some, weeds/stress in others).
o Playground surfacing (PIP rubber) worn in high-use areas.
o Missing or declining shrubs in planters.
o Occasional graffiti/vandalism on sculptures and structures.
• Irrigation: Some sites lack irrigation or show need for turf/shrub upkeep.
5. Amenities & Structures Evaluation
• Sports facilities: Soccer, baseball/softball, basketball, tennis, pickleball, volleyball, fishing
ponds, disc golf.
• Playgrounds: Widely present, mostly in good condition but some surfacing repair needed.
• Community/cultural amenities: Amphitheater, stage with plaques, Redlands Bowl, Smiley
Library, Lincoln Memorial, sculptures, historical plaques/signs.
• Picnic infrastructure: Shelters, gazebos, group areas, tables, and benches (though benches
are inconsistently available).
• Lighting: Field lighting present on soccer fields (MUSCO, parking lot lighting in places).
Most parks lack general park lighting, with occasional pathway lights.
• Other structures: Skatepark, exercise stations, dog parks, arbors, drinking fountains,
concession building.
6. General Observations & Enhancements Evaluation
• Strengths: Wide variety of recreational, cultural, and natural features; native plantings
add uniqueness; regular maintenance evident in many parks.
• Weaknesses: Turf wear/stress, inconsistent availability of benches and lighting, cracked
paving, shrub/planter gaps.
• Opportunities:
o Add general park lighting for safety and usability.
106
PARKS MASTER PLAN
o Increase benches and shaded seating areas.
o Repair/upgrade playground surfacing and cracked pavement.
o Expand irrigation/plantings in under-landscaped areas.
• Threats:
o Vandalism/graffiti (ongoing maintenance demand).
o Turf stress and weeds reducing usability.
o Limited irrigation and planting gaps may worsen with drought conditions.
Full Facility & Park Evaluations can be found in APPENDIX E
107
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.3 INVENTORY, ASSESSMENT, AND LEVELS OF
SERVICE
Level of Service (LOS) standards provide a framework for evaluating the availability and
distribution of parks, facilities, and amenities across the City of Redlands. By calculating this
inventory in relation to the City’s current population, we can better understand how well the
community is being served today—and where future improvements may be needed.
These standards help guide planning decisions around the development, enhancement, and
equitable access to parks and recreation facilities. They are informed by a combination of
sources, including National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) guidelines, 2023 national
participation trends from the Sports and Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), feedback from the
community and stakeholders, findings from the statistically valid survey, and input from City
staff.
Level of Service analysis also considers the contributions of other service providers in the region
to present a complete picture of available resources. While these standards are not one-size-fits-
all, they provide valuable direction for identifying gaps or surpluses in the system and shaping
future investments that reflect Redlands growth, demographics, and evolving recreational needs.
108
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.3.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Level of Service analysis indicates that Redlands will require additional parkland and amenities to meet both current and future
needs. While planned improvements at Coyazo Park add new fields, gaps remain in neighborhood and community park acreage, trails,
tennis and pickleball courts, splash pads, picnic shelters, and indoor recreation space. Addressing these shortfalls through targeted
investment will be key to ensuring equitable access, supporting community health, and maintaining the quality of recreation
opportunities for all residents.
Park Type City of
Redlands Schools Total
Inventory
Meet Standard/
Need Exists Inventory Total
2024-2034
Meet Standard/
Need Exists
Neighborhood Parks 55.05 14.12 69.17 0.93 acres per 1,000 1.00 acres per 1,000 Need Exists 5 Acre(s)Need Exists 8 Acre(s)
Community Parks 176.00 - 176.00 2.38 acres per 1,000 2.00 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s)Coyazo Park 12.00 Meets Standard - Acre(s)
Pocket Parks 10.93 - 10.93 0.15 acres per 1,000 0.05 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s)Meets Standard - Acre(s)
Regional Park - - - - acres per 1,000 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s)Meets Standard - Acre(s)
Total Developed Park Acres 241.98 14.12 256.10 3.46 acres per 1,000 3.05 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s)Meets Standard - Acre(s)
Special Use Parks / Sites - - - - acres per 1,000 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s)Meets Standard - Acre(s)
Total Park Acres 241.98 14.12 256.10 3.46 acres per 1,000 3.05 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s)Meets Standard - Acre(s)
TRAILS:
Trails (paved and unpaved)37.16 37.16 0.50 mile per 1,000 0.45 mile per 1,000 Meets Standard - Mile(s)Meets Standard - Mile(s)
OUTDOOR AMENITIES:
Basketball Courts 1 8 9 1.00 court per 8,222 1.00 court per 10,000 Meets Standard - Court(s)Meets Standard - Court(s)
Tennis Courts 5 6 11 1.00 court per 6,727 1.00 court per 7,500 Meets Standard - Court(s)Meets Standard - Court(s)
Pickleball Courts 10 - 10 1.00 court per 7,400 1.00 court per 7,500 Meets Standard - Court(s)Need Exists 0.2 Court(s)
Ball Fields (Diamond)3 5 8 1.00 field per 9,867 1.00 field per 10,000 Meets Standard - Field(s)Coyazo Park 1.00 Meets Standard - Field(s)
Multi-purpose Fields (soccer/rectangular) 39 1 40 1.00 field per 1,850 1.00 field per 5,000 Meets Standard - Field(s)Coyazo Park 3.00 Meets Standard - Field(s)
Playgrounds 12 - 12 1.00 site per 6,167 1.00 site per 5,500 Need Exists 1 Site(s)Need Exists 2 Site(s)
Picnic Shelters 6 - 6 1.00 site per 12,333 1.00 site per 10,000 Need Exists 1 Site(s)Need Exists 2 Site(s)
Shade Shelter 13 - 13 1.00 site per 5,692 1.00 site per 7,500 Meets Standard - Site(s)Meets Standard - Site(s)
Outdoor Swimming Pools - - - 1.00 site per - 1.00 site per 50,000 Need Exists 1 Site(s)Need Exists 1.54 Site(s)
Skate Parks 1 - 1 1.00 site per 73,999 1.00 site per 40,000 Need Exists 1 Site(s)Need Exists 1 Site(s)
Splash Pads - - - 1.00 site per #DIV/0!1.00 site per 25,000 Need Exists 3 Site(s)Need Exists 3 Site(s)
Dog Parks 2 - 2 1.00 site per 37,000 1.00 site per 30,000 Need Exists 0.5 Site(s)Need Exists 1 Site(s)
INDOOR AMENITIES:
Indoor Fitness / Recreation Space 46,199 - 46,199 0.62 SF per person 1.00 SF per person Need Exists 27,800 Square Feet - Need Exists 30,664 Square Feet
73,999
76,863
2024 Estimated Population
2034 Estimated Population
2024 Inventory - Developed Facilities 2024 Standards 2034 Standards
Current Service Level based
upon population
Recommended Service
Levels;
Revised for Local Service
Area
Additional Facilities/
Amenities Needed
Additional Facilities/
Amenities Needed
Anticipated Future Park
Development 2024 - 2034
109
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4 EQUITY MAPPING
Service area maps and standards allow the City of Redlands to assess how parks and recreation
amenities are distributed across the community and whether they align with population density
and neighborhood needs. These maps are based on recommended levels of service for each park
and amenity type and help identify areas that may be underserved or oversupplied.
By comparing geographic access to population-based standards, the City can pinpoint gaps in
service and make informed decisions about future investments. This ensures that capital
improvement efforts not only address system-wide needs but also promote equitable access to
parks and facilities for all residents. The different service area rings highlight the reach of various
providers, reflecting the broader network of resources available to the Redlands community.
110
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.1 COMMUNITY PARKS
111
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.2 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
112
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.3 POCKET PARKS
113
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.4 REGIONAL PARK
114
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.5 SPECIAL USE PARKS
115
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.6 DOG PARKS
116
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.7 SKATE PARKS
117
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.8 BALL FIELDS (DIAMOND)
118
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.9 MULTI -PURPOSE FIELDS
119
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.10 BASKETBALL COURTS
120
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.11 PICKLEBALL COURTS
4.4.12
4.4.13
121
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.14 TENNIS COURTS
4.4.15
122
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.16 SHADE SHELTER
123
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.17 PICNIC SHELTERS
124
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.18 PLAYGROUNDS
125
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.19 SPLASH PADS
4.4.20
126
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.21 OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOLS
127
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.22 TRAILS (PAVED AND UNPAVED)
128
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4.23 INDOOR FITNESS / RECREATION SPACE
4.4.24
129
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.5 RECOMMENDED P ARKS IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
The Recommended Parks Improvements Plan (RPIP) for
Redlands serves as a strategic framework for prioritizing,
funding, and delivering critical infrastructure and facility
projects that enhance the city’s livability, sustainability,
and long-term growth. This plan focuses on targeted
investments in parks, recreational amenities, community
centers, and public spaces to meet the evolving needs of
Redlands diverse and growing population.
A key component of the RPIP is the alignment of
available financial resources to support these
improvement projects. Redlands utilizes a variety of
existing funding sources to make these initiatives
possible, including:
General Fund, DIF, CDBG and various Grant opportunities.
Through the strategic use of these resources, the City ensures responsible fiscal management
while advancing projects that promote environmental stewardship, community wellness, and
economic vitality. As Redlands continues to thrive, this Recommended Improvements Plan
provides a clear and actionable roadmap for creating vibrant public spaces and strengthening
community infrastructure—today and for future generations.
To provide greater clarity and transparency, the PRIP is organized into three distinct categories:
4. Projects that are planned and have secured funding
5. Projects that are planned but not yet funded
6. Projects that have been completed in the last several years
This structure allows stakeholders to easily understand the current status of each initiative, track
progress over time, and anticipate future development efforts as the plan evolves.
130
PARKS MASTER PLAN
As outlined in the table below, the City has several planned and funded projects underway,
reflecting its continued investment in quality of life. These include Texonia Park, Coyazo Park
and Sylvan Park as well as phase 3 of the Orange Blossom Trail. The city has also completed
recent improvements at Ford Park and Martinez (Community) Park.
The following chart provides a comprehensive, park-by-park breakdown of estimated
improvement costs along with the projected phases for implementation. This visual summary
offers a clear look at how capital improvement efforts are distributed across Redlands park
system and when each project is anticipated to be completed.
It is important to note that this chart represents a point-in-time snapshot based on current
priorities, available funding, and project planning as of the publication of this report. As new
projects are introduced, priorities shift, and funding sources evolve, the timeline and cost
estimates will be updated accordingly.
This dynamic planning tool is designed to support transparency, guide resource allocation, and
ensure that Redlands continues to respond effectively to the community’s recreational needs.
TOTAL PROJECTS PLANNED FUNDED $8,060,000
PARKS PLANNED FUNDED $7,100,000
FACILITIES PLANNED FUNDED $0
TRAILS PLANNED FUNDED $960,000
TOTAL PROJECTS PLANNED NEED FUNDING $35,770,000
PARKS PLANNED NEED FUNDING $29,760,000
FACILITIES PLANNED NEED FUNDING $5,750,000
TRAILS PLANNED NEED FUNDING $260,000
TOTAL PROJECTS COMPLETED $1,550,000
PARKS COMPLETED $1,550,000
FACILITIES COMPLETED $0
TRAILS COMPLETED $0
131
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Parks Acres Completed Planned Planned P1 P2 P3 TOTAL
Funded Need Funding FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 28 & beyond
268.10 $1,550,000 $7,100,000 $29,760,000 $3,150,000 $7,800,000 $27,460,000 $38,410,000
Brookside Park 9.50 $0 $0 $10,300,000 $0 $0 $10,300,000 $10,300,000
Caroline Park 18.20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Clement Middle School Fields (RUSD)11.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Coyazo Park 12.00 $0 $800,000 $0 $800,000 $0 $0 $800,000
Crafton Park 6.80 $0 $0 $1,800,000 $0 $0 $1,800,000 $1,800,000
Ed Hales Park 0.20 $0 $0 $800,000 $0 $800,000 $0 $800,000
Ford Park 20.40 $850,000 $0 $800,000 $850,000 $0 $800,000 $1,650,000
Franklin Park 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Galway Avenue Park (CFD) 0.29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Heritage Park 18.40 $0 $0 $850,000 $0 $0 $850,000 $850,000
Israel Beal Park 8.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Jennie Davis Park 2.80 $0 $0 $1,350,000 $0 $0 $1,350,000 $1,350,000
Judson Park East (CFD) 1.34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Judson Park West (CFD) 5.34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Laramie Park 1.60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Lincoln Park 8.51 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Martinez (Community) Park 18.20 $700,000 $0 $0 $700,000 $0 $0 $700,000
Oakmont Park 14.60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Orange Street Alley 0.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Orangewood High School Fields (RUSD)3.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Prospect Park 31.60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Redlands Sports Park 36.20 $0 $0 $2,300,000 $0 $0 $2,300,000 $2,300,000
Simond's Parkway 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Smiley Park 8.30 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Sylvan Park 18.40 $0 $800,000 $1,300,000 $800,000 $1,300,000 $0 $2,100,000
Texonia Park 8.50 $0 $5,500,000 $0 $0 $5,500,000 $0 $5,500,000
The Annex 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
The Terrace 2.40 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Triangle Park 0.01 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Parks $0 $0 $8,760,000 $0 $200,000 $8,560,000 $8,760,000
Facilities Completed Planned Planned P1 P2 P3 TOTAL
Funded Need Funding FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 28 & beyond
46,199 $0 $0 $5,750,000 $0 $0 $5,750,000 $5,750,000
Joslyn Senior Center 8,666 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and Eddie and
Gloria Flores Senior Center 32,333 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Carriage House 5,200 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $1,250,000
Trails Miles Completed Planned Planned P1 P2 P3 TOTAL
Funded Need Funding FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 28 & beyond
39.76 $0 $960,000 $260,000 $960,000 $0 $260,000 $1,220,000
Bluff's Trail 1.60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Caroline Park Trail 1.40 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Creekside Trail 1.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
East Valley Corridor Trail 2.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Garden/Mariposa Trail 1.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Herngt 'Aki' Trails 16.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Orange Blossom Trail 2.50 $0 $960,000 $0 $960,000 $0 $0 $960,000
Prospect Park Trail 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Saha'tapa Trail 1.75 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Timoteo Nature Trails 5.23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sylvan Park Trail 1.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Teddy's Trail 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
The Terrace Trail 0.38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Zanja Trail 0.75 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Trails 2.60 $0 $0 $260,000 $0 $0 $260,000 $260,000
Square
Footage
132
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The following improvements are recommended:
• Ford Park – Phase 1 (FY 25/26)
Renovation of the existing restroom facility at Ford Park to improve accessibility,
functionality, and user experience; project completed in summer 2025.
• Orange Blossom Trail – Phase 1 (FY 25/26)
Phase 3 improvements to approximately 5 miles of the Orange Blossom Trail, including
upgrades to enhance safety, functionality, and overall user experience as part of the
City’s priority trail investment program.
• Coyazo Park – Phase 1 (FY 25/26)
Construction of a new equipment building at Coyazo Park to support park operations,
storage needs, and ongoing maintenance activities.
• Sylvan Park -Phase 2 (FY 26/27)
Renovation of the existing restroom facility at Sylvan Park to improve accessibility,
functionality, and user experience and add a BMX Pump Track.
• Texonia Park – Phase 2 (FY 26/27)
Renovation of Texonia Park with construction of a parking lot, installation of an inclusive
playground, splash pad, ADA walking paths, bathroom renovation and sports fields, dog
park, renovation of basketball courts, and shade structures.
• Smiley Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Install Family friendly amenities such as playground, ADA walking paths, restroom, etc. to
improve accessibility, functionality, and user experience.
• Brookside Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Development of new recreational amenities at Brookside Park, including replacement of
playground equipment, a splash pad, and a 10,000-square-foot skatepark to expand
active recreation opportunities and serve a wide range of age groups.
• Heritage Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Construction of a new restroom facility at Heritage Park to address visitor needs and
support increased park usage and programming.
• Crafton Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Installation and replacement of a playground, all-inclusive play and creating a destination
for the community by enhancing family friendly amenities.
133
PARKS MASTER PLAN
• Redlands Sports Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Installation of a playground, dog park, all-inclusive play and creating a destination for the
community by enhancing family friendly amenities.
• Jennie Davis – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Renovation of the existing restroom facility at Jeannie Davis Park to improve
accessibility, functionality, and user experience and add pickleball courts.
• Ed Hales Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Development of a new playground, or interactive play at Ed Hales Park to improve
recreational offerings for children and families within the downtown area. Fostering
family-friendly environments and art and cultural amenities (e.g. sensory and adaptive
equipment, accessible surfaces with cultural integration such as murals or artwork).
• New Trails – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
Construction of approximately 2.60 miles of new trails to meet projected community
needs through 2034, expanding the City’s trail network and improving connectivity for
walking, biking, and other non-motorized recreation.
• Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and
Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
The Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center is a
city-owned and maintained facility that serves as a major community resource. While
most building systems remain functional, many are aging and several components are
rated Fair (C) or Poor (D). Multiple features, including ramps, service counters, and
electrical outlets, are non-compliant with ADA standards. An estimated $3 million
investment is required to address deficiencies and bring the facility into compliance with
modern accessibility, safety, and service standards.
• Joslyn Senior Center – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
The Joslyn Senior Center is a smaller, city-owned facility located in the downtown area.
The building is in mixed condition, with many elements rated Fair (C) to Poor (D), and
several features identified as non-compliant with ADA requirements. Key building
systems, including HVAC, lighting, and service counters, require upgrades, and adequate
storage is lacking. Approximately $1.5 million is needed to correct deficiencies and
maintain safe, accessible operations.
• Carriage House at Prospect Park – Phase 3 (FY 28 & Beyond)
The Carriage House at Prospect Park is a historic facility constructed in 1896 and holds
significant cultural and community value despite its smaller size. The building is in mixed
condition, with many systems rated Fair (C) and some failing (F). The absence of a fire
sprinkler system and limited ADA compliance present major safety and accessibility
concerns. An estimated $1.25 million is required for rehabilitation and modernization,
with improvements designed to respect historic preservation requirements.
134
PARKS MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER FIVE VISIO N ING AND KEY
RECOMMENDATIONS
As a part of developing the Parks Master Plan, city staff was engaged in an iterative visioning
process to review the Values, Vision and Mission and develop key themes, priorities and
implementation. This resulted in affirming the core values and updating the Mission and Vision
statements along with developing key themes that will guide the prioritization and
implementation of this plan.
5.1 MISSION
The updated mission statement is
“Preserve history, celebrate community, and deliver exceptional service”
5.2 VISION STATEMENT
The updated vision statement is
“To be the go-to-place”
135
PARKS MASTER PLAN
5.3 VALUES
The values of Teamwork, Integrity, Enjoyment and Safety are paramount in the day-to-day
operations and how to plan for the future.
136
PARKS MASTER PLAN
5.4 BIG MOVES
Secure and Expand Dedicated Funding Sources
• Develop sustainable and focused funding strategies, including grants, sponsorships, and
possible tax initiatives.
• Allocate funding specifically for maintenance, security, and facility upgrades.
• Balance investment between the replacement of aging amenities and the development of
new park features.
Enhance Safety, Security, and Accessibility
• Prioritize security measures in parks, trails, and facilities to ensure user safety.
• Improve trail signage, lighting availability, and accessibility for all users.
• Ensure compliance with safety and accessibility standards across all parks.
Address Deferred Maintenance and Facility Upgrades
• Implement a structured plan to tackle deferred maintenance, focusing on park restroom
renovations and other essential infrastructure.
• Establish a park equipment replacement schedule that balances the maintenance of
existing facilities with the development of new amenities.
• Upgrade facilities to meet modern standards while maintaining a consistent, high-quality
user experience.
Develop a Comprehensive Marketing Plan
• Create a cohesive marketing strategy to increase awareness of programs, events, and
amenities through all channels (social media, signage, campaigns).
• Highlight unique features like themed parks and community events to attract broader
audiences.
• Ensure effective communication of available resources and opportunities for community
involvement.
Optimize Staffing and Operations
• Increase staffing levels to support 7-day, year-round operations.
• Provide training and resources to ensure operational excellence and the ability to meet
growing community needs.
• Focus on interdepartmental connectivity to streamline operations and enhance service
delivery.
137
PARKS MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION
The Redlands Parks Master Plan is a forward-thinking guide to strengthen the city’s proud
legacy of parks, recreation, and community life. Shaped by Redlands’ historic charm and enriched
by robust community input, the Plan reflects the aspirations of residents, city staff, and partners
who are committed to honoring the past while creating opportunities for the future.
This process was a chance for Redlands to reconnect with its roots and chart a bold direction
forward. From the timeless beauty of Prospect Park and the community traditions of the
Redlands Bowl Summer Music Festival, to the open spaces, sports fields, and historic orange
groves that define the city’s character, Redlands’ identity is inseparable from its parks and
cultural resources. With this in mind, the department embraced a revitalized Vision: To Be the
Go-To Place, supported by a mission that centers on Preserve history, celebrate community, and
deliver exceptional service. These commitments reflect a promise to build welcoming, inspiring,
and inclusive spaces for all.
The Master Plan also identifies five “Big Moves” that respond to both current needs and future
opportunities:
• Expand and enhance Redlands’ recreation spaces and facilities
• Strengthen staffing and professional development to serve a growing community
• Deepen cultural programming and community engagement, building on traditions like
the Redlands Bowl
• Invest in infrastructure, safety, and the long-term care of parks, trails, and open spaces
• Secure sustainable funding and cultivate partnerships that extend Redlands’ impact
These priorities are grounded in the voices of residents who shared their perspectives through
surveys, workshops, and community forums. From families seeking more youth programs, to
older adults desiring expanded recreation opportunities, to neighbors calling for better
connections between trails and open spaces, the community’s message was clear: Redlands is
ready to grow while staying true to its values of equity, connection, and belonging.
As Redlands plans for the future, this Master Plan offers a clear and actionable roadmap—
balancing bold aspirations with practical solutions. With strong leadership, collaborative
partnerships, and continued investment, Redlands will remain a community defined by its parks,
cultural traditions, and gathering places—a true “go-to place” for residents and visitors alike,
today and for generations to come.
138
PARKS MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER SEVEN APPENDICES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
139
PARKS MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX A - STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY CHARTS & GRAPHS
140
PARKS MASTER PLAN
141
PARKS MASTER PLAN
142
PARKS MASTER PLAN
143
PARKS MASTER PLAN
144
PARKS MASTER PLAN
145
PARKS MASTER PLAN
146
PARKS MASTER PLAN
147
PARKS MASTER PLAN
148
PARKS MASTER PLAN
149
PARKS MASTER PLAN
150
PARKS MASTER PLAN
151
PARKS MASTER PLAN
152
PARKS MASTER PLAN
153
PARKS MASTER PLAN
154
PARKS MASTER PLAN
155
PARKS MASTER PLAN
156
PARKS MASTER PLAN
157
PARKS MASTER PLAN
158
PARKS MASTER PLAN
159
PARKS MASTER PLAN
160
PARKS MASTER PLAN
161
PARKS MASTER PLAN
162
PARKS MASTER PLAN
163
PARKS MASTER PLAN
164
PARKS MASTER PLAN
165
PARKS MASTER PLAN
166
APPENDIX B - ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY
CHARTS & GRAPHS
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
19%
40%
20%
10%
8%
3%
18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
What is your age?
183
4%
32%
63%
0%0%
Prefer not to
disclose
Male Female Non-binary Prefer to self-
describe
Your gender identity:
184
9%
2%2%
74%
1%
11%
Asian or Asian
Indian
Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
White or
Caucasian
Native
Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander
Other (please
specify)
Which of the following best describes
your race?
185
APPENDIX C - PROGRAM INVENTORY
ACTIVE ADULT
ATHLETICS
dult Tennis - Beginner Adult Tennis - Intermediate
Basketball Camps Basketball Club
Basketball Kills Basketball Leagues
BEST Intro to Soccer BEST Multi Sport
Cheerleading Escola Soccer
Pickleball League Pickleball Organized Play
Racquetball Tennis - Future Stars
Tennis - Rising Stars Tennis - Team Tennis
Tennis - Tennis Academy UK Soccer Camp
Volleyball Camp Volleyball Club
Volleyball Rec
CULTURE ENRICHMENT
Art Lessons Billiards
Lego Camps Mandarin Classes
Piano Lessons Recording Studio
186
EVENTS
HEALTH & FITNESS
187
APPENDIX D - SIMILAR PROVIDERS
Name of Agency Location in
the City
Operator
(Public /
Private /
Not-for-
Profit
General Description
Price
Comparison
with your
Services
(Same /
Lower /
Higher)
Distance in
minutes from
your Prime
Facility
24 hour Fitness 27621 San Private Fitness Facility with Higher 7 minutes
Ave, Highland, classes, fitness, and
Highland Senior Center 3102 Highland
Ave, Highland,
Non- Profit Community Facility with
classes & social activities
Same 13 minutes
Dr. some classes
Redlands Boys and Girls
Club
1251 Clay St. Non- Profit After school program
with some camps
Lower 1 minute
YMCA of the East Valley 500 E Citrus Ave Non- Profit Facility with some
classes, fitness, and
Same / Higher 6 minutes
188
APPENDIX E - PARK & FACILITY EVALUTATIONS
The following pages provide a point-in-time summary for each park within the Redlands park
system, reflecting conditions as of summer 2023. Each summary includes key information on
existing amenities and features available at each site. To visually support this information, an
aerial site plan is included for each park, clearly identifying the location of all existing amenities.
It is important to note that this information does not reflect any changes made to the park sites
since summer 2023. Additionally, all data has been compiled and stored in a comprehensive
Geographic Information System (GIS) database, which has been provided to the City. This
valuable resource supports ongoing planning, project management, and informed decision-
making as the City continues to develop and enhance its parks and recreational facilities.
189
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
STEWART PARK SUMMARY
215
216
TREVINO PARK SUMMARY
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior
Center Assessment
This is a brief report for the assessment and documentation of building conditions. We did not
do any destructive testing or uncovered walls and ceilings, nor investigate building structure,
underground infrastructure, hazardous materials, or any plumbing, electrical, or HVAC Systems.
This report serves to identify existing building conditions at the facilities mentioned below in
reference to the recent 10/15/2024 site visit and meeting with City Building Maintenance and
some users.
• Joe R. Gonzales Community Center and Eddie and Gloria Flores Senior Center is a one
story, Exterior CMU Walls. Overall, the building structural system and infrastructure
seem to be okay, however due to lack of regular maintenance and repair, the rest of the
building, especially the finishes, must be replaced or repaired. The exterior finishes are in
good condition; however, it is dirty and needs to be pressure washed. The existing built-
up and PVC roof are in good condition and is approximately 10 years old. The existing
HVAC system is working fine with about 15 yrs. but will soon need to be replaced and
the existing Swamp cooler needs replacement withing the next 5 years.
• The existing Men’s and Women’s restrooms in the community center are non A.D.A.
compliant and need to be renovated for compliance.
• The existing Accessible stall and counter tops in the Women’s restroom in the Senior
center is non-A.D.A compliant and need to be renovated.
• The two existing ramp handrails do not have the required handrail extensions. Currently,
this does not meet ADA requirements.
• The service counter in the lobby is too high and non-A.D.A compliant.
• Most of the buildings’ lighting fixtures are fluorescent, and do not illuminate sufficiently
in areas and should be replaced with new LED light fixtures.
• The carpet flooring is dirty, worn-out, and needs replacement.
• The existing 2x4 and 2x2 tile ceilings are old and in need of being replaced.
• The existing drinking fountains in the Senior Center and the Community Park do not
meet ADA requirements and need replacement with low-hi type drinking fountains to
comply with accessible requirements.
• The existing light switches and outlets are non-compliant and must be lowered to meet
ADA compliant height.
• The existing walls and flooring in game room #2 are worn out, dented, and need to be
replaced.
• Some of the building’s door hardware are knobs which are non-A.D.A compliant and need
to be replaced with compliant type.
• The thresholds at both Raquette Ball courts entrances are non- A.D.A compliant and
must be replaced.
• The vinyl tile and carpet flooring in the community center are dirty and worn-out and
need replacement.
252
253
Overview
Address: 111 W Lugonia Ave, Redlands, CA 92374
Year Constructed: 1979
Facility Setting: Downtown
Building Size: 32,333 square feet
Ownership & Maintenance: City-owned and city-maintained
Building Height: 1 story
Fire Sprinkler: Yes
Building Composition & Condition Assessment
• Structure & Materials
• Exterior Materials: Not explicitly listed, assumed mixed based on City standard facilities.
• Roofing/Finishes: Elements such as ceiling, flooring, lighting, and casework are included
in assessment.
• Condition Ratings: Mostly Good (B) to Fair (C), with some Poor (D) and Non-Compliant
(NC) elements.
• Room Features
• Restrooms: Present, ADA compliance mixed (some elements noted as Non-Compliant
(NC)).
• Other Features:
o Storage: Present
o Service Counter: Non-Compliant
o Service Window: N/A
o Light Fixtures: Poor (D)
o Light Switch/Outlet: Non-Compliant (NC)
o HVAC: Fair (C)
o Exhaust Fans: Fair (C)
o Ramp: Non-Compliant (NC)
254
Cost Estimates
• Base ROM (Rough Order of Magnitude)
Total: $3,000,000
• Covers walls, finishes, restrooms, lighting, HVAC, and other systems requiring upgrades.
Key Takeaways
• The Senior and Community Center facility is city-owned and maintained and serves as a
large community resource.
• Most building systems are functional but aging, with several elements rated Fair (C) or
Poor (D).
• Several features are Non-Compliant with ADA standards (ramps, service counters,
outlets).
• Significant investment (approx. $3M) is required to address deficiencies and bring the
building up to modern compliance and service standards.
255
Joslyn Senior Center Assessment
This is a brief report for the assessment and documentation of building conditions. We did
not do any destructive testing or uncovered walls and ceilings, nor investigate building
structure, underground infrastructure, hazardous materials, or any plumbing, electrical, or
HVAC Systems.
This report serves to identify existing building conditions at the facilities mentioned below in
reference to the recent 10/15/2024 site visit and meeting with City Building Maintenance
and some users.
• Joslyn Senior Center is a one story, Exterior wood framing Walls & wood roof frame
building. Overall, the building structural system and infrastructure seem to be okay.
The existing Kitchen was newly renovated and in good condition. The men’s and
women’s restroom were also newly renovated and A.D.A compliant. Alarming is the
existing built-up roofing systems, which appears to be very old with exposed felt and
rusted parapet caps. This must be replaced with a new roof system very soon. The
existing HVAC system for the entire facility is over 20 years old and needs to be
replaced. Faculty has no control over the temperature; it is either too cold or does not
get cold enough.
• The existing stage in the dining area is non-A.D.A compliant and needs a compliant ramp or lift.
• The two exterior stair handrails do not have the required extension and are not up to
code.
• The threshold at the exterior door in the dining area are raise and non-A.D.A compliant.
• The service counter in the lobby is too high and non-A.D.A compliant.
• The Rap Room needs extra storage, currently there is an area behind a curtain that is
being used as storage.
• The existing sliding door in the game room is non A.D.A. compliant.
• The carpet flooring is dirty, worn-out, and needs replacement.
• The existing 2x4 ceiling tiles are old and in need of being replaced.
• Most door hardware is non A.D.A. compliant with knobs and vertical bars, that must be
replaced with compliant type.
• The existing light switches and outlets are non-compliant.
• The building lighting fixtures are old fluorescent, we recommend replacement of all
the existing light fixtures with new LED fixtures.
256
257
Overview
Address: 21 Grant Street, Redlands, CA 92373
Year Constructed: 1977
Facility Setting: Downtown
Building Size: 8,666 square feet
Ownership & Maintenance: City-owned and city-maintained
Building Height: 1 story
Fire Sprinkler: Yes
Building Composition & Condition Assessment
• Structure & Materials
• Exterior Materials: Not explicitly listed; assumed mixed standard finishes.
• Roofing/Finishes: Includes ceiling, floor, wall finishes assessed.
• Condition Ratings:
o Generally Good (B) to Fair (C)
o Some systems rated Poor (D) or Non-Compliant (NC)
o Storage casework noted as Item Missing (IM)
• Room Features
• Restrooms: Present; ADA accessibility appears mixed, with some Non-Compliant (NC)
elements.
• Other Features:
o Storage Casework: Missing (IM)
o Service Counter: Non-Compliant (NC)
o Light Fixtures: Poor (D)
o Light Switch/Outlet: Non-Compliant (NC)
o HVAC: Poor (D)
o Exhaust Fans: Excellent (A)
Cost Estimates
• Base ROM (Rough Order of Magnitude)
Total: $1,500,000
• Covers deficiencies in walls, finishes, restrooms, lighting, HVAC, and other building
systems.
Key Takeaways
• The Joslyn Senior Center is a smaller downtown facility, city-owned and maintained.
• The building is in mixed condition, with many elements rated Fair (C) to Poor (D), and
several items Non-Compliant (NC) with ADA standards.
• HVAC, lighting, and service counters are in need of upgrades; storage is missing.
• Estimated $1.5M is needed to address deficiencies and maintain safe, accessible
operations.
258
Carriage House at Prospect Park Assessment
This is a brief report for the assessment and documentation of building conditions. We did
not do any destructive testing or uncovered walls and ceilings, nor investigate building
structure, underground infrastructure, hazardous materials, or any plumbing, electrical, or
HVAC Systems.
This report serves to identify existing building conditions at the facilities mentioned below in
reference to the recent 10/15/2024 site visit and meeting with City Building Maintenance
and some users.
• The Carriage House at Prospect Park is a two story, wood frame building with wood
shingle siding and stone retaining walls. Overall, the building structural system and
infrastructure seem to be okay, however due to lack of regular maintenance and repair,
the rest of the building, especially the finishes, must be replaced or repaired. The
exterior wood shingle siding needs some repairs and patching. However, the existing
stone retaining walls on the exterior are in good condition. The existing asphalt roof
shingles and HVAC are over 15 years old and worn-out and will soon need to be
replaced within the next 5 years.
• The existing Men’s and Women’s restrooms on the lower level and top level do not meet all A.D.A standards and require renovation.
• The existing countertop height in the kitchen in the main building and the adjacent
building are non- A.D.A compliant and must be replaced.
• The existing drinking fountain needs to be replaced with a low-hi type drinking
fountain to comply with accessible requirements.
• The wood flooring in the living room area on the top floor needs some repairs and
refinishing as there are cracks and dents in the floor.
• The existing restroom and bathing room in the adjacent single bedroom building do
not meet the A.D.A requirements and must be renovated.
• Most of the building lighting fixtures are fluorescent, and do not illuminate
sufficiently in areas and should be replaced with LED light fixtures.
• The carpet flooring in the lower level is dirty, worn-out, and needs replacement.
• Access to the single bedroom provides a level change of approximately 3” and does not
meet A.D.A. requirements. A compliant A.D.A. ramp must be provided.
• The wood shingle siding on the south side exterior have many shingles that are
cracked, cupped, and needs to be replaced. We recommend to refinish the wood
shingle siding to maintain its longevity.
259
260
Overview
Address: 1399 Prospect Dr, Redlands, CA 92373
Year Constructed: 1896
Facility Setting: Downtown (Prospect Park)
Building Size: 5,200 square feet
Ownership & Maintenance: City-owned and city-maintained
Building Height: 2 stories
Fire Sprinkler: No
Building Composition & Condition Assessment
• Structure & Materials
• Historic Structure (constructed in 1896, likely requiring specialized preservation
approaches).
• Exterior/Interior Materials: Not fully detailed in spreadsheet but expected to include
original historic finishes.
• Condition Ratings:
o Several elements rated Fair (C)
o Some systems rated Failing (F)
o Limited infrastructure upgrades evident
• Room Features
• Restrooms: Present, condition not fully detailed.
• Other Features:
o Counter: Failing (F)
261
o HVAC: Fair (C)
o Light Fixtures: Fair (C)
o Service Counter/Window: Not listed
o Accessibility features: Limited, likely non-compliant given age
Cost Estimates
• Base ROM (Rough Order of Magnitude)
Total: $1,250,000
• Covers deficiencies in lighting, HVAC, finishes, counters, and general building
rehabilitation.
Key Takeaways
• The Carriage House at Prospect Park is a historic facility (built in 1896), smaller in size
but significant in cultural and community value.
• Condition is mixed, with many systems rated Fair (C) and some Failing (F).
• The facility lacks a fire sprinkler system and likely has limited ADA compliance, both
major concerns.
• Estimated $1.25M is required for rehabilitation and modernization while respecting
historic preservation needs.
262
APPENDIX G - NATIONAL TRENDS IN RECREATION
METHODOLOGY
The Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Leisure Activities Topline
Participation Report 2023 was utilized to evaluate National Recreation
Participatory Trends.
The methodology of this study is rooted in a nationwide survey
conducted in the 2022 calendar year by Sports Marketing Surveys USA (SMS), under the
supervision of the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) and in collaboration with seven
other sports industry associations comprising the Physical Activity Council (PAC). The study was
conceptualized and deployed by Digital Research Inc. (DRI), with all supplementary data being
credited to the joint research efforts of SFIA and SMS.
Throughout 2022, the study completed 18,000 online interviews involving a nationwide sample
of individuals aged six and older. These participants were selected from proprietary online panels
designed to be representative of the broader U.S. population. Strict quotas related to gender,
age, income, region, and ethnicity were implemented to assure a balanced and representative
sample.
The survey's robust sample size of 18,000 completed interviews facilitates a high degree of
statistical accuracy. However, it's acknowledged that all surveys are subject to a standard error,
which indicates the extent to which the results may differ from those acquired through a
comprehensive census of the entire U.S. population. For instance, a sport with a participation
rate of five percent exhibits a confidence interval of plus or minus 0.32 percentage points at the
95 percent confidence level.
To further ensure the representation of the data, a weighting technique was employed. This
adjusted the data to mirror the entire U.S. population aged six and above, utilizing variables such
as gender, age, income, ethnicity, household size, region, and population density. The total
population figure applied was 305,439,858 individuals aged six and older.
The study reports activity based on a rolling 12-month participation rate. Unless explicitly
specified, all charts present data corresponding to U.S. populations aged six and over.
All category and activity names are those used by SFIA.
OVERALL PARTICIPATION IN THE U.S.
For the fifth year running, physical activity rates among Americans continued to rise. Specifically,
77.6% of all Americans, representing approximately 236.9 million individuals, took part in at least
one activity during the year. This figure denotes a 9.2% increase compared to 2017, and a 1.9%
rise compared to 2021. In essence, this means that 20 million more individuals participated in at
least one physical activity annually compared to 2017, suggesting a growing prioritization of
physical activity in American lifestyles.
Racquet sports experienced the most significant rise in participation in 2022, with a surge of
17.6% or about 8 million participants from the previous year. All racquet sports monitored by
SFIA saw increased participation in 2022, with pickleball outpacing others with an 85.7% annual
growth rate. Conversely, individual and winter sports were the only categories that didn't
register increased participation in 2022.
263
Team sports rebounded from the sharp downturn they faced in 2020 due to the pandemic, with
their participation rate climbing to 23.2% in 2022, almost reaching the 2019 level of 23.4%. In
2022, participation rates in water sports and outdoor sports similarly rose, comparable to the
increases seen in team sports, while the fitness participation rate remained steady.
When comparing participation rates from 2013 to 2022, it's evident that physical activity has
become a higher priority for Americans over the past decade. Every sports category saw an
increase in participation rates, except for individual sports, which experienced a slight decrease
from 43.3% to 41.3%. Fitness sports reported the largest growth in participation rate, rising from
60.1% in 2013 to 67.4% in 2022.
INACTIVITY IN THE U.S.
In a first since 2010, the number of totally inactive individuals in the U.S.—those not participating
in any of the sports or activities monitored by SFIA—fell below 70 million. In 2022, the count of
inactive individuals stood at 68.6 million or 22.4% of Americans, marking the fourth consecutive
annual decrease.
A decline in inactivity was observed across all age groups, except for those aged 18-24 and 25-
34. SFIA believes that the increase in inactivity within these groups might be due to significant
life transitions such as attending college or starting a family, which were temporarily paused
during the onset of the pandemic. Even though inactivity rates for these age groups have risen in
2022, they remain lower than their 2017 rates. Thus, every age group reported lower inactivity
rates in 2022 compared to 2017.
Further positive news emerged when examining inactivity rates across income levels. Every
income level saw a reduction in inactivity rates of more than 3% in 2022, with the most
substantial decrease of 5.2% occurring within the $25k-$49,999 income bracket. Similar to the
age group analysis, every income category in 2022 registered lower inactivity rates than in 2017.
This trend indicates a growing number of Americans are prioritizing and investing in physical
activity (and have better access to opportunities for participation) compared to previous years.
264
7.1.1 NATIONAL PARTICIPITATION
FITNESS TRENDS
The most popular fitness activity was Walking for Fitness, with 114.8 million participants, though
it experienced a small decrease of 0.9% from the previous year. Despite this, it showed a 3%
increase in participation over the last three years. The second most popular activity, Treadmill
exercising, had around 53.6 million participants, which was largely stable from 2021, but showed
a decrease of 5.7% since 2019.
Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights) also experienced growth in 2022, with approximately
53.1 million participants. This represents a 1% increase from 2021 and a 3.3% increase over
three years. Meanwhile, Yoga and Pilates Training showed significant growth over the three
years with an increase of 10.4% and 11.6% respectively.
The most significant three-year decreases were observed in Cross-Training Style Workouts and
Group Stationary Cycling, with a decrease of 31.7% and 36.9% respectively. Despite some
decreases, many fitness activities maintained or increased their number of participants, indicating
an ongoing interest in physical fitness among Americans.
Figure 29: Top national fitness activities by participation
265
Figure 30: National fitness participation
266
TEAM SPORTS TRENDS
Basketball continued to lead in team sports participation with over 28.1 million participants,
marking a 3.7% increase from 2021 and an impressive 13% increase over the past three years.
Baseball and outdoor soccer followed, with approximately 15.5 million and 13 million
participants respectively. While baseball saw a slight decrease of 0.7% in the past year, and a
2.1% decrease over the past three years, outdoor soccer saw a healthy 3.7% increase from the
previous year and 9.3% over three years.
Among other notable sports, gymnastics exhibited the most substantial growth from 2021 to
2022, with a 7% increase in participants, bringing the total to approximately 4.6 million.
Conversely, rugby had the most significant drop with a 5.8% decrease from the previous year
and a steep 16.2% decrease over the last three years.
Overall, despite some declines, many team sports either sustained or increased their
participation numbers in 2022, underlining the continued popularity of these activities.
Figure 31: Top national team sport activities by participation
267
2019 2020 2021 2022 1-year
change
3-year
change
Basketball 24,917 27,753 27,135 28,149 3.7%13.0%
Baseball 15,804 15,731 15,587 15,478 -0.7%-2.1%
Soccer (Outdoor)11,913 12,444 12,556 13,018 3.7%9.3%
Football (Flag)6,783 7,001 6,889 7,104 3.1%4.7%
Volleyball (Court)6,487 5,410 5,849 6,092 4.2%-6.1%
Softball (Slow-Pitch)7,071 6,349 6,008 6,036 0.5%-14.6%
Soccer (Indoor)5,336 5,440 5,408 5,495 1.6%3.0%
Football (Touch)5,171 4,846 4,884 4,843 -0.8%-6.3%
Gymnastics 4,699 3,848 4,268 4,569 7.0%-2.8%
Volleyball (Beach/Sand)4,400 4,320 4,184 4,128 -1.3%-6.2%
Track and Field 4,139 3,636 3,587 3,690 2.9%-10.8%
Cheerleading 3,752 3,308 3,465 3,507 1.2%-6.5%
Swimming on a Team 2,822 2,615 2,824 2,904 2.9%2.9%
Volleyball (Grass)3,136 2,738 2,807 2,829 0.8%-9.8%
Paintball 2,881 2,781 2,562 2,592 1.2%-10.0%
Ice Hockey 2,357 2,270 2,306 2,278 -1.3%-3.4%
Softball (Fast-Pitch)2,242 1,811 2,088 2,146 2.8%-4.3%
Ultimate Frisbee 2,290 2,325 2,190 2,142 -2.2%-6.5%
Wrestling 1,944 1,931 1,937 2,036 5.1%4.7%
Lacrosse 2,115 1,884 1,892 1,875 -0.9%-11.4%
Roller Hockey 1,616 1,500 1,425 1,368 -4.0%-15.3%
Rugby 1,392 1,242 1,238 1,166 -5.8%-16.2%
Legend:Large Increase
(greater than
10%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 10%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -10%)
Large
Decrease
(less than -
10%)
TEAM SPORTS PARTICIPANTS
NOTE: Participation numbers are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Figure 32: National team sports participation
268
INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TRENDS
Individual sports activities demonstrated diverse trends in participation rates. Bowling remained
popular, with over 42.2 million participants, marking a 1.5% increase from the previous year.
However, golf, both on and off-course, stole the limelight with significant growth rates. On or
off-course golf combined experienced a substantial 9.7% increase from 2021, with over 41
million participants, underpinned by a massive 25.7% increase in off-course golf participation
(driving range, golf entertainment venue, indoor simulator) that skyrocketed to about 15.5 million
participants.
Skateboarding also showed strong growth, with a 3.1% increase from 2021 and a substantial
36.4% growth over three years, bringing its total to just over 9 million participants. Meanwhile,
trail running and ice skating saw considerable growth of 5.9% and 6.4% from 2021, respectively.
On the contrary, adventure racing experienced a decrease in participation, dropping by 6.1%
from 2021 and 20% over three years. Traditional road triathlons also suffered a decline, with an
11% decrease in participants over the past three years.
Figure 33: Top national individual activities by participation
269
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY TRENDS
Outdoor activities experienced a surge in participation. Hiking continued to lead with a 1.5%
yearly and a 19.9% three-year increase, with nearly 59.6 million participants. Bicycling on paved
surfaces and freshwater fishing also grew by 1.8% and 2.4% respectively. Camping saw a
considerable 4.0% annual growth, and birdwatching and saltwater fishing increased by 6.8% and
4.0% respectively.
Figure 34: National individual activity participation
Figure 35: Top national outdoor activities by participation
270
However, target shooting with handguns and rifles experienced a decrease, as did overnight
backpacking. BMX bicycling and sport/boulder climbing reported significant growth rates of
8.3% and 6.6% respectively, underscoring a strong interest in outdoor activities despite some
downturns.
Figure 36: National outdoor activity participation
271
RACQUET SPORT TRENDS
Racquet sports saw a continued upward trend in participation in 2022, with tennis at the
forefront, with around 23.6 million participants and marking a 4.3% increase from 2021. This
sport also witnessed a significant three-year growth rate of 33.4%.
An even more impressive growth rate was found in pickleball, which experienced an incredible
85.7% increase from 2021, and a stunning 158.6% increase over three years, reflecting its
rapidly growing popularity. Meanwhile, other sports like table tennis and badminton also
experienced growth in 2022, with 2.8% and 7.1% increases from the previous year respectively.
Racquetball and cardio tennis showed a similar positive trend with 8.0% and 7.8% growth rates
from 2021, respectively. Despite its lower participation numbers compared to other racquet
sports, squash saw a modest increase of 3.6% from 2021, showing signs of sustained interest.
Overall, the data suggests a robust growth in the popularity of racquet sports in 2022.
Figure 38: National racquet sport participation
Figure 37: Top national racquet sports by participation
272
WATER ACTIVITY TRENDS
In 2022, participation in water sports grew. Recreational kayaking was the favorite, drawing
13.56 million participants, up by 1.6% from 2021, and showing a significant three-year growth of
19.1%.
Popularity of canoeing and jet skiing also rose in 2022, attracting about 9.52 million and 5.44
million people respectively, increasing by 3.5% and 7.6% from 2021.
Surfing remained popular, showing a 6.6% increase from 2021 and a sizable 24.6% growth over
three years. Stand-up paddling and white-water kayaking saw smaller growth, with increases of
1.0% and 3.9% respectively from 2021.
The number of people sailing, rafting, and wakeboarding also rose in 2022, with rafting showing
a significant 6.3% growth. However, water skiing saw a slight dip of 0.6%. Scuba diving bounced
back from a decline with a 7.3% rise in 2022, despite a small overall three-year decrease of 2.1%.
Figure 39: Top national water activities by participation
Figure 40: National water activity participation
273
7.1.2 SUMMARY
• Group Fitness: Participation in group fitness-based activities continued to struggle but
showed some signs of recovery. Boot camp style training, cardio kickboxing, and
stationary cycling (group) all increased participation in 2022 but are still significantly
down from their 2019 numbers.
• Health Clubs: Health club-based activities continued to struggle. Elliptical motion/cross-
trainer, stair-climbing machine, stationary cycling (recumbent/upright), and weight
resistance machines all had participation decreases last year and are down over 10%
compared to 2019 numbers.
• Golf (on or off-course): Golf continues to maintain its momentum. Golf (on or off-course)
increased by 9.7 % last year and all forms of golf overall have grown over 20% since
2019.
• Outdoor Recreation: Camping, fishing, and bicycling activities recovered to 2020
participation levels after showing slight decreases in 2021.
• Personal Combat Sports: Personal combat sports had a good year. Martial Arts, boxing
for fitness, MMA for competition, MMA for fitness, and wrestling all posted participation
increases in 2022.
• Racquet Sports: For the first time since 2015, every racquet sport increased its total
participation number compared to the previous year.
o Pickleball continued to be the fastest-growing sport in America. Participation
almost doubled in 2022, increasing by 85.7% year-over-year and by an
astonishing 158.6% over three years.
o Tennis increased by 4.3% last year and has grown over 20% since 2019.
• Running and Hiking: For the fifth straight year, trail running and hiking (day) total
participation increased.
• Team Sports: Basketball, soccer (outdoor), football (flag), and football (tackle) all posted
positive three-year total participation increases of over 4.5%. Basketball had the highest
three-year increase of 13.0%.
• Yoga, Barre and Pilates: Barre and Pilates showed solid participation increases in 2022,
while yoga decreased for the first time in the last decade. All have three-year
participation increases with yoga and Pilates increasing over 10% in the last three years.
274
APPENDIX H – PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION
PRIORITY PROJECT LIST
Priority
1-10 Project Name Project Description Grants Grant
Status
City
District
Target
Age
Group
Adds
Revenue Project Site
1 Overdue Texonia Park
Updates
Upgrade existing facilities
including sidewalks.2 All NO Texonia Park
1 Small Splash Pad 1 Install small scale splash pad.2 0-12 NO Texonia Park
1 Small Splash Pad 2 Install small scale splash pad.2 0-12 NO Brookside Park
1 Texonia Park Stadium Install stadium at Texonia
Park.2 NO Texonia Park
1 Texonia Park Lighting Install new lighting for
basketball courts.2 NO Texonia Park
1 Texonia Community Garden Install new community garden
for park.2 YES Texonia Park
1 Pump Track Install new pump track in the
city.4 NO Sylvan Park
2 Caretaker House Fully rennovate caretaker
house and grounds.4 YES Sylvan Park
2 Fire Garden Regeneration
Updated ADA parking space
and sidewalk to enable
regeneration of the fire
garden.
5 NO Ford Park
3 Additional Basketball Court
at Community Center
Install additional basketball
court 2 NO Community Center
3 Complete Redlands Bluffs Plan and complete Redlands
Bluffs Trail 2, 3 NO Centennial Park
3 Ford Park Lighting Install new lighting at dog
park.5 NO Ford Park
3 Additional Pickle Ball Courts Install additional pickle ball
courts TBD NO TBD (suggestions inc. Jennie
Davis, Smiley, Sylvan).
4 Redlands Theatre Festival
Fence
City funded security fence for
Redlands Theatre Festival
stage at Prospect Park
5 NO Prospect Park
6 Overdue Smiley Park
Updates
Upgrade range of facilities
and amenities in Smiley Park.1 NO Smiley Park
6 Overdue Jennie Davis Park
Rennovation
Update upates to Jennie Davis
Park 1 NO Jennie Davis Park
6 Park Wifi
Extend city wi-fi network to
Ed Hales, Smiley Park, Jenny
Davis Park, and others.
All NO Multiple Parks
6 Smiley Park Benches Install additional benches at
Smiley Park 1 NO Smiley Park
6 Community Garden Install new community garden
site.1 YES Heritage Park
6 Ford Park Trees Install shade trees at dog park
and playground.5 All NO Ford Park
6 Full-Scale Aquatic Center Plan and install new aquatic
center TBD All YES TBD
6 Peforming Arts Center Plan and install new
performing arts center TBD YES TBD
Parks & Recreation Priority Project List - March 21, 2024