|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Facilities - Natural Resources - Plans & Projects - Camille Park Master Plan | ||||||
|
|
|
Planning Process
Overview Of Workshops And Presentations Because Camille Park is a well established and much used park, acquiring input from its users and nearby residents was crucial to the development of a master plan. Public input was sought through a combination of mailers, surveys, Public Notices in newspapers, flyers, and via the THPRD website. 
An initial Patron survey was sent out to 400 Patrons near the park.
The survey was also publicized in the park and THPRD facilities, as
well as through the media and local Neighborhood Action
Committees. Patrons had the option of filling out the survey on-line or
on paper. Fifty-six complete surveys were received as well as a
number of individual comments. An initial Public Meeting was held to
solicit further discussion on the survey results and park. These
comments were used to create several options for further Patron
comments.Three options were developed and additional comments were sought via a mailing of 800 postcards to addresses throughout the park's service area. In addition, posters and comment forms were displayed at the three nearest THPRD recreation centers, similar materials were posted on the THPRD internet site, and a Public Meeting was conducted to decide which option to develop into a final plan. Public presentations and THPRD Board of Directors presentations were held to discuss the plan as follows: Scoping Public Meeting - 7/26/2006 Concept Public Meeting - 9/7/2006 Final public open house - 11/2/2006 Board of Directors presentation & approval - 3/2007 Development Of Options The initial survey responses showed high rankings for the walking path and trees as Patron's favorite amenities, followed by the play structure. Patrons expressed a strong appreciation for the quiet, shaded aspects of the park. A vast majority of respondents ranked Camille as a high or medium value natural resource area and many comments indicated a desire to see an enhancement and/or expansion of the park's natural area. A number of comments also supported basketball or tennis facilities in the Park. Based on Patron input, existing THPRD plans, and staff input, three options were developed for further study. The options represent a continuum from maintaining the park in its current state to shifting the management to emphasize its natural resources. Option I: Base Case This option suggested an increase in maintenance and basic site improvements (ADA access, playground upgrade, tree pruning work) but did not significantly change the activities or nature of the park. It suggested the construction of a simple loop trail to improve site access and "walkability" of the site. Option II: Moderate Natural Resource-Focused Improvements 
Option II retained the elements of Option I, but also sought to
establish a meadow landscape in some of the current mowed
wetland areas. It also suggested reconfiguring the play and picnic
areas for lesser-environmental impact and increased educational
opportunities, as well as installing a covered picnic structure. This
option would incorporate sustainable "green" building materials in
future enhancements.Option III: A Nature Place The goal of Option III was to create a nature-focused park with a strong educational component to inform park Patrons about the natural resources and ecologies of the site/area. This plan incorporates the elements of Options I and II, but calls for the removal of the basketball court. It places a higher emphasis on fostering new natural areas, and enhancing the existing camas preserve and Oregon oak population. It would also introduce park wayfinding and interpretive signage, a "nature walk" segment with interpretive graphics, and a nature themed playground and exploratory area. Conclusions Twenty-eight final comments about the options were received. Patrons preferred option III (A Nature Place) by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 (see Chart 1). Option three was further developed and presented at a Public Meeting with three Patrons attending. Patrons liked the plan and no suggestions or changes were made. |
|||
