CPMS
Agenda Item C.2
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM
Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Jaime A. Valdez, Neighborhood Services Director
CONTACT: JoAnne Plummer, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Stow Grove Park Master Plan Project Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to move forward with the public process in the development of a Draft Master Plan for Stow Grove Park that may include elements wholly or partially in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and applicable buffers.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan), adopted in 2006, requires the preparation of a citywide Park Syste m Master Plan and individual Park Management Plans in Open Space Element Implementation Actions OS -IA-4 and OS-IA- 5 respectively. Since the General Plan adoption, the City is making progress on preparing and implementing these park plans. In 2015, the City ’s adopted Recreation Needs Assessment (RNA) identified a lack of available athletic fields for use by youth sports organizations. In January 2020, the City Council adopted the Parks, Facilities and Playgrounds Master Plan (PMP). The goal of the PMP’s work effort was to complete a comprehensive assessment of Goleta’s parks and playgrounds system, considering future growth in the community, and to guide maintenance, improvements, and related parks and playground development for the City of Goleta , consistent with the General Plan, over the next 10-20 years.
To address the athletic field deficiency and the condition of existing playing fields in the adopted RNA, two field renovation projects were identified and placed in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the City’s CIP Budget. Among these projects was the northern field at Stow Grove Park (CIP Project 9074) , a General Plan -designated Community Park (refer to General Plan subpolicy OS 6.6 Community Parks) . Initially, the project was limited in scope to t he field renovation at Stow Grove Park, to include new turf, irrigation, replacement and/or improvement of existing amenities, etc. These 1 Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
improvements would also trigger Americans with Disability Act (ADA)-compliant upgrades to the parking lot, the play fe atures and possibly the restroom facility, including the creation of accessible pathways from the parking lot to these amenities.
The community highly values this park for its active and passive recreation components, and staff was already looking at more than just a field renovation with the needed ADA improvements for access. As such, the public outreach efforts kicked off in October of 2020 with a community survey asking questions that were inclusive of the entire park, providing information and requesting feedback for possible additional improvements and future improvement phases. These results were shared with the Parks and Recreation Commission (March 3, 2021) as well as the City Council (April 6, 2021) , who both supported the recommendation t o develop a Master Plan Design for the entire Stow Grove Park . The Master Plan Design was intended to implement the vision of the Community Park designation, as detailed in the General Plan, while also reflecting community input regarding infrastructure improvements, and ADA.
On December 7, 2021, following a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a Professional Design Services Agreement with KTUA for outreach and design services for the creation of a Master Plan for Stow Grove Park (the Project) in an amount not to exceed $139,939. Since that time, KTUA has been working on site surveying, civil engineering, environmental/biological and tree assessments, and review of pertinent documents. KTUA also be gan preparing site mapping of potential additional feature opportunities, and site constraints, assets, and limitations/liabilities.
On Saturday, April 23, 2022, a public workshop was held at La Patera Elementary School, directly across from Stow Grove Park. At this meeting, attendees were asked to add to the KTUA -identified opportunities, constraints, assets, and limitations/liabilities within the park. Attendees were also asked to provide feedback on various amenities along the themes of nature/relaxat ion (passive recreation), social/educational, play/active recreation, general park improvements, and what areas of the park are these elements desired, if at all. The concepts that were presented to the public were those that were identified in the 2020 c ommunity survey. Following the public workshop, a second survey was released, which re ceived over 1,000 responses. The results were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission at its June 2022 meeting. During the presentation, Commission members asked for some of the survey data to be evaluated and extracted, to remove the data from those residing outside of the Goleta area. The overall results remained very similar, but there were two areas that had a minor shift in desire: the multipurpose field and the skatepark.
To date, the results from the public process have indicated that there is a strong desire to add a few new educational/recreational amenities, expand and/or improve the existing facilities and to maintain the mature trees, including the redwoods at the park. Even if no new facilities are built, existing infrastructure is old and in need of repair, reconfiguration, or replacement. Staff and the consultant have been moving forward in the planning process of the Draft Master Plan with this important community input, but 2 Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
the process is far from complete.
As the Project team evaluated the results from the workshop and the survey, questions were raised related to the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) in this park and how to accommodate the requests of the public for improvements to the park while respecting limitations on work in the ESHA and / or ESHA buffer, consistent with the requirements of the General Plan and Title 17 Zoning of the Goleta Municipal Code (GMC). In particular, staff desired more information to help policymakers determine to what degree the City should consider design elements partially or wholly in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and/or applicable buffers.
While t he initial biological report prepared by Rincon Consultants had confirmed the presence of biological resources, ESHAs, and ESHA buffers within the park, there were two areas of ESHA in which the Project team needed further information, thus requesting Rincon Consultants to provide a more detailed technical biological report with findings related to historic and current activity of the Western Monarch Butterfly and Raptors (Attachment 1). This technical report was specific to information associated with the Upland Woodlands/Savannahs ESHA (located in the middle of the park, within the redwood groves) as well as the Eucalyptus Woodland ESHA (along the western boundary of the park and referenced as Monarch Overwintering/Raptor Roosting). The purpose of focusing this t echnical report on these two specific areas was related to the buffers associated to these ESHA designations and their restrictions as referenced in the City’s General Plan (relevant sections provided in Attachment 2) and in the City’s ESHA regulations in Title 17 of the GMC.
Additional Background Information and Context: History and Existing Deed Restrictions
Stow Grove Park was developed when Edgar Stow first planted redwood trees for a beautiful, shaded picnic area to share with his family, friends, and neighbors. This space has remained a public picnic ground since 1920. In January of 1965, the Stow Company initially deeded an undivided 1/3 interest in the 11.1 acres now known as Stow Grove Park to the County of Santa Barbara. In February of 1967, the Stow Company deeded its remaining undivided interest in the 11.1 acres to the County of Santa Barbara.
The City of Goleta received this property interest upon incorporation in 2002. The Stow Company included several deed restrictions and stipulations i n the conveyance of the property to the County which dictate how the property is used. These are summarized as follows:
1. That the property be used solely and exclusively for the benefit of the public as and for a public park which shall be named and known as Stow Grove, for the recreation and pleasure of the public;
2. Use of the park shall not be permitted between the hours of 12 midnight and 6:00 a.m.;
3. The sale of food, drinks, novelties or any other goods or merchandise shall not be 3 Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
permitted upon the property excepting that single permits may be issued to non - profit organizations; and
4. No buildings other than small park maintenance buildings and caretaker’s cottage shall be erected, placed, or maintained upon the property.
5. The deed conveyances also established an easement for the benefit of the Stow Company that reserved the right to “ enter upon, survey, excavate for, construct, reconstruct, install, lay, re -lay, replace, maintain, operate, increase the size of, and remove a water pipe line or lines, together with all fixtures, devices and appurtenances used or useful in the operation of said pipe line or lines, and to remove objects interfering therewith, at any and all points within, through, over, and across those strips of land, being portions of the property herein conveyed, ten (10) feet in width and lying five (5) feet on each side of the center lines.”
The deed transfers further stipulated that a breach of any of the foregoing conditions shall cause the property to revert to the Stow Company or its successors or assigns.
Use of the property for active recreation and group picnicking by the public was memorialized in the conveyances of an ultimately undivided interest in the property to the County by the Stow Company in 1965 and 1967 (see Attachment 3). In speaking with members of the Stow Family, it was clearly the family’s intent to convey this as a recreation space for the public that contained, and could contain, a mixture of passive and active recreation uses.
In the 57 years since the deed conveyances, most of that time being under Santa Barbara County jurisdiction, the site park has undergone many changes. Some of these, such as the addition of a restrooms building by the County in the 1970s, went beyond the conditions allowed through the deed conveyances which limited the number of buildings in the park. Ideally, the deed restrictions will be amended in the future to recognize these changes. In addition, the Stow Family has an interest in modifying the existing easemen t reservation to facilitate construction of a new water line for the La Patera Ranch.
Depending on the outcome of the park master plan process for Stow Grove Park, there may be other changes that would also require approval by the Stow Company and a change in the deed conveyance conditions. One of the features frequently requested by the public during public workshops and through the public input surveys is a second restroom building to be placed in the southern portion of the site. This would not be allowed under the current deed restrictions and would require a revision to the deed .
Should the Project contemplate, as has been suggested, additional or expanded use of the caretaker’s cottage to include a community space in addition to a defined residential space to be occupied by a park ranger assigned to Stow Grove Park or some other type of live-in, onsite caretaker, this would also require revision to the deed conditions.
City staff will continue to work with the Stow Family as the master plan process moves forward and will ultimately seek to negotiate revised deed conditions as necessary to 4 Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
allow for existing and potentially new or different uses, and as requested by the S tow Family to facilitate construction of a new water line for La Patera Ranch.
DISCUSSION:
City Council direction at the meeting of April 6, 2021, was to develop a Master Plan Design for Stow Grove Park consistent with the General Plan Open Space Element ’s Implementation Action OS -IA-5 Preparation of Individual Park Development and/or Management Plans. Similar to the Parks, Facilities and Playgrounds Master Plan for the entire City, park-specific master plans are intended to be used to determine resource development, expansion, maintenance, operation, and/or capital improvements and as a basis for pursuing funding opportunities for individual parks.
Moving beyond a simple field renovation with ADA improvements at Stow Grove Park has generated a higher level of complexity in reviewing potential park improvements in light of various General Plan policies and zoning regulations given the existence of two ESHAs within the park’s boundaries. These factors must also be considered against the historical background of the park’s development as a recreational asset for the community, including site improvements made over 100 years ago by members of the Stow Family, such as the installation of various types of landscaping and tree plantings and group picnic areas for the benefit of the community. As such, before moving forward with an additional public process, staff wanted to return to Council to assess its comfort level with public discussion, and poss ible eventually incorporation into the Master Plan, of elements wholly or partially in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and applicable buffers
Stow Grove Park has designated ESHAs in two areas, however these areas and protective buffers already contain existing amenities, including three group picnic areas, horseshoe pits, softball or multi-use turf field, volleyball courts, restrooms, parking lot and walking/biking trails. Repair and maintenance of existing facilities in ESHA and ESHA buffers is allowed under Chapter 17.30 of the GMC. The City’s General Plan and effectuating zoning regulations also allow for certain work within ESHA, with specific restrictions, such as general maintenance, trails and education (i.e., bird watching stations, ADA pathways, interpretative trials, etc.). New development, however, would be subject to several policies and regulations.
If approved by Council, Park design in ESHA or ESHA buffer could still be General Plan and zoning-compliant if significant impacts are avoided or mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Conservation Element sub policy CE 1.6(d) states that Public Works projects identified in the CIP may be allowed, only where there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives. As mentioned earlier in this section of the report, Chapter 17.53.020(X)(1) of the GMC only exempts City Projects, including CIPs, from Zoning Permits and discretionary approvals if located outside of ESHA. As such, a permit (Development Plan) and discret ionary review would be necessitated if new development is proposed in ESHA and it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives.
5 Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
Given the unique nature of this Community Park, the history of its development, its humanmade creation (as opposed to undeveloped native habitat/open space ) and considerable existing recreation amenities, as well being identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, potential new development in the ESHA and/or ESHA buffers, may be allowed under Conservation Element sub policy CE 1.6(d) and Chapter 17.53.020(X)(1) of the GMC. This would allow for consideration of additional amenities that may be desired by the Goleta community and park users. Alternatives and related analysis would need to be conducted to ensure that there would be no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative.
Additional Biological Studies
The technical report from Rincon Consultants (Attachment 1) provides a description of the ESHA areas, the potential for use by the associated species, as well as a historical analysis of use. The report is quite detailed and informative as it relates to use of the park by nesting raptors and the Western Monarch Butterfly. The biological description of the Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove references conditions in portions of this area that are optimal for raptor nesting, however there are no historic nests recorded at this location within Stow Grove Park. In addition, the evaluation of the same area for the Western Monarch Butterfly indicated that the conditions of the Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove are not good for overwintering habitat but do provide potentially suitable transitory habitat.
The second area at Stow Grove Park evaluated for the Western Monarch Butterfly was the mapped native upland woodlands/savannahs ESHA. This is the large, wooded area of Stow Grove Park, which has the three-group picnic area, pathways, the restroom, and horseshoes currently. Other recreation features are not within the ESHA but are associated with the existing buffers. A portion of this area does extend into the existing playground area as well as the volleyball court a smaller group picnic area. The biological conditions of this area do provide conditions consistent for monarch butt erfly overwintering.
The report provided by Rincon Consultants did state:
“…no monarchs were observed during surveys for the habitat assessment in December 2019 and January 2020. In addition, no roosting monarchs have been observed recently in the Stow Grove overwintering site #2762 during the Xerces Thanksgiving Counts since 2017, when only four monarchs were recorded (Xerces 2022). Three monarchs were recorded previously at the site during the 2016 and 2015 Thanksgiving Counts. Prior to 2015 the Xerces Thanksgiving Count did not include Stow Grove Park. No roosting monarchs were observed at the site during the most recent 2021 Thanksgiving Count.
In comparison, the 2021 Thanksgiving Count at the Ellwood Main site (Xerces #2751) was 3,874 monarchs. It is important to note that the Ellwood Main count in 2021 was still far below counts observed prior to 2013. Overall monarch count for Goleta sites in 2021 was also well below counts prior to 2017, which was the year when monarch numbers in Goleta were 6 Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
approximately the same as 2021.”
In relation to the upland wooded area, the report states:
“…no monarchs were observed during surveys for the habitat assessment and no roosting monarchs have been observed at the site during the Xerces Thanksgiving Counts since 2017. No roosting monarchs were observed at the site in most recent 2021 Thanksgiving Count when the overwintering population was relatively high, but still far below historical numbers. Prior to 2015 the Xerces Society Thanksgiving count did not vis it or report monarch numbers at Stow Grove Park. The County wide count conducted in 1998 recorded 100 monarchs in aggregation on redwood trees at Stow Grove Park (Meade 1999, Meade et al. 2017).”
This information may be useful for considered by Council in authorizing staff to move forward with the public process that may consider elements wholly or partially in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and applicable buffers.
Survey Results and Potential Improvements
The public outreach process thus far ha s provided valuable input and in particular, a strong desire to maintain the current atmosphere of the park, while providing necessary upgrades with consideration of additional opportunities. The survey results presented at the June Parks and Recreation Co mmission meeting included some of those additional recreation opportunity potentials as follows: fitness nodes, a bike pump track, a pickleball court, dog park, ropes course, climbing wall, community garden and a variety of educational opportunities. These results are simply the “brainstorming” responses from the initial public outreach efforts, placed on paper with the next steps allowing the public the opportunity to confirm and/or deny the desire to retain some of these items as the process continue s towards a final draft design. It should be noted that t he public responses also expressed a potential desire to include a skatepark in this park location, but the Project team has confirmed that a skatepark that would meet the community’s current needs would not be compatible in this location, nor would it fit without significant impact to the other active/passive recreation uses currently in this park. While this recreation feature will not be included in the recommendations moving forward, Staff will continue to explore other spaces in Goleta for that desired amenity.
Based on the results from the public thus far, potential new development could include one or more of the proposed additional recreation amenities, as well as the development of an additional restroom near the existing playground. The park’s existing infrastructure is also in dire need of updating or upgrading . Examples of these potential areas of improvement include: the parking lot, the picnic areas, the caretaker house, and current maintenance yard. The parking lot needs to be modified to address ADA, circulation, drainage, and appropriate location of a trash enclosure.
An example of where work may need to be accomplished within ESHA boundaries and buffers would be any work completed outside of the existing footprint of the parking lot, 7 Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
which would be necessary for some of the proposed modifications and would be considered new development. While the picnic areas can be maintained, any addition of a shade structure or potential expansion would be considered new development. Lastly, there has been discussion to look at the caretaker house as a potential mixed use to accommodate a community space. If thi s desire was included in the final draft plan, the reconfiguration of this space to meet a public need and potentially future caretaker use, would also be considered new development.
The Project team has evaluated the current proposed changes for conside ration and the potential impacts to ESHA, and it is anticipated that indirect impacts are primarily associated with construction activity during nesting periods, which can be managed with restrictions on construction timing. There would be no anticipated direct or indirect long- term impacts to the designated ESHA boundaries and/or buffers. Potential changes for consideration in ESHA boundaries or buffers, if in the final draft plan, would need a development plan with stated mitigations and to be granted an exemption, where appropriate, by City Council.
Parks and Recreation Commission
On September 28, 2022, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a special meeting to discuss the Project. The Commission received a report presented by Staff and representatives from the Project consultant team at KTUA. The Project team reviewed the findings from the survey results, with a focus on the data by Goleta area residents , as requested by the Commission , eliminating those with zip codes in surroundi ng areas.
The adjustment to the data was minimal, slightly shifting some of the priorities for consideration.
The Commission ultimately supported the recommendation to continue to move the Project through the public participation phase with a 3 -2 vote, with one adjustment to the recommended next steps. The motion requested the consultant replace draft alternative A, one of the proposed draft plans , in exchange for an alternative that shows minimal changes and minimal impacts to ESHA only . The replacement of one design for an alternative with the minimal options was an effort to remain within the original 3- alternative scope of work for the consultant team. The two dissenting Commissioners were in support of the Project moving forward and having a minim al alternative as a fourth option but were not in support of the motion to replace an existing alternative with a minimal alternative. One Commissioner opined that the public should have the opportunity to weigh into the original draft plans as presented . Staff subsequently reviewed its contract and authorized the consultant to utilize project contingency funds to add a fourth minimal alternative to the proposed draft plans to be used during the next phase of the public process. Staff believe s that th is inclusion of all four options is consistent with the wishes and intent of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Next Steps
Staff anticipates holding a workshop either later in November or early in December at 8 Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
which time the four draft preliminary plans (including the minimal plan recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission) will be presented to the public for input. Staff will also release a third public survey at that time to gather input fr om members of the community who might be unable to att end the workshop, and to provide an additional opportunity to provide more detailed comments. The findings from the workshop and survey will be consolidated and at least two draft plans will be presented at a workshop of the Parks and Recreation Commissio n, likely to take place in January of 2023 or early February of 2023 . This workshop will allow the Commission and the public another opportunity to provide input towards the final recommended draft plan.
City staff will then complete any necessary environ mental reviews and return to City Council with a Development Plan request, if necessary, in addition to seeking approval of the draft plan and Council direction to move forward with construction documents for one or more phases of the Project.
Staff is not recommending any changes to the existing ESHA layers, nor their buffers.
Staff is also not recommending that Council approve an y specific design. Rather, Staff recommends allowing the public the opportunity to communicate what they would like the Stow Grove Master Plan to include and not to include , including possible elements wholly or partially in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and applicable b uffers.
Any proposal for specific new development within ESHA would still need approval fr om Council to move forward. In addition, a Development Plan would be required to construct any new development within the ESHA layers and/or buffers and that plan would include mitigations. Council will have the opportunity to require specific mitigations for each case (parking lot, shade structure, etc.) of new development. An example would be to conduct biological surveys for the presence of overwintering monarchs and active nesting birds as well as arborist consultation as needed during the construction phase of the Project, and/or the additional planting of native plants. It is understood that there will be noise and other impacts during construction, but these will be mitigated as much as reasonably possible during the development of the construction documents.
If approved by Council, Staff will direct KTUA to continue the public process, utilizing the three options that provide infill opportunity and the one option with minimal improvements, to be used towards the development of a draft master plan for improved, new, expanded and/or renovated active and passive recreational park amenities.
GOLETA STRATEGIC PLAN:
City-Wide Strategy: 2. Support Community Vitality and Enhanced Recreational Opportunities
Strategic Goal: 2. Support programs that enhance quality of life in the Goleta community such as recreation, public safety, human services, and cultural arts
9 Meeting Date: November 1, 2022
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There are no additional funds requested for this phase of the Project, as current allocations are adequate for the design and preliminary environmental needs.
Stow Grove Park (CIP 9074) FY 2021/2022
Fund
Type
Account Description Existing
Budget
Project to Date
Actuals
Total
Remaining
Budget
PARK
DIF
221-90-
9074-57070
Design $190,000 $70,379 $119,621
PARK
DIF
221-90-
9074-57071
Construction $760,000 0 $760,000
TOTAL $950,000 $70,379 $879,621
ALTERNATIVES:
If the Project is restricted to the current footprint of existing amenities, Staff will direct KTUA to utilize the information provided by the public thus far and develop one conceptual plan to address only the existing deficiencies (ADA, pathways, minor aging infrastructure) and new amenities outside of ESHA and ESHA buffers.
Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:
___________________ ___________________ _________________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Robert Nisbet
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Rincon Consultants Technical Reports
2. General Plan Policies and Zoning Regulations Relevant to Stow Grove Park
3. Stow Grove Park Deeds of Gift Recorded March 4, 1965, and February 9, 1967
4. Presentation of Stow Grove Park Project Update
10 Attachment 1
Rincon Consultants Technical Report
11 Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2 0 9 E a s t V i c t o r i a S t r e e t
San ta Ba rba ra , Ca lifo rnia 93101
805 3 1 9 4 0 9 2
i n f o @ r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s September 22, 2022
Project No: 21-11897
JoAnne Plummer, Parks & Recreation Manager
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Stow Grove Park Project, Monarch and Raptor Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) Assessment
580 North La Patera Lane, City of Goleta, California 93117 Dear Ms. Plummer:
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared this Monarch and Raptor Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) assessment for the Stow Grove Park Renovation Project (project). The purpose of this report is to assess the habitat suitability and current conditions of the City of Goleta (City) designated monarch butterfly aggregation site ESHA and monarch butterfly and/or raptor roosting habitat ESHA within Stow Grove Park.
Background
As summarized in Rincon’s Baseline Environmental Resources Memorandum (Rincon 2022), the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/LUP) – Conservation Element (CE) designates monarch butterfly aggregation site ESHA in the central portion of the park. Rincon assumes that the designated monarch aggregation site ESHA is associated with the boundary of the native upland woodlands/savannahs ESHA depicted in CE Figure 4-1 because it correlates exactly with mapping of that area by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces) as western monarch overwintering site #2762 (Xerces 2022).
Please note that Xerces is currently in the process of redefining aggregation site core and buffer areas, as such their mapped areas may change. The native upland woodlands/savannahs ESHA contains “Landscaped Redwood Forest and Woodland” and “Landscaped Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest” vegetation communities (Rincon 2022). Attachment A includes a map prepared by KTUA Planning and Landscape Architecture of the vegetation communities (based on data collected for Rincon’s Baseline Environmental Resources Memorandum) and city-mapped ESHA boundaries within the park.
The CE also designates monarch butterfly and/or raptor roosting habitat ESHA on the western boundary of the park; vegetation in this area has been mapped as “Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove” (Attachment A).
Methodology
On September 14, 2022, Rincon Biologist Kaitlyn Weaver conducted a monarch butterfly habitat assessment within the monarch butterfly and/or raptor roosting habitat and monarch butterfly aggregation site (associated with the native upland woodlands/savannahs) ESHAs within Stow Grove 12 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Project
Park. The biologist documented the current condition of the ESHAs and presence of habitat features for overwintering habitat as described in the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Assessment section below.
The biologist also conducted an assessment of historic raptor nest sites within the monarch butterfly and/or raptor roosting habitat ESHA. Prior to the site visit, the biologist conducted a desktop review to locate historical raptor nests and roosts within the park, including a review of the following databases:
The Cornell Lab of Ornithology eBird project (eBird 2022), Santa Barbara Audubon Breeding Bird Study (Santa Barbara Audubon Society 2022), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2022). The Rincon biologist then confirmed whether any historic nests remained present on site. A Geode global positioning system (GPS) capable of submeter accuracy was used to record the location of historic raptor nests.
Representative site photos were taken of all ESHA habitat. Photos, environmental descriptions, and this letter were reviewed by Daniel E. Meade, Ph.D., Principal Scientist at Althouse and Meade, Inc. and monarch butterfly specialist.
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Assessment
The methodology for determining the habitat type for each monarch ESHA area is described below and utilizes habitat features observed in the field.
Habitat Types and Features
Overwintering monarch butterflies in California have a narrow range of microclimate and habitat structure requirements for suitable habitat (Xerces 2017, Bell et al. 1993, Weiss et al. 1991). These parameters include protection from winds and stormy weather, absence of freezing temperatures, exposure to solar radiation, and amelioration of temperature and humidity extremes. The availability of these conditions governs where monarchs choose to roost across the landscape.
Monarch habitat includes two types based on the monarch’s length of stay at the habitat: overwintering and transitory habitats. Overwintering habitat will sustain roosting monarch butterflies for the duration of the overwintering period, from October through February or March. Transitory habitat holds monarch butterflies in the beginning of the overwintering season, but the monarchs abandon the site by December or early January. Transitory sites generally offer less protection to monarchs and the butterflies leave these sites for more suitable overwintering sites during the season as winter storms hit the region.
Four habitat features are typically characteristic of suitable overwintering habitat for monarch butterflies, as described in the Conservation and Management Guidelines for Preserving the Monarch Butterfly Migration and Monarch Overwintering Habitat in California (Bell et al. 1993).
1. Structure and the arrangement of a grove of trees. The trees need to be tall enough to provide adequate wind protection for roosting monarchs. Trees in overwintering groves are typically 40 feet in height or taller. Generally, there is adequate wind protection when the trees are close (less than 10-15 feet apart), have overlapping upper and lower canopies, and the outside horizon is not visible through the trees in three of the four cardinal directions from the center of the grove.
2. Open interior. An open interior with a cathedral-like space surrounded by overhanging canopy in the center of a protective grove of trees (Pelton et al 2016). This open interior space is well protected from wind and weather. Often this open interior is over a drainage or creek. 13 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Project
3. Presence of branches that extend into the open center or open area of the grove of trees.
These are the branches that the monarchs form their clusters on during the overwintering season. These branches are at varying heights allowing monarchs to move up or down with different temperatures and wind conditions.
4. Understory vegetation, water and nectar. Understory vegetation provides substrate for monarchs to climb on and can prevent drowning after being blown to the ground in a storm.
Sources of water, and nectar from winter-flowering plants, supply moisture and nutrients to overwintering monarchs and support their longevity at the site and dispersal success.
The dominant tree species in monarch aggregation sites in Santa Barbara County include the non-native blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), and red iron bark (Eucalyptus sideloxyron). Some sites in Santa Barbara County comprise only trees native to California but not the County, including Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Even fewer sites comprise only trees native to Santa Barbara County, such as California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), red willow (Salix laevigata), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) (Meade, et al. 2017).
Coastal habitats with tall trees and dense foliage but lacking a key feature as described above, for example widely spaced with an open understory, may be transitory habitat. A monarch may rest in these habitats for a short period while transiting to more protected overwintering habitat in the vicinity.
Habitats that fit the description of monarch overwintering habitat described above are potentially suitable habitat. The presence of roosting monarch butterflies during the overwintering season confirms habitat to be suitable. When no monarchs are observed during monarch surveys in the overwintering season their absence may be due to low population of monarchs in California. Even suitable suites may be unoccupied in some years and use of the site depends on factors such as changes in climate or overall migrating butterfly abundance.
Results
The two monarch butterfly ESHAs mapped on site were categorized by habitat type as summarized below.
Monarch Butterfly Roosting Habitat ESHA
The mapped monarch butterfly and/or raptor roosting habitat ESHA is located within a Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove vegetation community (Attachment A). It is comprised of a windrow/linear stand of river red gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) trees between the western perimeter of the park and the paved La Patera Lane. Individual trees are growing in a planted row on average 5 to 10 feet away from one another, and most of the mature trees are over forty feet in height.
In the southern half of the windrow, south of Caroldale Lane, overall tree health is good, and upper canopies are dense and overlapping. There is, however, sparse or no lower canopy foliage and minimal shrub layer beneath the trees. Coast live oak trees and open, developed park lawn are present to the west of the eucalyptus grove; and a paved road and single-story buildings are present to the east.
In the northern half of the stand, overall tree health is fair to poor (all the trees are exhibiting leaf dieback and sparse canopies). The shrub layer is mostly contiguous, but there is sparse to no lower 14 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Project
canopy foliage. Developed parking lots and single-story buildings are present to the east, and a paved road and single-story buildings are present to the west.
The entirety of the eucalyptus windrow has sparse wind protection for overwintering monarchs. The windrow also lacks an open interior, branches extending into an open interior, and understory vegetation and sources nectar. The redwood trees approximately 90 feet to the east are currently being irrigated by the City which provides a water source for monarchs.
A previous City-wide habitat assessment categorized Stow Grove Park as having both monarch butterfly overwintering habitat (likely referring to the redwood/oak woodlands in the monarch aggregation site ESHA) and transitory habitat (likely referring to the eucalyptus windrow in the monarch butterfly roosting ESHA) present (Rincon 2020). However, no monarchs were observed during surveys for the habitat assessment in December 2019 and January 2020. In addition, no roosting monarchs have been observed recently in the Stow Grove overwintering site #2762 during the Xerces Thanksgiving Counts since 2017, when only four monarchs were recorded (Xerces 2022). Three monarchs were recorded previously at the site during the 2016 and 2015 Thanksgiving Counts. Prior to 2015 the Xerces Thanksgiving Count did not include Stow Grove Park. No roosting monarchs were observed at the site during the most recent 2021 Thanksgiving Count.
In comparison, the 2021 Thanksgiving Count at the Ellwood Main site (Xerces #2751) was 3,874 monarchs. It is important to note that the Ellwood Main count in 2021 was still far below counts observed prior to 2013. Overall monarch count for Goleta sites in 2021 was also well below counts prior to 2017, which was the year when monarch numbers in Goleta were approximately the same as 2021.
The eucalyptus windrow does not provide good overwintering habitat but does provide potentially suitable transitory habitat.
Monarch Aggregation Site ESHA
The monarch aggregation site ESHA is mapped as a point representing a general area rather than a clearly defined polygon in the Conservation Element. This ESHA is assumed to be associated with the mapped native upland woodlands/savannahs ESHA, which contains “Landscaped Redwood Forest and Woodland” and “Landscaped Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest” vegetation communities (Attachment A). Specifically, this area comprises two disconnected coast redwood woodlands in the central portion of the park, surrounded by coast live oak woodlands. Coast redwoods can provide excellent wind shelter at monarch sites, while coast live oaks typically are not used as cluster trees but can provide important low to mid-level windbreaks (Xerces 2017).
The northern redwood/coast live oak woodland, herein referred to as the northern section, is larger.
The redwoods in the middle are dense, over 40 feet tall, and generally spaced 5 to 15 feet apart, while the redwoods and coast live oaks towards the outer edge range from 30 to 60 feet tall and are sporadically spaced anywhere from 5 to 50 feet apart. Redwood tree health varies in this area, with some trees being in good health with minimal leaf dieback and dense foliage and others that are nearly bare and have stunted lateral branch growth. Most of the redwood do not have overlapping canopies, however the outside horizon is generally not visible in three of the four cardinal directions from the center of the woodland. The coast live oak trees are generally healthy and have dense overlapping canopies. In 2021, the City removed about 40 redwood trees from the Park mostly in this northern portion, that had declined in health or died. The center/opening of the woodland is a developed area with several picnic tables, surrounded by redwoods to the east, north, and west; and sycamores and coast live oaks to the south. California sycamore trees have also been documented as cluster trees for 15 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Project
monarchs (Xerces 2017). The center lacks branches that extend into the opening of the woodland. The woodland is surrounded primarily by coast live oak woodlands and an ornamental myoporum trees to the west, coast live oak woodlands and residential homes to the east, and coast live oak woodland and open developed park areas to the north and south.
The southern redwood/coast live oak woodland, herein referred to as the southern section, is smaller.
The trees are generally over 40 feet in height, densely clustered in small groups, and the upper canopies are connected, but there is minimal lower canopy connectivity. Most of the redwoods are spaced 5 to 15 feet apart, while a few are spaced 20 to 30 feet apart. Like the northern section, redwood tree health varies significantly; some have lost most of their canopy, while others are in good condition with dense foliage. This woodland is more age diverse, and the southwestern edge is comprised almost entirely of smaller immature redwood trees. There is no opening or clear center of the woodland. The surrounding coast live oak trees have dense overlapping canopies, range from 30 to 60 feet in height, and are generally spaced 5 to 50 feet apart. The woodland is surrounded by landscaped non-native woodland (including shrubs and canary island pine trees and single-story structures to the west), oak woodlands to the south, and residential neighborhoods to the east.
The redwood trees present within this ESHA area provide dense substrate for monarch butterfly overwintering (roosting, basking and aggregation) in mild fall and winter conditions, while the coast live oak trees provide additional wind protection. There is no drainage in this area, but the redwood trees are currently being irrigated by the City which provides a water source. There is little to no shrub or understory vegetation layer within the landscaped woodlands. The eucalyptus windrow with potentially suitable transitory habitat is located approximately 90 feet west of the woodland.
As previously stated, no monarchs were observed during surveys for the habitat assessment and no roosting monarchs have been observed at the site during the Xerces Thanksgiving Counts since 2017. No roosting monarchs were observed at the site in most recent 2021 Thanksgiving Count when the overwintering population was relatively high, but still far below historical numbers. Prior to 2015 the Xerces Society Thanksgiving count did not visit or report monarch numbers at Stow Grove Park. The County wide count conducted in 1998 recorded 100 monarchs in aggregation on redwood trees at Stow Grove Park (Meade 1999, Meade et al. 2017).
Raptor Roosting Habitat ESHA
The raptor roosting habitat ESHA is located within a Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove vegetation community (Attachment A). It is comprised of a windrow/linear stand of river red gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) trees between the western perimeter of the park and the paved La Patera Lane. Most of the mature trees reach over 40 feet in height and provide potentially suitable nesting and roosting habitat for raptors. Common raptors to the Goleta area that have been observed (non- breeding) in the Stow Grove Park area include red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). No historic raptor roosts or nests have been documented in this area, and no raptor roosts or nests were observed during the survey.
Conclusion
The monarch butterfly and/or raptor roosting habitat ESHA designated on the western boundary of the park provides potentially suitable transitory habitat for monarch butterflies and nesting/roosting habitat 16 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Project
for raptors. The monarch aggregation site ESHA designated in the center of the park provides potentially suitable monarch overwintering habitat.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Yuling Huo, ISA Certified Biologist Christopher Julian Biologist / Project Manager Principal / Regulatory Specialist
Attachment A Baseline Environmental Resources Map
17 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Project
References
Bell, E., L.P. Brower, W.H. Calvert, J. Dayton, D. Frey, K. Leong, D. Murphy, R.M. Pyle, W. Sakai, K.B.
Snow, and S. Weiss. 1993. The Monarch Project’s conservation and management guidelines for preserving the monarch butterfly migration and monarch overwintering habitat in California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database BIOS 6 Viewer. Available online at: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?bookmark=327. Accessed September 2022.
City of Goleta (City). 2006. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. September 2006. Available:
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/city-hall/planning-and-environmental-review/general-plan eBird. 2022. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance (web application). eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available online at: http://www.ebird.org.
Accessed September 2022.
Leong, K. L. H., W. Sakai, W. Bremer, D. Feuerstein, G. Yoshimura. 2014. Analysis of the Pattern of Distribution and Abundance of Monarch Overwintering Sites along the California Coastline. The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation. Edited by Karen S. Oberhauser and Michelle J.
Solensky.
Meade, D. E. 1999. Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in Santa Barbara County. Report for the County of Santa Barbara. Althouse and Meade, Inc. 114 pp.
Meade, Daniel E., Jessica Griffiths, Charis van der Heide, Francis Villablanca. 2017. Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites, Santa Barbara County. Althouse and Meade, Inc., Paso Robles, California.
Pelton, E., S. Jepsen, C. Schultz, C. Fallon, and S.H. Black. 2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. 40+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. (Available online at www.xerces.org).
Rincon Consultants, Inc (Rincon). 2020. Monarch Habitat Assessment on City Owned Parcels. _____. 2022. Baseline Environmental Survey Memorandum.
Santa Barbara Audubon Society. 2022. Santa Barbara County Breeding Bird Study. https://santabarbaraaudubon.org/santa-barbara-county-breeding-bird-study. Accessed September 2022.
Weiss, Stuart B., Paul M. Rich, Dennis D. Murphy, William H. Calvert, and Paul R. Ehrlich. 1991. Forest Canopy Structure at Overwintering Monarch Butterfly Sites: Measurements with Hemispherical Photography. Conservation biology. Volume 5, No. 2. June 1991.
Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces). 2017. Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves:
Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat. Available online at:
https://xerces.org/publications/guidelines/protecting-californias-butterfly-groves. _____. 2022. Western Monarch Count. https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/find-an-overwintering- site-near-you. Accessed September 2022.
18 LANDSCAPED CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE - COAST LIVE
OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
LEGEND
LANDSCAPED CANARY ISLAND PINE STAND
LANDSCAPED COAST LIVE OAK WOODLAND
AND FOREST
LANDSCAPED EUCALYTPUS GROVE
LANDSCAPED ISLAND LIVE OAK WOODLAND
LANDSCAPED MYOPORUM GROVES
LANDSCAPED NON-NATIVE WOODLAND
LANDSCAPED REDWOOD FORESTS AND
WOODLANDS
LANDSCAPED TREE OF HEAVEN GROVES
ESHA AREAS
N SCALE: 1" = 60'
0 30 60 120
STOW GROVE PARK
BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MAP
NOTE: AREAS NOT DESIGNATED ARE DEVELOPED PARK LAND
19 Attachment 2
General Plan Policies and Zoning Regulations Relevant to Stow Grove Park 20 General Plan Policies and Zoning Regulations Relevant to Stow Grove Park Figure 2 -1 L
and Use Map designates Stow Grove Park as “Open Space / Active Recreation” (as opposed to “Open Space / Passive Recreation”). Open Space / Active Recreation is further defined below:
LU 6.3 O
pen Space/Active Recreation. This designation is intended to identify existing or planned areas for public parks and active recreational activities and facilities, such as playgrounds, picnic areas, tennis courts, ballparks, and sports fields.
This use category is also intended to apply to significant private outdoor recreational facilities, such as golf courses and privately owned parks. Individual recreational areas may include a mix of passive and active recreational features or improvements.
Appropriate caretaker facilities and residences may also be allowed if consistent with the character of the planned uses. The designation may also include storm drainage facilities.
Table 3-1 o
f the Open Space Element designates Stow Grove Park as a Community Park.
An Excerpt of Table 3- 1 is shown below followed by a detailed definition of Community Parks under Policy OS 6.6, and Design and Management of Public Parks and Open Space under Policy OS 6.10.
Open S
pace Element, Table 3-1 Existing and Planned Parks and Open Space Areas Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Map#1 Name Park Type Acres Description
077-160-009 13 Stow
Grove
Park
Community
Park
11.10 0.45-acre lawn; soccer field; ball
diamond, volleyball courts;
horseshoe pits; swing sets;
reservation group BBQ areas;
children’s picnic tables; redwood
groves
OS 6.
6 Community Parks. Community parks include developed areas suited for intense active recreational activities, large natural areas suited for passive outdoor recreation, or a combination of both. These parks may contain special amenities, facilities, or features that attract people from throughout the surrounding community. The following standards apply to community parks:
a. The ty
pical service area radius shall be 1 to 2 miles.
b. The ty
pical size shall be 10 or more acres.
c. Communi
ty parks should be easily accessible from the surrounding neighborhoods and by automobile from more distant neighborhoods. Since these facilities are intended to serve areas beyond their immediate neighborhoods, onsite parking and restroom facilities may be provided.
1 21
d. Multiple facilities for various types of users are typically provided in community parks, including both active and passive recreational facilities. Active facilities may include a range of formal and informal athletic fields (i.e., the play areas are less developed and generally not designed to support competitive play), tennis courts, play areas, developed picnic areas, and meeting and gathering spaces. Passive facilities may include areas for rest and relaxation with a mix of bot h improved areas (lawns and informal play areas) and unimproved natural areas.
OS 6.10 D
esign and Management of Public Parks and Open Space. The following are among the criteria that shall apply to the design and management of public parks and open space areas (please refer to OS 6.10 for the complete list):
c. The t
ypes of improvements and facilities at each site should be based on the recreation and leisure needs of the targeted user groups and the physical opportunities and constraints of the site.
g. Adequate of
f-street parking to serve the intended uses shall be provided in order to minimize the burden placed on onstreet parking in the neighborhood.
In addit
ion to the Open Space Element’s designation of Stow Grove Park as a Community Park, Figure 3- 5 designates Stow Grove Park as “Active Park” and also shows an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) designation overlay on two are as of the park. Pursuant to the Open Space Element, all ESHAs are protected open space and shall be managed by the City in accord with the policies described in the Conservation Element.
The object
ive of Policy CE 1: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Designations and Policy is to identify, preserve, and protect the city’s natural heritage by preventing disturbance of ESHAs. ESHAs include any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and that could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments, and those habitat types of limited distribution recognized to be of particular habitat value, including wetlands, riparian vegetation, eucalyptus groves associated with monarch butterfly roosts, oak woodlands, and savannas.
Figure 4-1 (
Special-Status Species and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas) of the Conservation Element designates areas of Stow Grove Park ESHA for Monarch Butterfly and/or Raptor Roosting Habitat (windrow of eucalyptus along east side of N. La Patera Lane), and Native Upland Woodlands/Savannah (snow cone- shaped area described above). The following policies from the Conservation Element are not all inclusive but are demonstrative of the primary development standards within and adjacent to ESHAs. Please refer to the Conservation Element of the General Plan for a comprehensive listing and analysis.
Conser
vation Element Policy CE 1.6 (Protection of ESHAs) states that “ESHAs shall be protected against significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses or 2 22
development dependent on and compatible with maintaining such resources shall be allowed within ESHAs or their buffers.” Pursuant to CE 1.6, the following standards shall apply:
a. No developm
ent, except as otherwise allowed by this element, shall be allowed within ESHAs and/or ESHA buffers.
b. A setbac
k or buffer separating all permitted development from an adjacent ESHA shall be required and shall have a minimum width as set forth in subsequent policies of this element. The purpose of such setbacks shall be to prevent any degradation of the ecological functions provided by the habitat area. c. Public
accessways and trails are considered resource- dependent uses and may be located within or adjacent to ESHAs. These uses shall be sited to avoid or minimize impacts on the resource to the maximum extent feasible. Measures — such as signage, placement of boardwalks, and limited fencing or other barriers— shall be implemented as necessary to protect ESHAs.
d. The foll
owing uses and development may be allowed in ESHAs or ESHA buffers only where there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives and will be subject to requirements for mitigation measures to avoid or lessen impacts to the maximum extent feasible: 1) public road crossings, 2) utility lines, 3) resource restoration and enhancement projects, 4) nature education, 5) biological research, and 6) Public Works projects as identified in the Capital Improvement Plan, only where there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives.
CE 1.
7 Mitigation of Impacts to EHSAs. New development shall be sited and designed to avoid impacts to ESHAs. If there is no feasible alternative that can eliminate all impacts, then the alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant impacts shall be selected. Any impacts that cannot be avoided shall be fully mitigated, with priority given to onsite mitigation. Offsite mitigation measures shall only be approved when it is not feasible to fully mitigate impacts on site. All mitigation sites shall be monitored for a minimum period of 5 years following completion, with changes made as necessary based on annual monitoring reports.
CE 1.8
ESHA Buffers. Development adjacent to an ESHA shall minimize impacts to habitat values or sensitive species to the maximum extent feasible. Native vegetation shall be provided in buffer areas to serve as transitional habitat. All buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the ESHA they are designed to protect.
CE 4.5 B
uffers Adjacent to Monarch Butterfly ESHAs. A buffer of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the monarch butterfly habitat, including aggregation sites and the surrounding grove of trees, shall be required. Buffers shall not be less than 100 feet around existing and historic roost sites as measured from the outer 3 23
extent of the tree canopy. The buffer area shall serve as transitional habitat with native vegetation and shall provide physical barriers to human intrusion. The buffer may be reduced to 50 feet in circumstances where the trees contribute to the habitat but are not considered likely to function as an aggregation site, such as along narrow windrows.
Grading and other activities that could alter the surface hydrology that sustains the groves of trees are prohibited within or adjacent to the buffer area.
CE 8.4 B
uffer Areas for Raptor Species. Development shall be designed to provide a 100-foot buffer aro und active and historical nest sites for protected species of raptors when feasible. In existing developed areas, the width of the buffer may be reduced to correspond to the actual width of the buffer for adjacent development. If the biological study described in CE 8.3 determines that an active raptor nest site exists on the subject property, whenever feasible no vegetation clearing, grading, construction, or other development activity shall be allowed within a 300- foot radius of the nest site during the nesting and fledging season.
Chapt
er 17.30 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas) of the Goleta Municipal Code is intended to implement the General Plan policies relating to ESHAs. Section
17.30.040 (Development and Mitigation of Impacts) states in part that no new development is allowed within an ESHA or ESHA buffer, except for new Capital Improvement Program projects, public accessways and trails, habitat restoration and enhancement projects , and nature education and research activities. Furthermore, it states that:
New devel
opment must minimize impacts to habitat values or sensitive species to the maximum extent feasible. Native vegetation must be provided in buffer areas to serve as transitional habitat. All ESHA buffers must be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the ESHA they are designed to protect.
New devel
opment must be sited and designed to avoid impacts to ESHAs. If there is no feasible alternative that can eliminate all impacts, then the alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant impacts must be selected. Any impacts that cannot be avoided must be fully mitigated, with priority given to on- site mitigation.
17.30.1 80 Protection of Monarch Butterfly ESHA:
C. Required ESHA Buffer. A buffer of a sufficient size is required to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the monarch butterfly ESHA, including aggregation sites and surrounding grove of trees.
1. Buffers shall not be less than 100 feet around existing and historic aggregation and roost sites, as measured from the outer extent of the tree canopy. The required buffer area must include native vegetation and provide physical barriers to human intrusion.
4 24
2. The required buffer may be reduced to 50 feet only in circumstances where the trees contribute to the habitat but are not considered likely to function as an aggregation site, such as along narrow windrows.
17.30.1 90 Protection of Other Areas Designated as Sensitive Habitat:
C. Buffer Areas for Raptor Species. Active and historical raptor nests are to be protected.
1. New devel
opment must be designed to provide a 100-foot buffer around active and historical nesting sites for protected species of raptors when feasible.
2. If
a biological study determines that an active raptor nest exists on a development site, no vegetation clearing, grading, construction, or other development activity is permitted within a 300 feet of the nest site during the nesting and fledging season to the extent feasible.
5 25
Attachment 3
Stow Grove Park Deeds of Gift 1965 & 1967
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 Attachment 4
Presentation of Stow Grove Park Project Update
35 Stow Grove
Park Master
Plan Design
Update
November 1, 2022
6:00 p.m. - Virtual
36 Agenda
• Intro
• Project Updates
• ESHA Findings
• Workshop #1 Survey Results
• Conceptual Alternatives
• Next Steps
37 Project
Background
& Timeline
38 Project Updates
• First w orkshop occurred on April 23rd, public survey was distributed to the public after the workshop
• Received o ver 1,000 surveys
• Baseline e nvironmental report discovered findings of ESHA and provided maps for site
• Property D eed stipulates public recreational uses
39 November (Date TBD) - Workshop #2
January (Date TBD) – Workshop #3 with the Parks and
Recreation Commission
February 2023 – Final Presentation of Draft Master Plan March 2023 – Final Approval of Master Plan
Project Timeline
40 Workshop #1
Activities & Summary
Presented at Parks &
Recreation
Commission Meeting
in June 2022
41 ESHA Research
42 Rincon’s Baseline Environmental Survey Findings*
• Site c ontains “Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove” vegetation community, as a monarch butterfly and raptor roosting ESHA.
• Site als o contains “Landscaped Redwood Forest and Woodland” as a monarch aggregation ESHA (City 2009).
• Despite min imal to no recent historical sightings of monarch roosts during the annual counts, these areas are still defined and protected as ESHA. • ESHA P olicies found in the City’s General Plan Conservation Element and Zoning Code.
*Findings were consistent with City of Goleta General Plan ESHA map 2009 43 100’ Buffer
50’ Reduced Buffer
- ESHA AREAS ONLY
44 - HABITAT AREAS ONLY
45 100’ Buffer
50’ Reduced Buffer
- ESHA and Habitats
46 Additional Biological Studies
• Rincon c ompleted a technical report at the request of the project team to analyze the park for Monarchs aggregation sites and historic Raptor nesting. • The t eam consulted with Dan Meade for the Monarch aggregation findings. • The e valuation for the Western Monarch Butterfly indicated that the conditions of the Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove are not good overwintering habitat but do provide potentially suitable transitory habitat.
• The s econd area at Stow Grove Park evaluated for the Western Monarch Butterfly was the mapped native upland woodlands/savannahs ESHA. The biological conditions of this area do provide conditions consistent for monarch butterfly overwintering. • The r eport also stated that “No monarchs were observed during surveys for the habitat assessment in December 2019 and January 2020. In addition, no roosting monarchs have been observed recently in the Stow Grove overwintering site #2762 during the Xerces Thanksgiving Counts since 2017, when only four monarchs were recorded.” 47 Workshop #1
Survey Results
48 Top Occurences Count Percent
93117 595 60%
93111 126 13%
93110 54 5%
93101 48 5%
93105 41 4%
93109 29 3%
93103 18 2%
93013 11 1%
Other/error (10 or less) 66 7%
Goleta 721 73%
Outside of Goleta 267 27%
Total 988
• At the request of
t
he Commission
from the June
meeting, the
project team took
a deeper dive to
analyze the data
to explore if there
were responses
outside of the City
limits.
Survey Deeper Dive
49 Fitness Equipment
14.03%
14.14%
31.36%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%
Area F
Area A
Do not want
Top 3 Areas
Area F Area A Do not want
/ 32.33%
/ 14.35%
/ 14.20%
**
* Indicates Potential ESHA Impact
50 Pickleball
11.44%
14.50%
47.41%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Area F
Area E
Do not want
Top 3 Areas
Area F Area E Do not want
/ 49.51%
/ 10.13%
/ 14.87%
*
* Indicates Potential ESHA Impact
51 All Abilities Playground
10.55%
13.43%
49.64%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
Area C
Do not want
Area B
Top 3 Areas
Area C Do not want Area B
/ 54.14%
/ 11.59%
/ 9.60%
*
*
* Indicates Potential ESHA Impact
52 Community Garden
15.56%
17.61% 37.15%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Area C
Area A
Do not want
Top 3 Areas
Area C Area A Do not want
/ 40.89%/ 16.23%
/ 16.72%
53 Small Stage
10.68%
13.68%
50.61%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
Area C
Area B
Do not want
Top 3 Areas
Area C Area B Do not want
/ 52.50%
/ 12.67%
/ 10.67%
54 Dog Park
14.29%
23.20%
44.81%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Area C
Area A
Do not want
Top 3 Areas
Area C Area A Do not want
/ 47.74%
/ 20.94%
/ 13.74%
*
* Indicates Potential ESHA Impact
*
55 Pump Track
45.22%
54.78%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
Do not want
Area D
Top 3 Areas
Do not want Area D
/ 54.09%
/ 45.91%
* Indicates Potential ESHA Impact
*
56 Basketball Court
19.78%
29.12%
43.12%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Area A
Area E
Do not want
Top 3 Areas
Area A Area E Do not want
* Indicates Potential ESHA Impact
*
/ 47.21%
/ 25.72%
/ 18.44%
57 Renovate existing
Soccer Field
45.92%
54.08%
40.00% 42.00% 44.00% 46.00% 48.00% 50.00% 52.00% 54.00% 56.00% Area D
Do not want
Top 3 Areas
Area D Do not want
/ 53.40%
/ 46.60%
* Indicates Potential ESHA Impact
*
58 Renovate existing
Baseball In-Field / Field
25.95%
74.05%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% Area D
Do not want
Top 3 Areas
Area D Do not want
/ 29.39%
/ 70.61%
* Indicates Potential ESHA Impact
*
59 Suggested Design
Elements,
Alternative
Design Diagrams,
and Next Steps
60 Suggested Design Elements
• KTUA te am took the elements from the first workshop and began thinking about how these would best fit within the park and the appropriate locations.
• Started to e xplore and consider the various general park improvements that are needed to help maintain the current park level of service and to accommodate some of the potential amenities.
• Looked at o ther passive and educational amenities that could fit within the site.
• Developed d raft alternative diagrams for discussion and consensus on direction of final alternative plans for workshop #2.
61 Categorized the Suggested Design Activities/Amenities Nature Based
and Passive
Activities
Social,
Educational, and
Cultural/Historic
al Activities
Play, Active, and
Skill
Development,
Activities
General Park Improvements
62 General Park Improvements
- Parking Lot Area
Improved Parking Lot
• Fix c irculation throughout parking lot
• Repaving t he parking lot
• Enhancing t he drainage and stormwater
aspects (currently drains into the existing
playground)
• Include a n ew trash enclosure for
existing trash bins
Add ADA Parking
• Bring p arking lot up to latest ADA
requirements
• Add A DA stalls and access into the park
63 Upgrade Current Restroom
• Bring t he current restroom up to
latest ADA code requirements
• Enhance t he exterior of the
restroom, the building systems,
and approach /access
Potentially Add a New Restroom
• Consider ad ding a new restroom
near southern playground area
General Park Improvements
- Restroom Facilities
64 Upgrade Existing Caretaker Facility
• Consider p otential mixed use of building
and enhancements to the exterior,
landscape, back yard, garage, and
perimeter depending on determined use.
Maintenance Facility
• Consider r elocating entrance into
maintenance facility to La Patera Ln.
• General f acility upgrades to the
structure, grounds, fencing, and access.
General Park Improvements
- Caretaker and Maintenance Facilities
65 Enhance Existing Redwood Groves
• General m aintenance to the existing redwood
groves, understory, fencing and access.
Enhance Existing Walking Trails & Entrances
• Add a ccessible paths throughout park (likely
DG materials with some concrete paths).
• Increase c onnectivity into park from Stow
Canyon Rd access point.
• Consider ad ditional signage and placemaking
monuments at entry points throughout park.
• Smooth an d maintain existing trails and add
additional seating, trash/recycling receptacles.
General Park Improvements
- Enhance Redwood Groves, Walking Trails & Entrances
66 Upgrade Existing Picnic Areas
• Replace d amaged or broken tables
• Repair e xisting shade structure
• Potentially ad d shade structure to larger
group picnic areas due to recent loss of
mature trees
• Replace d amaged litter and recycling
receptacles
• Maintain an d smooth existing surface
conditions
• Fix an d maintain existing BBQ equipment
• Add an d enhance existing signage and
monumentation for picnic area identification
• Help d efine picnic area spaces
General Park Improvements
- Upgrade Existing Picnic Areas
67 Nature / Passive Amenities,
such as:
68 Nature / Passive Amenities,
such as:
69 Social / Educational
Amenities, such as:
70 Social / Educational
Amenities, such as:
71 Play / Active
Amenities, such as:
72 Play / Active
Amenities, such as:
73 Play / Active
Amenities, such as:
74 Play / Active
Amenities, such as:
75 Alternative A
“NATURE
FOCUS”
Alternative C
“LEARN
FOCUS”
Alternative D
“PLAY
FOCUS”
Each alternative to include general park improvements
Alternative B
“RELAX
FOCUS”
76 General Park Improvements
77 Nature / Passive Amenities
78 Social / Educational Amenities
79 Play / Active Amenities
80 Summary of Amenities
81 alt.
A
82 alt.
B
83 alt.
C
84 alt.
D
85 Next Steps
• KTUA t eam to continue work on workshop materials
• Workshop #2 t entatively scheduled in November (TBD)
• Short s urvey to follow the next workshop which will go out digitally to public
• A h ybrid / final conceptual layout will be developed for presentation and review at a future Parks and Recreation Commission workshop
86