2. Today’s Agenda
5/25/16 2
• Introductions
• Recap of Community Advisory Group process and outcome
• Review Preferred Windjammer Park Integration Plan
• Review costs and phasing for Preferred Plan
• Review potential City Council action
4. Community Advisory Group Purpose / Charter
4
• Offer meaningful community input on:
• Prioritize and define program elements to be included in the
WPIP
• Location and layout of selected program elements in
Windjammer Park, which will inform final design, and
• Phasing of the WPIP
5/25/16
5. 5
Decembe
r 2015
Januar
y 2016
February
2016
March
2016
April
2016
May/
June
2016
Council and CAG Process
• Provide
feedback on 3
concept
alternatives
• Present WPIP
concept to
community
• Gather community
feedback (Public
Open House and
Online Open
House)
• Review preferred
plan to be
presented to City
Council
• Provide final
feedback
• CAG forms
• CAG provides
feedback on
design
guidelines
• Introduce CAG
and WPIP to
community
• Gather
community
feedback (Public
Open House)
COUNCIL
• Programming
priorities
• Approves CAG
COUNCIL
Report:
Alternatives and
Public feedback
COUNCIL
Approves plan
COUNCIL
CAG formation update
and initial priorities list/
design guidelines
5/25/16
6. Community Advisory Group Process Feedback
5/25/16 6
• The group supports the recommended plan, because the process
has been inclusive, the design team listened to their input, and
the plan incorporates that feedback.
• The community engagement process has built momentum for the
plan, and should be continued as phases or specific park
elements are contemplated for implementation. Community
engagement and transparent reporting on park progress has a strong
potential to support turning the vision into reality.
16. 165/25/16
Park Total cost / acre Funding sources
AM Kennedy Park
Beaverton, OR
2 Acres - $141,200/acre THPRD Bond Measure
Engelman Park
Wilsonville, OR
1 Acre - #350,000/acre City General Fund, OR State Park Local Park
Grant
Hood River Waterfront Park
Hood River, OR
6 Acres - $420,000/acre City General Fund
The Dalles Festival Park
Portland, OR
4 Acres - $450,000/acre ARRA Funding
Khunamokwst Park
Portland, OR
4 Acres - $450,000/acre City General Fund
Westmoreland Park
Portland, OR
.6 Acres - $1,000,000/acre City General Fund, Metro Nature in
Neighborhood Grant
Milwaukie Riverfront Park
Milwaukie, OR
8.5 Acres - $1,060,000/acre OR Parks Fund Local Grant, OR Marine Board
Tanner Springs Park
Portland, OR
1 Acre - $2,500,000/acre Portland Development Commission, Tanner
Springs Development Community, Private
investments
Average Cost / Acre: $640,000/acre
27. 275/5/16
Windjammer Park Potential Funding Sources
Phase Grants and Potentially Appropriated City Funding Potential Funding Sources
1 CWF Project Costs
1B Grants and Funding
• City General Fund
• Park Impact Fees
• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks,
picnic shelters, play areas, restrooms)
• WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements)
2
TBD
Based on Funding and available opportunities
• WRSCO - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (Parking lots and entry drives)
• WRSCO - Land and Water Conservation Fund (Parking)
• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks,
amphitheater/stage)
3
TBD
Based on Funding and available opportunities
• WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements)
• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks,
hardcourts, picnic shelters, play areas, playing fields, restrooms)
4
TBD
Based on Funding and available opportunities
• WRSCO - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (Lagoon Renovation,
waterfront parks, waterfront boardwalks)
• WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements)
• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks,
picnic shelters, play areas, playing fields, restrooms)
5
TBD
Based on Funding and available opportunities
• WSRCO- Youth Athletic Fields Grant (Relocation of ball fields)
• WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements)
• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks,
picnic shelters, play areas, playing fields, restrooms)
28. Potential City
Funding, where
appropriate
Collaboration with
local groups
Other Potential Grant Resources for
Parks and Recreation Other Ideas
General Fund Arts Commission Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation Fundraising
City 2% Lodging Tax Knights of Columbus Wells Fargo Corporate Giving Grants Brick Sales
.09 Rural County
Economic
Development
Seattle Fund Community Garden and Craft Shows
Real Estate Tax Safeco Community Grants
Park Impact Fees
LL Bean Construction and Recreation
Grants
Home Depot Community Impact Grants
American Express Grant Program
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
HUD Community Development Grant
Program
285/25/16
32. Overall Community Feedback
5/25/16 32
• Windjammer is a resource and asset for the City; it should be welcoming for locals and visitors.
• Elements that should be ‘a given’ in any future park: canopies, existing wetlands, kayak campsite,
kitchens, parking, restrooms, site furnishings and the iconic windmill.
• Family-friendly elements and activities should be prioritized, especially installation of a
new splash park. In addition, renovation of existing lagoon, event plaza, stage/ amphitheater and
waterfront trail have high priority for a future park.
• Flexibility of spaces is important.
• Removal of the existing RV park is preferred over renovating it to current standards.
• Consider park neighbors in final design.
• Views of the water from the park are important both for casual users, and formal events.
• Removal of the current, formal ball fields can allow for other activities within Windjammer
Park. This removal should occur if and when there is another in-city venue sited for these fields.
Today I’m going to walk through the public process the team used, which influenced the design you’ll see today. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to facilitate the Community Advisory Group, and saw many of you at least one of their meetings.
Erin– Introduce purpose of the CAG
First, the CAG was a diverse group of 17 community members from around Oak Harbor. Their areas of interest and expertise ranged from a landscape architect, to park neighbors, to event planners, to little league representative, to parks commission, arts commission reps, and to business owners and citizens at large.
They accepted the charge to focus their work on:
Prioritize what should be in the park, and help hone that list to the highest priority elements and lowest.
Provide input toward the layout and adjacency of those park elements
Offer perspectives on the phasing of the plan
Their feedback is incorporated in what you see today.
ERIN – Here’s how the CAG process operated. Since January, they held five meetings, and two of those meetings were combined CAG meetings and public meetings, so that the broader community could be engaged. The public also had opportunity to participate in an online open house that was open for two weeks highlighting the draft plan. Planning and parks commissions also received ongoing updates. In total, we estimate over 500 people engaged in some way with this park plan as it is shown today.
At the final CAG meeting in May, Community Advisory Group
- Reviewed updated draft Plan
- Provided their recommendations on the updated Plan
Their feedback overall to you was:
They support the recommended plan, because the process has been inclusive, the design team listened to their input in an iterative fashion, and the plan incorporates that feedback. [I will add, that they recognize that not everyone gets everything they want, but that this plan serves the most existing and future residents and visitors to Windjammer Park]
They also reflected that the community engagement process has built momentum for the plan, and should be continued as phases or elements for specific park elements are contemplated.
[Ultimately, they would hate for this momentum to be lost, and therefore encourage Council to continue to work to make the vision a reality. Some offered to be resources moving forward for implementation and additional efforts. They saw the process of community engagement as transparent and logical, and the City should continue to transparently report how progress is being made on the plan.]
Based on the feedback received from the CAG and community through the open house and online open house, the design team has prepared an updated preferred concept
The team has focused on updating the preferred concept to address:
Based on the feedback received from the CAG and community through the open house and online open house, the design team has prepared an updated preferred concept
The team has focused on updating the preferred concept to address:
Family-friendly elements and activities should be prioritized, especially supporting splash park.
Observations that there are a lot of different elements in the park plan.
Concern about effect on Waterside Condos (due to new activities or driveway/ parking).
Varied opinions on the inclusion of dunes as part of walking path, potentially needing additional information/clarity of design.
CAG generally agrees with removing/relocating RV Park and ballfields, if other locations can be found. Public opinion varies.
Consensus that the waterfront is a resource and asset.
[Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
[Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
[Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
[Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
[Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
Based on the feedback received from the CAG and community through the open house and online open house, the design team has prepared an updated preferred concept
The team has focused on updating the preferred concept to address:
Family-friendly elements and activities should be prioritized, especially supporting splash park.
Observations that there are a lot of different elements in the park plan.
Concern about effect on Waterside Condos (due to new activities or driveway/ parking).
Varied opinions on the inclusion of dunes as part of walking path, potentially needing additional information/clarity of design.
CAG generally agrees with removing/relocating RV Park and ballfields, if other locations can be found. Public opinion varies.
Consensus that the waterfront is a resource and asset.
[Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
[Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
[Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
[Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
Based on the feedback received from the CAG and community through the open house and online open house, the design team has prepared an updated preferred concept
The team has focused on updating the preferred concept to address:
Family-friendly elements and activities should be prioritized, especially supporting splash park.
Observations that there are a lot of different elements in the park plan.
Concern about effect on Waterside Condos (due to new activities or driveway/ parking).
Varied opinions on the inclusion of dunes as part of walking path, potentially needing additional information/clarity of design.
CAG generally agrees with removing/relocating RV Park and ballfields, if other locations can be found. Public opinion varies.
Consensus that the waterfront is a resource and asset.
