CPMS
Agenda Item C.2
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM
Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Jaime A. Valdez, Neighborhood Services Director
CONTACT: JoAnne Plummer, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Stow Grove Park Draft Master Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an update and presentation on the Stow Grove Park Draft Master Plan and provide feedback to be incorporated for the final draft.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan), adopted in 2006, requires the preparation of a citywide Park System 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 comm unity, 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 sub policy OS 6.6 Community Parks). Initially, the project was limited in scope to the field renovation at Stow Grove Park, to include new turf, irrigation, replacement and/or improvement of existing amenities, etc.
These improvements would also trigger Americans with Disability Act (ADA)-compliant upgrades to the parking lot, the play features and possibly the restroom facility, including the creation of accessible pathways from the parking lot to these amenities. 1 Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
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) and both supported the recommendation to 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.
City Council direction at its 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.
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, a planning and landscape architect firm, 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. The scope of work for KTUA included site surveying, civil engineering evaluation, environmental/biological and tree a ssessments, review of pertinent documents, site mapping, public outreach process, and development of a final draft plan that considers the current site constraints, assets and limitations/liabilities. A steering committee was formed to work with the KTUA consultant team, which included staff associated with Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission (Richard Jenkins), a member of the Stow Family (Zach Rissel) and a member of the Audubon Society, who is also the current Chair of the Public Tree Advisory Committee (Jessie Alstatt).
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/relaxation (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 community survey. Following the public workshop, a second survey was released, which received over 1,000 responses.
The results were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) at its June 2022 meeting. During the presentation, Commission members asked for some of the survey data to be evaluated a nd extracted, to remove the data from those 2 Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
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.
As the Project team evaluated the results from the first 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 ESHAs and/or applicable buffers.
While the 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. Staff requested that Rincon Consultants provide a more detailed technical biological report with findings related to historic and current activity of the Western Monarch Butterfly and Raptors. 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 technical 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 and in the City’s ESHA regulations in Title 17 of the GMC.
On November 1, 2022, staff returned to City Council for direction related to the continuation of the public process and design due to potential impacts to the ESHA and/or its buffers. Council provided direction to continue the public process for the development of a draft master plan for improved, new, expanded and/or renovated active and passive recreational park amenities.
On December 3, 202 2, a second public workshop was held at La Pate ra School with nearly 70 participants. To accommodate those unable to participate in person, a follow- up survey was released with nearly 500 responses. While the comments still indicated a strong desire to keep the improvements to a minimum, responses di d provide some mixed comments for some potential new and/or improved features.
The Parks and Recreation Commission held a workshop on January 25, 2023 to serve as a third and final public workshop for this project. It was during this workshop that the Commission reviewed the findings from the second workshop, the survey results and the final draft plan. The results of the workshop and survey had clear indications on most items to be a high priority for consideration or a low priority not to be included in the design; however, there were a variety of elements that had moderate support or conflicting response. The Commission took each of the moderate support or conflicting support elements, discussed and voted on them individually for inclusion in for the final draft design.
3 Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
The overall results from the public process have indicated the 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 or amenities were included , existing infrastructure is old and in need of repair, reconfiguration, or replacement.
DISCUSSION:
Workshop Results
The process for the first workshop, held in June of 2022, was shared a t the City Council meeting of November 1, 2022. The information below highlights the project progress from the second and final workshop s, and includes information on the actions of the Commission.
As mentioned previously in this report, the second workshop had approximately 70 people in attendance and the follow-up survey had nearly 500 responses. During the workshop, there was some confusion as to how participants could use their stickers to show support or dislike for specific amenities and how t o vote on which alternative design should be considered as the overall baseline to be used in the final design, resulting in low numbers in some of the voting areas. In the survey, respondents were not required to answer every question, therefore the number of respondents on the questions are not consistent.
This workshop included an opportunity for participants to tour the park with a project team member to discuss some of the items that were presented at the workshop.
KTUA utilized the information from the second workshop to develop a draft final design for consideration by the Commission and the public. The design includes many of the elements that had strong support, eliminated elements that had low support and the remaining areas were discussed at a workshop held by the Commission. There were a few elements, where results were either in conflict with itself or conflicting with available spaces.
Commissioners received a presentation on the workshop and survey results, were presented a final draft of the plan and were asked to provide guidance on conflicting elements. The Commission voted on the following:
North Vignette Area: A small bike pump track or an exploratory/nature-based area.
The vote supported an exploratory/ nature-based area, but co mments from the Commission throughout the meeting requested staff to not include a bike pump track and to continue searching for an appropriate park location for a future bike pump track. This area will include natural looking boulders, balance logs, and other exploratory/nature play elements.
South Vignette Area: An all abilities/inclusive playground with new boundaries or update existing playground with new surfacing and equipment. The Commission supported a Universal Playground that would expand the existing footprint, combining the existing playgrounds to create a playground space, inclusive of all 4 Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
abilities.
Refurbish Maintenance Facility: The Commission supported the need to refurbish the maintenance facility. This not only reconfigures the existing maintenance area, but also adds a secondary entrance for service vehicles only. This new entrance access from La Patera Lane will eliminate one tree and may impact the root systems of two younger trees but provides a safer alternative for park maintenance vehicles.
Upgrade Existing Park Entrances: While the Commission supported the need to upgrade the existing park entrances, they did request that these entrances remain as natural as possible.
Inclusion of a Trash Enclosure : As the Commission voted to support the maintenance yard reconfiguration, this item will be moved into the maintenance yard and is no longer being considered as a structure in or near the parking lot. Family Activity Area between Picnic Areas 2 and 3: This item was presented to the Commission as a defined area that could accommodate bounce houses and/or possibly concrete corn hole or ping pong tables. The Commission supported the defined space for bounce houses, but did not support the idea of fixed structures in the space.
Channel Islands/Cultural Plaza : The Commission supported this element to celebrate the plantings of the Channel Islands/Cultural Plaza on the south section of the park with interpretive signage and elements.
Entrance Junction/Plaza amenity: The Commission was asked to consider either an entrance junction of a plaza amenity as a place where all paths intersect and could provide signage, seating, decorative paving, etc. The Commission voted against a plaza amenity and supported the smaller option of an entrance junction that included boulders, an intersection of the pathways throughout the park and small directional signs (not a kiosk or vertical structure as proposed in the plaza amenity).
Entry Promenade: As the driveway between the parking lot and t he playground will no longer be needed with the new entrance the maintenance yard, the Commission was asked to support an entry promenade. This area will include decorative permeable paving and a bioswale to assist with the retention of storm water on the parcel.
Sand Volleyball Court (relocation/reduction) : Currently there are two sand volleyball courts and the Commission was asked to consider the reduction of the two existing courts to one court. In addition to the reduction in size, the court would also be placed a little further north and the area will be enhanced. The Commission supported this adjustment to the sand volleyball courts. 5 Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
A new restroom in the center of the park, near the playground. Currently there is a porta potty located at this location to serve park users in this area of the park.
The intent of the additional restroom is to serve park visitors on the southside of the facility and to provide a family restroom and/or gender -neutral facility.
Although not on the list of items to be voted on, at the workshop, the Commission Chair requested that the Commission vote on whether to include the second restroom, and the request received a second from the Vice Chair . The Commission members had a lengthy discussion on this topic and the f inal vote supported the additional restroom with a 5-1 vote.
Draft Master Plan
The draft master plan (Attachment 1) utilized the Nature Focused alternative as the base and includes 25 total amenities, of which nine are general park improvements, seven are relaxation/nature based, five are social/educational and four are play/ active. The elements voted on by the Commission are included in this draft. In addition to the items already mentioned, the draft master plan includes the following:
Alterations to the existing parking lot to address the safety and traffic circulation in the area. The large trash bins being relocated to the service yard has allowed for the opportunity to add a pass through on the north end of the parking lot, improving the flow of vehicles while remaining within the existing footprint of the lot. Refurbishment of the existing restroom and pathways to the latest ADA code requirements. This facility is located in the northern section of the park and is heavily utilized.
Refurbish the existing Picnic Areas . This includes the need to replace/repair existing shade structure, tables, BBQ pits, and trash/recycle receptacles . In addition, the addition of a new shade structure to one of the larger picnic area due to a recent loss of mature trees that provided natural shade , enhance existing signage and defining the spaces of each picnic area.
Improvement of the Horseshoe area. This consists of enhancing the existing area and including new backboards, curbing/edging, and dirt. Consideration of seating around the area for players/spectators. These improvements may exceed the existing footprint of the existing horseshoe area.
Interpretive/Bird Watching Trails will be included throughout the existing trails for education, bird watching, refuge and seating. The design also includes misters/fogging devices to provide moisture to the redwoods in a higher zone than standard irrigation.
Botanical/Native Garden will be included in the design and at the recommendation 6 Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
of the projects steering committee members, will be incorporated into the existing redwood groves within the understory that will work symbiotically with this habitat.
Caretaker Cottage considered as a shared use for a community benefit. The condition of the caretaker cottage needs to be addressed before there is a consideration of residency, but the public has requested the facility have a shared use to accommodate a community benefit as a classroom, education or nature center. The area could also include entry enhancements such as decorative permeable paving and a small bioswale to assist with stormwater considerations.
If this community use is supported by the Council, staff will continue to work with the Stow Family for suppo rt of this type of use as the deed restricts the structure as a caretaker cottage.
A Butterfly/Pollinator Garden at the southern area of the site. This would include educational signs indicating the importance of pollinators in our environment and a small seating area for reading/relaxing/outdoor gathering.
Native Tree Grove on the north/east area of the park that would include a small trail, highlighting the importance of native trees and their understory plantings.
Interpretive signs and elements will include information on the native flora and fauna of the region.
A walking/running path has been designed to stretch from the north side of the park to the south. This pathway will include a hard surface, areas for refuge and sitting along the path and interpretive signs throughout.
A multiuse playing field with refurbished lawn area, gopher deterrents, upgraded irrigation and a new backstop. To enhance the area, a perimeter fitness trail/path has been incorporated and will have small equipment pads for fitness equipment (5 total) and markers for distance.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
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 multiuse 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 fo r 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 feas ible, less 7 Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
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 discretionary review would be necessitated if new development is proposed in ESHA and, a Development Plan can be approved only if it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives.
Given the unique nature of this Community Park, the history of its development, its humanmade creation (as opposed to undeveloped native habitat/open space) , considerable existing recreation amenities, as well as 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.
Any work completed outside of the existing footprint of an existing feature, which may be necessary for some of the proposed modifications , would be considered new development. For example, while the picnic areas can be maintained, any addition of a shade structure or potential expansion would be considered new development. Another example would be related to the discussion to look at the caretaker house as a potential mixed use to accommodate a community space. This desire is included in the final draft plan, but the reconfiguration of this space to meet a public need and potentially future caretaker use, would also be considered new development.
The elements that the project team has identified as having a potential impact to ESHA and/or its designated buffers are as follows:
Improved Horseshoe Area (improvement exceeds current footprint) Refurbish Existing Picnic Areas (addition of shelter structure) New Restroom (within the 100’ buffer)
Refurbish Maintenance Facility (within ESHA)
Caretaker Cottage Improvements (within ESHA)
Inclusive Playground (within the 100’ buffer)
The Project team has evaluated the current proposed changes for consideration and the potential impacts to ESHA, and it is anticipated that indirect impacts are pri marily 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. This would be completed once the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis is completed. 8 Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
Cost Estimates
The project team has prepared cost estimates that includes both a 15% and a 25% contingency. Cost estimates include construction, soft costs, contractor costs, escalation costs at 5 % annually for construction costs and 1% for the soft and contractor costs associated with project timeline and CEQA costs. The costs do not include construction management but have taken into consideration the challenges associated to the project site and protection of environmental resources.
Scenario 1 would be an overall park construction buildout, addressing the entire park at once. The costs for this would range from $8.00M to $8.79M.
Scenario 2 divides the park into two separate phases, the north and south section of the park. The recommendation in this phased approach would be to complete the north section first, with phase two being the southern section. The reason for this recommendation is due to the parking lot, maintenance yard and caretaker cottage within the north section phase. These improvements are the basis for the other improvements within the park. This cost is $8.28M - $9.00M, with phase one as $4.08M - $4.44M and phase two at $4.10M - $4.55M.
Scenario 3 divides the park into three phases, with the parking lot/caretaker cottage/maintenance yard becoming its own phase, followed by phase two as the northern section of the park and lastly phase three as the southern section.
Next Steps
The next step in this project is to provide feedback on the draft master plan. If there are any substantial changes to the draft master plan, KTUA’s design team will make those changes in preparation of a final document to be supported by Council and utilized for the CEQA process. If Co uncil supports the draft master plan as presented, or provides recommendations for minor alterations, staff will return to City Council to award a contract to begin the CEQA process, which will take approximately six to seven months.
Staff is seeking partial funding for this project through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and submitting a grant application by June 1, 2023. While many components of this grant application align with this project, there is a concern with the timing of the completion of the CEQA process and the demographics of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff will be returning to Council for funding considerations and direction on the phasing process for this project at a future date.
Due to the increase in anticipated con struction costs, staff recommend s a Request for Proposals for design services be released later this year. This would allow the project to continue to move forward, upon the completion of CEQA and final adoption of the Stow Grove Park Master Plan.
9 Meeting Date: March 21, 2023
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
FISCAL IMPACTS:
This staff report has not requested any fiscal action be taken. The current project budget balance is $809,687 from the original Capital Improvement Project for the Stove Grove Park field renovation (CIP 9074). This current allocation will provide ample funding to begin the CEQA process and the development of Construction Documents. Each of these requests will be brought back to City Council, independently of one another, requesting the award of contracts for the work and authority to utilize existing funds for associated costs.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council may provide feedback or accept the Draft Master Plan as presented , or provide staff alternate direction.
Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:
___________________ ___________________ _________________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Robert Nisbet
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Stow Grove Park Draft Master Plan
2. Stow Grove Park Draft Master Plan Presentation
10 ATTACHMENT 1
Stow Grove Park Draft Master Plan
11 Stow Grove Park Draft Master Plan
N
ATTACHMENT 1
12 ATTACHMENT 2
Stow Grove Park Draft Master Plan Presentation
13 Stow Grove Park
Draft Master Plan Update
City Council Meeting - March 21, 2023
14 Agenda
• Introductions
• Presentation
• Open Discussion
• Closing Remarks
15 Project
Background &
History
16 Project Updates
• Second workshop occurred on December 3rd
• Public survey distributed as an alternative to the public workshop for those unable to attend
• Approximately 500 survey responses received
• Parks & Recreation Commission meeting occurred on January 25th in which the overall park design and various moderately supported park items were presented for approval (shown with asterisk “*” throughout presentation)
17 Opportunity Areas
• For the first workshop we defined opportunity areas while ensuring that a majority of the park’s natural resources would be protected.
18 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%
19 Rincon’s Baseline Environmental Survey Findings**
• Site contains “Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove” vegetation community, as a monarch butterfly and raptor roosting ESHA.
• Site also contains “Landscaped Redwood Forest and Woodland” as a monarch aggregation ESHA (City 2009).
• Despite minimal to no recent historical sightings of monarch roosts during the annual counts, these areas are still defined and protected as ESHA. • ESHA Policies found in the City’s General Plan Conservation Element and Zoning Code.
**Findings were consistent with City of Goleta General Plan ESHA map 2009 20 100’ Buffer
50’ Reduced Buffer
21 Workshop #1
Activities &
Summary
Workshop #2
Activities &
Summary
22 Workshop
Turnout
• Approximately 70
attendees
• Had four map exhibits
and associated photo
boards for review and
input
• Were able to have a
site walk/tour in the
park following the
workshop activities
23 Four Conceptual Design Plans
Attendees had:
• 3 stars: 1 for favorite plan, 2 for favorite
amenities
• 7 green dots for amenities they ‘like’
• 7 red dots for amenities they ‘dislike’
• Not all attendees used all dots
24 Workshop Results
Favorite Alternative Responses – From Highest to Lowest (11 votes total) • Alternative A: Nature Focus (58% - 6 votes)
• Alternative C: Learn Focus (17% - 2 votes)
• Alternative D: Play Focus (8% - 1 vote)
• Alternative B: Relax Focus (8% - 1 vote)
• None of the Above / General Park Improvements (8% - 1 vote) 25 Workshop Results
Top ‘Favorite’ Amenities (153 total votes)
1. Refurbish the Caretaker Cottage (14% - 21 votes)
2. Expand / Upgrade Playgrounds (12% - 19 votes)
3. Pump Track (10% - 16 votes)
Top ‘Liked’ Amenities (258 total votes)
1. Native Garden / Tree Grove (9% - 22 votes)
2. Refurbish the Caretaker Cottage (6% - 16 votes)
3. Walking / Running Path (6% - 15 votes)
Top ‘Disliked’ Amenities (219 total votes)
1. Pump Track (18% - 40 votes)
2. Pickleball Courts with Fencing (16% - 36 votes)
3. Dog Park with Fencing (14% - 31 votes)
26 Workshop Results
Key Take-aways
• Support for refurbishing the caretaker cottage
• Support for expanding and upgrading the playground
• Support for enhancing the trails and walking path / running paths • Support for botanical and native gardens
• Conflicting support for the pump track
• Conflicting support for exploratory play elements*
• Conflicting support for the dog park
• Conflicting support for fitness trail*
• Low support for pickleball courts with fencing
• Low support for special event support
• Low support for gazebo or raised viewing platform
• Low support for bocce ball
27 Workshop #2
Follow up
Survey Results
28 • The survey was distributed as an alternative for those unable to attend • Survey was open for approximately 2 weeks
• Approximately 500 responses (378 Goleta residents)
• Around 22% of the responses were not residents of Goleta • Although there were several responses from residents outside of Goleta, the result did not vary much
• 2 choices for ‘favorite’ amenities
• 7 choices for amenities they ‘like’ & ‘dislike’
• Not all respondents used all votes or, in some cases, any of their votes for the top plan choice and selection of amenities
• For the purposes of tonight’s workshop, results presented are only representative of responses received from the City of Goleta residents
Survey Results
29 Survey Results
Favorite Alternative Responses – From Highest to Lowest (236 total votes) • Alternative A: Nature Focus (31% - 72 votes)
• Alternative D: Play Focus (30% - 70 votes)
• Alternative C: Learn Focus (18% - 42 votes)
• Alternative B: Relax Focus (17% - 39 votes)
• None of the Above (6% - 13 votes)
30 Survey Results
Top ‘Favorite’ Amenities (451 total votes)
1. Pump Track (16% - 73 votes)
2. Enhance Redwood Groves (12% - 56 votes)
3. Upgrade Current Restroom (7% - 31 votes)
Top ‘Liked’ Amenities (1,317 total votes)
1. Enhance Redwood Groves (6% - 75 votes)
2. Pump Track (6% - 66 votes)
3. Upgrade Existing Walking Trails (5% - 63 votes)
Top ‘Disliked’ Amenities (965 total votes)
1. Pickleball Courts with Fencing (11% - 104 votes)
2. Dog Park with Fencing (10% - 93 votes)
3. Pump Track (7% - 69 votes)
31 Survey Results
Key Take-aways
• Support for enhancing the redwood groves & most general improvements • Support for a new restroom building
• Support for bird watching, interpretive trails, and botanical / native / pollinator garden amenities
• Support for expanding / upgrading the playground
• Conflicting support for the pump track
• Conflicting support for exploratory / nature play elements* • Conflicting support for the dog park
• Conflicting support for fitness trail and equipment*
• Low support for pickleball courts with fencing
• Low support for special event support, stages, gazebo, bocce ball, etc. 32 Suggested
Draft Master
Plan Design
33 Suggested Design Elements
• The team took the elements from the first and second workshops and evaluated how these would best fit within the park and the appropriate locations. • The team explored the various general park improvements that are needed to help maintain the current park level of service and to accommodate some of the desired amenities.
• Looked at other passive and educational amenities that could fit within the site without impact to ESHA.
34 Nature Based
and Passive
Activities
Social,
Educational, and
Cultural/Historical
Activities
Play, Active, and
Skill Development,
Activities
Categorized the Suggested Design Activities/Amenities
General Park Improvements
35 Draft Master Plan
N
36 Summary of Amenities
25 Total Amenities (9 General Improvements)
37 General Park Improvements
Refurbish Parking Lot
• Fix circulation throughout parking lot (maintaining existing footprint) • Repaving the parking lot (add pass-through on north end of small parking lot) • Enhancing the drainage and stormwater aspects (currently drains into the existing playground) Add ADA Parking
• Bring parking lot up to latest ADA requirements – required by law • Add ADA stalls and access into the park – required by law 1 1
N
38 General Park Improvements
Refurbish Current Restroom
• Bring the current restroom up to latest ADA code requirements – required by law • Enhance the exterior of the restroom, the building systems, and approach /access 2 2
N
39 General Park Improvements
Add a New Restroom (Potential ESHA Impacts at 100’ buffer) • Add a new restroom near southern playground area
3 3
N
40 General Park Improvements
Refurbish Maintenance Facility* (Potential ESHA Buffer Impacts) • Relocate entrance into maintenance facility to La Patera Ln. • General facility upgrades and repairs to the structure, grounds, fencing, and access
• Will require removal of one tree (may impact root systems of two other nearby small trees)
4 4
N
41 General Park Improvements
Add a Trash Enclosure* (Potential ESHA Buffer Impacts)
• Add a new trash area within maintenance compound per City requirements to contain the floating trash bins – centrally located within park site 5 5
N
42 Improved Horseshoes* (Potential ESHA Impacts)
• Enhance existing horseshoe area and include new backboards, curbing/edging, and dirt
• Consider adding seating around the horseshoe area
• Improvements may exceed existing footprint
General Park Improvements
6 6
N
43 Upgrade Existing Park Entrances*
• Enhance existing park entrances and include directional signage • Include some gateway elements at promenade entrances
• Improve access per ADA code requirements – required by law General Park Improvements
7 7
N
44 General Park Improvements
Refurbish Existing Picnic Areas (Potential ESHA Impacts) • Replace damaged or broken tables
• Repair existing shade structure
• Add shade structure to larger group picnic areas due to recent loss of mature trees • Replace damaged litter and recycling receptacles
• Maintain and smooth existing surface conditions
• Fix and maintain existing BBQ equipment
• Add and enhance existing signage and monumentation for picnic area identification • Help define picnic area spaces
8 8
N
45 General Park Improvements
Refurbish Existing Redwood Groves
• General maintenance to the existing redwood groves, understory, fencing and access Refurbish Existing Walking Trails & Entrances
• Add accessible paths throughout park (likely DG materials with some concrete paths) per ADA requirements
• Smooth existing trails and add additional seating, trash/recycling receptacles • Additional understory native planting (shown in nature / passive amenities) 9 9
N
46 Nature / Passive Amenities, such as:
General Use Field/s
• Regrade and reseed areas of lawn
• Upgrades to irrigation system
• Implement measures to prevent gopher impacts
1 1
N
47 Interpretive / Bird Watching Trails
• Include interpretive signs and elements throughout existing trails • Include misting and fogging devices within the redwood trees • Include small areas for bird watching, refuge, and seating Nature / Passive Amenities, such as:
2 2
N
48 Botanical / Native Garden
• Botanical areas under the existing redwood groves
• Highlight the native forest under the redwoods that work symbiotically with this habitat
• Consider educational tags for plants and donor opportunities Nature / Passive Amenities, such as:
3 3
N
49 Butterfly / Pollinator Garden
• Small butterfly / pollinator garden at southern area of the site • Educational signs indicating the importance of pollinators in our environment
• A small seating area for reading / relaxing / outdoor gathering Nature / Passive Amenities, such as:
4 4
N
50 Nature / Passive Amenities, such as:
5 5
N
Native Tree Grove
• Small trail highlighting the importance of native trees and their understory plantings
• Interpretive signs and elements speaking to the native flora and fauna of the region
51 Caretaker Cottage Shared with Community Use (Potential ESHA Impacts) • Uses could include a reservable space or nature center • Enhance the walkway with decorative paving elements
• Improve draining and consider a small bioswale with educational elements Social / Educational Amenities, such as:
1 1
N
52 Include Family Activities between Picnic Areas 2 & 3* • Defined areas for bounce house use
• Could possibly include fixed amenities (i.e., corn hole, ping pong , etc.)
Social / Educational Amenities, such as:
2 2
N
53 Channel Islands / Cultural Plaza*
• Small area for celebrating the plantings of the Channel Islands • Interpretive signage and elements
Social / Educational Amenities, such as:
3 3
N
54 Social / Educational Amenities, such as:
Entrance Junction (voted against plaza)*
• Small area where the paths all meet
• Area would have directional signs for the park
• Include boulders and DG
4 4
N
55 Entry Promenade*
• Include interpretive elements
• Enhance the walkway with permeable decorative paving
elements (approx. 10’ wide)
• Improve draining and consider a small bioswale with educational elements
Social / Educational Amenities, such as:
5 5
N
56 Play / Active Amenities, such as:
All Abilities Playground (Potential ESHA Impacts)
• Expand playground area to include the area to the west of the existing playground • Include various all abilities play features such as rockers, spinners, zip line, sensory play elements, and a large all inclusive play structure (to be selected during subsequent design phase)
• Include small seating wall on west side of the playground • Replace the 2–5 year-old equipment (tot lot) & surfacing • Replace the 5-12 year-old equipment & surfacing
1 1
N
57 Multi-use Play Field
• Refurbish lawn area
• Upgrades to irrigation system
• Implement measures to prevent gopher impacts
• Install new backstop
Play / Active Amenities, such as:
2 2
N
58 Sand Volleyball*
• Reduce to one sand volleyball court and move to accommodate accessible path from parking lot to playing field
• Install new net and surrounding edge / informal seating areas Play / Active Amenities, such as:
3 3
N
59 Fitness Trail / Loop
• Include a fitness trail
• Include small equipment pads for fitness equipment (5 total) • Include signage / markers for distance
Play / Active Amenities, such as:
4 4
N
60 Walking / Running Path
• Include a hard surface walking / running path (min. 4’ – max TBD) • Include areas for refuge and sitting along path
• Include interpretive signs throughout park
Play / Active Amenities, such as:
5 5
N
61 Exploratory / Nature play Elements*
• Includes nature play elements, bouldering course, balance logs, tree fort, and may include other exploratory / nature play elements Play / Active Amenities, such as:
6 6
N
62 Cost Analysis &
Phasing
Scenarios
63 Cost & Phasing: Scenario 1 – Full Buildout
Overall park construction costs for full
buildout are estimated at being:
$8.00M - $8.79M
Cost Breakdown
• $5.61 – $6.1M for construction costs
• $1.04M - $1.13M for contractor costs, requirements, conditions, etc. (15%)* • $560k - $609k for soft costs (10%)*
• $853k – Escalation to mid-point of construction (01/2026)* • $100k for CEQA costs
Note:
• Not including CM, inspections, commissioning, etc.
• Escalation is included at 5% annually for construction costs & 1% annually for soft /contractor costs* • Costs include design contingency
• Costs are based on a preliminary planning level study and may not include other unknowns at this level of design 64 Cost & Phasing: Scenario 2 – Two Phase Buildout (2% More) Overall park construction costs for a two phase
buildout are estimated at being:
$8.28M - $9.00M
• Phase 1: $4.08M - $4.44M
• Phase 2: $4.10M - $4.55M
Cost Breakdown
• $5.61 – $6.1M for construction costs
• $1.06M - $1.16M for contractor costs, requirements, conditions, etc. (15%)* • $588k - $639k for soft costs (10%)*
• $920k - $1M – Escalation to mid-point of construction (09/2025 P1 & 01/2027 P2)* • $100k for CEQA costs
Note:
• Not including CM, inspections, commissioning, etc.
• Escalation is included at 5% annually for construction costs & 1% annually for soft /contractor costs* • Costs include design contingency
• Costs are based on a preliminary planning level study and may not include other unknowns at this level of design Phase 1
Phase 2
65 Cost & Phasing: Scenario 3 – Three Phase Buildout (6% More) Overall park construction costs for a three phase
buildout are estimated at being:
$8.61M - $9.3M
• Phase 1: $1.59M - $1.73M
• Phase 2: $2.68M - $2.91M
• Phase 3: $4.24M - $4.6M
Cost Breakdown
• $5.61 – $6.1M for construction costs
• $1.10M - $1.2M for contractor costs, requirements, conditions, etc. (15%)* • $623k - $677k for soft costs (10%)*
• $1.17M - $1.2M – Escalation to mid-point of construction (09/2025 P1, 01/2027 P2, 04/2028 P3)* • $100k for CEQA costs
Note:
• Not including CM, inspections, commissioning, etc.
• Escalation is included at 5% annually for construction costs & 1% annually for soft /contractor costs* • Costs include design contingency
• Costs are based on a preliminary planning level study and may not include other unknowns during this time of design Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
66 Other Considerations
• Any expansion outside of the initial footprints of the existing amenities will be an impact to ESHA
• Based on final recommendations, CEQA analysis will be performed by CEQA team (Rincon)
• Examples of possible mitigation measures and ESHA considerations o Bird surveys
o Monarch surveys
o Tree replacement based on any removals (one possible with new entrance suggested at maintenance building)
o Restriction on times of day/times of year for work
o Aborist on site for trimming, grading, etc.
67 Next Steps
• Approve draft master plan with any additional comments or feedback • Approve contract for CEQA services by Rincon Environmental • KTUA to develop master plan report
• Release RFP for landscape architecture services to develop construction documents (late 2023)
68 Thank you!
Closing Remarks
69