Goleta City Council
December 19, 2023

Agenda Item E.2

CPMS DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM
Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

TO: Mayor and Councilmembers

FROM: Jaime A. Valdez, Neighborhood Services Director

CONTACT: JoAnne Plummer, Parks and Recreation Manager

SUBJECT: Approval of the Stow Grove Park Master Plan and Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration

RECOMMENDATION:

A. Adopt Resolution No. 23-_ entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Adopting A n Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (sch # 2023080037) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant To Section 15164 of State CEQA Guidelines for the Stow Grove Park Master Plan ”; and Approve the Stow Grove Park Master Plan.

B. Authorize the City Manager , with the approval of the City Attorney, to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Stow Company, LLC , in substantial compliance with the attached draft, to revise alignment of existing drainage easement in Stow Grove Park.

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 was adopted , the City continues 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 playg rounds 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.

1 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

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 Sto w 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 require 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.

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 (Commission) (March 3, 2021) as well as the City Council (April 6, 2021) .

Both the Commission and City Council supported the recommendation to develop a Master Plan Design for t he 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 upgrades.

On April 6, 2021, City Council provided direction 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. Like the PMP for the entire City, park -specific master plans are used for determining 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 (landscape architects and design 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. A steering committee was formed to work with the 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 Altstatt).

On November 1, 2022, staff returned to City Co uncil for direction related to the continuation of the public process and design due to potential impacts to the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and/or its buffers at Stow Grove Park.

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 2 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

recreational park amenities.

On December 3, 2022 , a second public workshop was held at La Patera Elementary School with nearly 70 participants. To accommodate those unable to participate in person, a follow-up survey was released that received nearly 500 responses. The feedback was aggregated and presented to City Council on March 21, 2023.

On March 21, 2023, City Council received a report on the public outreach process that occurred in the development of the Master Plan. An overview document has been included (Attachment 1, Exhibit C) of the entire process and includes the final product (Draft Master Plan). Following a review of the process, City Council supported the Draft Master Plan and directed staff to move forward with the next phase of the project, the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

On May 2, 2023, City Council authorized the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Rincon Consultant s, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $89,891 to conduct the CEQA analysis for the proposed improvements at Stow Grove Park as outlined in the Draft Master Plan . Rincon Consulting developed the Draft Biological Resource Assessment and Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. These documents were made available to the public for a 30-day review period beginning on August 1, 2023, and the comment period closed on August 31, 2023. During that time, staff received a total of 16 comments and held two (2) separate tribal consultations.

The comments ranged from positive feedback on the plan, to questions related to amenities that were not included in the Master Plan. In addition, there were a couple of comments related to the biological resources and the ESHA that exist s within this park location. These comments received were incorporated into the final Mitigated Negative Declaration and are included with the accompanying resolution (Attachment 1).

There was another comment received that spoke to the historical relevance of this park location. While this comment is not related to the biological resources in the park, it was important for the project team to evaluate and review the comments and determine if any action was necessary. While Stow Grove Park has been in existence for nearly 100 years, the park has shifted and grown over the last decade. The evaluation conducted by the project’s historical consultant determined that there were no criteria that would require a federal or state historical designation. Staff verified with Planning and Environmental team members who confirmed that during the development of the Historic Preservation Commission, Stow Grove Park was an area that was mentioned, but no action was taken for this location. Should the Council have a desire to explore Stow Grove Park as a local historical area of interest, staff will be able to bring this item back as a separate work effort.

In response to Councilmember inquiries about circulation and additional access to the park for neighbors and visitors, staff consulted with the Public Work’s Traffic Engineering Division. The evaluation included the current access/entries, the driveway, current or potential crosswalks and/or entries into the park. The determination from the traffic engineer are as follows:
3 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

The only roadways available for Stow Grove Park access would be North La Patera Lane and Cathedral Oaks Road. Planning the number and location of driveways for properties along a particular roadway requires striking a balance between access, safety, and mobility. Collisions most frequently occur at intersections, so limiting the number of intersections (driveways) can reduce or prevent collisions. Therefore, it is recommended that the number of driveways for a particular property be kept to the minimum number that is essential for the reasonable access to/from the property during typical conditions. For these reasons, the City of Goleta has adopted driveway spacing standards that indicate that non-residential driveways shall be located a minimum of 250’ from adjacent roadways.

Access to/from Cathedral Oaks is not recommended due to the speed and volume of traffic as well as the curved alignment that restricts visibility of oncoming eastbound traffic.

The existing driveway on La Patera is approximately 180’ north of Caroldale Lane, which borders the northern edge of La Patera Elementary and approximately 50’ s outh of La Patera Place, a cul -de-sac with six homes. The location of the existing Stow Grove driveway does not meet the City’s current driveway spacing standards. Given the existing intersection spacing, along La Patera and the curving roadway alignment, there are not any driveway locations that would meet the City’s driveway spacing or visibility standards north of Caroldale Lane.

In consideration for additional STOP Sign Control, the traffic engineer referred to the California Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices (MUTCD) that has established guidelines for installing multi-way STOP controls, which looks at Collision History, Vehicle Volume and Vehicle Delay.

In considering Collision History at this location, the recommendation would require five or more reported right -angle collisions in a 12 -month period. In this location, there have been zero reported collisions in the past five years.

The minimum volumes for major street traffic volume averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day; and La Patera averages approximately 175 vehicles per hour. The minor street traffic volume (vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours. There is no data available for Caroldale or Parkhurst, but the traffic engineer strongly feels that it is unlikely that this number would be met.

The Vehicle Delay measure considers an average delay to minor -street vehicular traffic is at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hou r. There was no data available for Caroldale or Parkhurst but it was unlikely that this would be met.

In addition, the project team evaluated not only the proposed new maintenance entrance, but also proposed an alternate location for the driveway to enter from La Patera Road between the current maintenance yard and the existing caretaker cottage, which was evaluated during the CEQA process.
4 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

On June 1, 2023, staff submitted a grant application for partial funding of the project through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). If successful, the funding of $4.6M would provide the necessary resources to close the gap on the current cost estimates for the complete build out. 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.

The Master Plan includes 25 total components/amenities, of which nine are general park improvements, six (6) are play/active amenities, five (5) are social/educational in nature, and five (5) are passive/nature based. The nine (9) general park improvements include alterations to the existing parking lot located on the western edge of the site, improvements to the existing restroom and installation of a new restroom, refurbishment of the existing maintenance facility with a trash enclosure, renovation of the caretaker cottage with potential opportunities for public use, horseshoe area, picnic areas, park entrances, and redwood grove/walking trails. The six (6) play/active improvements include modifications to the existing playground, multi-use fields, walking/running paths, and volleyball courts and the introduction of a new fitness trail loop and nature/play area. The five (5) social/educational improvements include rehabilitation to the Caretaker Cottage (to include a public use for education/social purpose), creation of a family activity area, and introduction of cultural, social, and educational amenities such as a Channel Islands Plaza, entrance junction, and entry promenade. Finally, the (5) five passive/nature improvements include upgrades to the general use field and native tree grove, and creation of interpretive/bird watching trails, a botanical garden, and a butterfly/pollinator garden. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C)

The 25 components/amenities of the Master Plan are shown in the figure below.

In addition to the grant request that was submitted, local legislators Senator Monique Limón and Assemblyman Gregg Hart included a request for $750,000 of funding in the State of California’s budget towards the development of the proposed universal playground at Stow Grove Park. In July, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 102, authorizing the funding to be used for the City of Goleta. In the coming year, staff will work with the State of California’s Office of Local Grants and Services to complete the necessar y paperwork associated with securing this funding.
5 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

AB 52 Compliance – Tribal Consultation

Pursuant to California AB 52, letters were delivered to the California Native American Tribes by email and certified mail on June 23, 2023, and July 5, 2023. As discussed in the Initial Study’s Environmental Checklist Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, two Tribes requested consultation: the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians on July 12, 2023, and the Northern Chumash Tribal Council on July 14, 2023. The City held a virtual meeting with the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians on July 14, 2023 and there was mutual agreement to notify the Tribe of future development plans and for the City to provide a copy of the CEQA compliant Cultural Resources Report. The City held a virtual meeting with the Northern Chumash Tribal Council on July 31, 2023. The Tribal Council requested an interpretive panel be incorporated into the project design, that a Chumash monitor be present during ground disturbing activities, and for the City to provide a copy of the CEQA compliant Cultural Resources Report. The City has complied with all tribal consultation requirements of AB 52.

DISCUSSION:

One of the challenges in making improvements and refurbishing Stow Grove Park is that it has two areas designated as ESHA. 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 and/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. Chapter 17.53.020(X)(1) of the G oleta Municipal Code (GMC) only exempts City Projects, including C apital Improvement Projects (CIPs), from Zoning Permits and discretionary approv als 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 it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives. Staff will return to Council on specific development plans associated with this project.

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 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 6 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

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. An example is 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 consider the caretaker house as a potential mixed use to accommodate a community space. This potential mixed -use opportunity 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 project team has identified the following elements as having a potential impact to ESHA and/or its designated buffers:

 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 including Rincon Consultants through its environmental analysis has evaluated the current proposed changes for consideration a nd the potential impacts to ESHA, and it is anticipated that indirect impacts are primarily associated with construction activity during nesting periods . These will be mitigated with restrictions on construction timing and have been included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2 and BIO -5. There would be no anticipated direct or indirect long-term impacts to the designated ESHA boundaries and/or buffers.

The City is the lead agency for purposes of CEQA as it pertains to this project. The draft IS/MND was prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and released on August 1, 2023, for a 30-day public review period that ended on August 31, 2023. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available by the following methods to indicate availability of the environmental document during the public comment pe riod: (i) filed with the Santa Barbara County Clerk; (ii) filed with the Office of Planning and Research; (iii) mailed to various interested persons, agencies, and tribes; and (iv) posted on the City’s website.

The draft IS/MND concluded that the environmental impacts of the proposed Master Plan project are considered to have less -than-significant impacts with mitigation 7 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

incorporated (Class II), less -than-significant impacts (Class III), or beneficial impacts (Class IV). Areas w ith Class II impacts requiring mitigation included Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Recreation and Tribal Cultural Resources. The MND includes analyses of each environmental area, potential impacts, and necessary mitigation meas ures. Based on the MND, it was determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND. These mitigation measures have been included in the MMRP. The MND and MMRP are provided as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, of the draft Resolution (Attachment 1).

Rincon Consultants prepared a Cultural Resources Technical Report in July 2023, documenting background and archival research, records searches conducted for the project site, and Phase 1 and Extended Phase 1 survey testing results. Although no resources were found on-site as part of the Phase 1 and Extended Phase I Studies, based on the presence of Native American resources nearby, the project site is considered sensitive for archaeological resources (Rincon 2023). Construction of the proposed park amenities would therefore have the potential to uncover previously unidentified archaeological or tribal cultural resources, which could lead to damage or destruction of the resource. Impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources would therefore be potentially significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR- 3 and GEO -1, the City would require a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training, retain an on -call archaeologist, require Native American monitoring, and follow adequate procedures in case of unanticipated discovery of archaeological or tribal cultural resources, including halting of work to evaluate the find. Impacts would b e less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Staff received 16 comments by the close of that circulation period ( August 1, 2023 – August 31, 2023) and Rincon Consulting has made minor revisions as needed in the Final IS/MND, (see Attachment 1, Exhibit 1; Appendix E provides Responses to Comments).

These minor changes have been made to the MND to clarify, amplify, and make insignificant modifications to the MND. These changes/updates are further described in the Final IS/MND, and do not result in alterations to the degree of impact or significance conclusions presented in the Draft IS/MND and therefore do not constitute new significant information. Rather, the changes serve to clarify and strengthen the content of the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, reci rculation of the IS/MND is not required under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. The Final IS/MND is attached and available for review on the City’s website. Most comments related to park uses and amenities and were not environmental in nature. However , a few focused on a desire to see more native plant species and potential special -status species within the Park, namely bird species, and providing adequate protection during the nesting season. Rincon Consultants prepared a Biological Resources Assessme nt (BRA) in July 2023. Required mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO -5 include protections for roosting monarch butterflies, including measures around potential tree removal through a required Tree Removal and Monarch Protection Plan and implementation of Pollinator Garden Landscape Plan. Several Tree Protection Measures are included as are Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

8 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Staff recommends that City Council approve and adopt the MND and MMRP, and to approve the Project.

Next Steps for Master Plan

This request to adopt the Stow Grove Park Master Plan and the Resolution to adopt the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP will allow the City of Goleta to move forward w ith the next phase, namely the identification of individual projects and preparation of construction documents.

While the proposed phases of the project with associated costs are included in the fiscal impact section of this report, there will be necess ary modifications. Phase One as described must happen first for a variety of infrastructure reasons, but this phase now needs to include the development of the universal playground and additional restroom.

These components are being added to Phase One due to the timeline of the funding allocated by the State of California.

Staff is requesting support from the Council to release a Request for Proposals to solicit a Landscape Architecture firm to develop the new phases with approximate cost estimates, as well as create the necessary construction plans and specification documents for this project. Regardless of the phase(s) moving forward, it is recommended to enter into contract with one firm for the construction documents of the entire master plan for consistency.

Water Line Easement

In the existing deed of property from the Stow Company, LLC, there is a ten-foot-wide easement for an underground waterline that extends the north/south length of the property. In the last two decades, repairs to this w ater line have become significantly challenging as trees and shrubs have grown over the line itself. The Stow Company has explored the abandonment of the existing line and development of a new line that would follow a similar route, adjacent to the existi ng line. This proposed alignment has been coordinated with the Master Planning process to avoid additional impacts to the park location. The Stow Company continues to work closely with the City of Goleta in the coordination of the work, with the hope of a ligning their work with the construction of the park.

In order for the Stow Company to continue to move forward with their construction documents, they have requested the City enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which allows this adjustment to the easement and supports, in writing, the improvements described in the Master Plan for Stow Grove Park. A draft of the proposed MOU is included in this report as Attachment 2. In a future meeting, staff will propose uses for the caretaker residence and once a decision on that topic is determined, staff will return to City Council for authorization to memorialize a new grant deed for the realignment of the easement and update to uses.

GOLETA STRATEGIC PLAN:
9 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

City-Wide Strategy : Support Community Vitality and Enhanced Recreational Opportunities.

Strategic Goal: Support programs that enhance quality of life in the Goleta community such as recreation, public safety, human services, and cultural arts.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

The project team has prepared cost estimates that include 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 with the project site and protection of environmental resources.

Scenario 1 would be an overall park construction buildout, ad dressing 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 being 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, follow ed by phase two as the northern section of the park and lastly phase three as the southern section.

At this time, staff is seeking direction to move forward with a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit vendors for Design and Preparation of Plans, Specifi cations, Cost Estimates, Engineering and Project Coordination for the renovation of Stow Grove Park , which has no fiscal decision or obligation. The anticipated cost of the construction design phase is estimated between $500,000 - $700,000 contingent on phasing and timing. Once a firm has been selected, staff will return to City Council with the award of contract.

Stow Grove Park Renovation Design (CIP 9074)
Fund Type Account Description Project
to Date
Actuals
Existing
Budget

Total Budget*
Remaining
PARK DIF 221-90-
9074-57070
Design $212,292 $4,127,825 $3,915,533
PARK DIF 221-90-
9074-57071
Construction $0 $760,000 $760,000
Total $212,292 $4,887,825 $4,675,533
10 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

*Does not include the $750,000 from the State of California or the requested grant amount.

ALTERNATIVES:

Council may provide alternate direction to staff or choose not to approve the documents presented. Lack of approval would postpone the next steps of the project, potentially risking the funding for the universal playground provided by the State of California.

Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:

___________________ ___________________ _________________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Robert Nisbet
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Go leta, California, Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Stow Grove Park Master Plan” including:

Exhibit 1: Stow Grove Park Master Plan Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit 2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit 3: Stow Grove Park Master Plan

2. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Amendment of Easements and Restrictions between the City of Goleta and the Stow Company, LLC

11 ATTACHMENT 1
“A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Stow Grove Park Master Plan” including:

Exhibit 1: Stow Grove Park Master Plan Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit 2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit 3: Stow Grove Park Master Plan

12 1

RESOLUTION 23-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH # 2023080037)

AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164 OF STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES FOR THE STOW GROVE PARK MASTER PLAN;
AND APPROVE THE STOW GROVE PARK MASTER PLAN.

The City Council of the City of Goleta does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: Recitals. The City Council finds and declares that:

A. Development and implementation of the Stow Grove Park Master Plan (SGPMP) is consistent with the Implementation Action OS-IA-5 Preparation of Individual Park Development and/or Management Plans in the City General Plan Open Space Element; and

B. The SGPMP outlines the programmatic approach and methods for the City of Goleta to manage and improve existing uses, amenities, facilities and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) within Stove Grove Park, and the public’s use and enjoyment of the Park; and

C. The City , as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA”), prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( State Clearinghouse No. 2023080037) to evaluate the SGPMP’s environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA , the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines ”), and the City ’s Environmental Review Guidelines (“Goleta Guidelines”), which was circulated for review by the public and interested, responsible, and trustee agencies for at least 30 days from August 1, 2023 to August 31, 2023 by: (1) filing a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“NOI”) with the Santa Barbara County Clerk; (2) filing a NOI with State Clearinghouse; (3) placing a NOI in the Santa Barbara Independent, a newspaper of general circulation; (4) mailing a NOI to various interested persons, agencies, and tribes; and (5) posting a NOI on the City ’s website. In addition, copies of the MND were available during th e public review period at the City of Goleta Department of Neighborhood Services and posted on the City’s website; and

D. Based on the MND, City staff determined that all potential environmental impacts from SGPMP would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15074(d), the MMRP has been prepared and includes mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, recreation, tribal cultural resources,; and

13 2

E. All comments were received, considered and responded to from the public, as well as any responsible, trustee, and interested agencies, on the MND. The Final MND consist of the responses to comments, the MND, and an Errata section containing minor revisions to the MND; and

F. The SGPMP includes 25 total components/amenities, of which nine are general park improvements, six are play/active amenities, fi ve are social/educational in nature, and five are passive/nature based as more specifically described in Section 7 Description of Project of Exhibit 2 (“Project”); and

G. On or before November 20, 2023, the Project site was posted for the December 18, 2023 City Council meeting by the applicant, the City Neighborhood Services Department (a minimum of 15 days prior to the City Council meeting); and

H. On December 19, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public meeting on the Stow Grove Park Master Plan project, the Final MND, MMRP, and all other relevant information contained in the administrative record regarding the Project, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard.

I. This Resolution is adopted based upon the entire ty of the administrative record including, without limitation, staff reports, and evidence submitted during the public meeting.

SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds as follows:

A. The Project site is entirely within Stow Grove Park, Assessor Parcel Number 077- 160-009.

B. The entire site is zoned OS AR (Open Space -Active Recreation) with an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) overlay.

C. Access to the project site is from Parkhurst Drive, N. La Patera Lane and Cathedral Oaks Boulevard.

D. The proposed project adequately addresses Implementation Action OS -IA-5 Preparation of Individual Park Development and/or Management Plans in the City General Plan Open Space Element in a manner which balances management of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) with improved public safety, access, and active recreational opportunities.

E. The project site is entirely City -owned and no easements are required for implementation from private property owners.

F. Based on the location, size, and nature of the proposed project, an IS -MND was prepared and circulated for public review as stated in Section 1 above.

14 3

G. The factual findings in this Section are based upon substantial evidence found within the entirety of the administrative record. Notwithstanding the identification of specific facts within this Section, the entire administrative record adequately provides substantial evidence for all findings set forth in this Resolution.

SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment f or the Project. The City Council makes the following environmental findings:

A. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final MND dated October 2023 and entitled “Stow Grove Park Master Plan Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration” (Exhibit 1), and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to it, and finds: (1) that the Final MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA, including, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines §§ 15070, 15071 and 15073 ; and (2) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. City Council finds that no new significant environm ental impacts have been identified in the Final MND and any changes to the Final MND in response to comments or otherwise do not constitute substantial revisions requiring recirculation under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. City Council further finds that to the extent any mitigation measures were revised or added after the public review period had concluded, these changed or additional mitigation measures are equivalent or more effective in mitigating environmental impacts already identified in the MND and that the change or addition does not itself cause any potentially significant impact. .

B. The Final IS-MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit 2) were presented to the City Council which reviewed the record of the proceedings and considered all information contained in the Final MND and its appendices, the MMRP and the testimony and additional information presented at or before all public meetings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15074. City Council finds that the MMRP has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation.

C. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15074, the Final MND reflects the City ’s independent judgment and analysis. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final MND prepared for the Project. The Final IS-MND is an accurate and complete statement of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Final IS-MND was prepared under the direction of the City of Goleta Neighborhood Services Department and reflects the City Council ’s independent judgment and analysis of the environmental impacts and comments received on the Draft and Final IS-MND.

D. The custodian of records for the Final MND, MMRP, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council ’s decision is based is the Department of Neighborhood Services. These documents are 15 4

available for public review at City Hall, located at 130 Cr emona Drive, Suite B, Goleta, CA 93117.

SECTION 4: Actions. The City Council hereby takes the following actions:

A. Adopts the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit 1, incorporated herein by reference, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached as Exhibit 2, incorporated herein by reference, as required by CEQA § 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines §15097;

B. Adopts the Stow Grove Park Master Plan attached as Exhibit 3; and

C. Directs the City Manager, or d esignee, to file a Notice of Determination with the Santa Barbara County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research within five days in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15094.

SECTION 5: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the actions in this Resolution is based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 6: Limitations. The City Council analysis and evaluation of the project, including this Resolution, are based on the be st information currently available. It is inevitable that, in evaluating a project, absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 7: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the subs tantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent Resolution.

SECTION 9: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 10: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 2023.

16 5

__________________________

PAULA PEROTTE
MAYOR

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________ __________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ MEGAN GARIBALDI

CITY CLERK ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

17 6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.

CITY OF GOLETA )

I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 23-__ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a regular meeting held on the ____th day of ___________, 2023 by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

(SEAL)

_________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ

CITY CLERK
18 EXHIBIT 1
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
19 Stow Grove Park Master Plan
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Goleta
Department of Neighborhood Services
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California 93117
Contact: JoAnne Plummer, Parks and Recreation Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
319 East Carrillo Street, Suite 105
Santa Barbara, California 93101
December 2023

20 21

Stow Grove Park Master Plan
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Goleta
Department of Neighborhood Services
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California 93117
Contact: JoAnne Plummer, Parks and Recreation Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
319 East Carrillo Street, Suite 105
Santa Barbara, California 93101
December 2023

22 This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

23 Table of Contents

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Project Title ......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................................... 1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................... 1

4. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

5. General Plan and Zoning Designation ................................................................................. 1

6. Project and Project Site Background .................................................................................. 1

7. Description of Project ......................................................................................................... 4

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ..................................................................................10

9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ........................................................10

10. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ........................................................................................................................10 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .........................................................................................11 Determination ......................................................................................................................................11 Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................................13 1 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................................13 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................17 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................19 4 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................29 5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................39 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................45 7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................51 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...............................................................................................57 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................63 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................67 11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................71 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................73 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................75 14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................83 15 Public Services ...................................................................................................................85 16 Recreation .........................................................................................................................87 17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................89 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................91 19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................95 20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................99 24 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

ii
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................101 References ..........................................................................................................................................105 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................105 List of Preparers ..........................................................................................................................108 Tables
Table 1 General Park Improvements ............................................................................................... 5 Table 2 Play/Active Amenities ......................................................................................................... 6 Table 3 Social/Educational Amenities ............................................................................................. 6 Table 4 Passive/Nature Based Amenities ........................................................................................ 9 Table 5 Health Effects Associated with Criteria Pollutants ...........................................................21 Table 6 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ..........................................25 Table 7 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ............................................25 Table 8 City of Goleta Biological Resource Policy Consistency Analysis ........................................36 Table 9 2021 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption ................................................................46 Table 10 2021 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption ...............................................................46 Table 11 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction ...........................................................47 Table 12 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption ...........................................48 Table 13 Construction GHG Emissions ............................................................................................59 Table 14 Combined Annual GHG Emissions ....................................................................................60 Table 15 Vibration Levels Measured during Construction Activities ...............................................80 Table 16 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage ...........................................81 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 Conceptual Master Plan ...................................................................................................... 7 Appendices
Appendix A CalEEMod Documentation
Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C Energy Calculations
Appendix D Roadway Construction Noise Measurement Calculations Appendix E Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Appendix F Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

25 Initial Study

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study
The Draft IS-MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period that began on August 1, 2023 and ended on August 31, 2023. The City of Goleta received 16 comment letters during the Draft IS-MND review period, which are included, and responded to, as Letters 1 -16 in Appendix E. Changes to the Draft IS-MND text are signified in this Final IS-MND by strikeout font (strikeout font) where text was removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text was added.

1. Project Title
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Goleta
Department of Neighborhood Services
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California 93117

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
JoAnne Plummer, Parks and Recreation Manager
805-562-5505

4. Project Location
The project is located in a residential area of the City of Goleta at 580 North La Patera Lane. Cathedral Oaks Road runs along the north side of the park. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project in Santa Barbara County. The project site is approximately 11.75 acres and includes the entirety of Stow Grove Park (Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 077 -160-009). Figure 2 shows the specific project location and its neighborhood context.

5. General Plan and Zoning Designation
The project site has a land use designation of Open Space - Active Recreation and is zoned Open Space Active Recreation (OSAR).

6. Project and Project Site Background
The earliest agricultural pioneers in the project area included the Hollister Ranch, Cooper Ranch, and Stow Ranch. What is currently Stow Grove Park was part of Stow Ranch. During this period, it was used as an unofficial gathering spot for members of the Stow Family and locals alike, who referred to the redwood grove as Stow’s Grove. The grove was surrounded by lemon orchards owned by the family who lived in the Stow House southwest of the park. Stow Grove Park was donated to the County of Santa Barbara in 1964 and developed for active recreation. 26 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

2 Figure 1 Regional Location

27 Initial Study

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Figure 2 Project Location

*The Master Plan boundary terminates at the end of the park limits along Cathedral Oaks Road. The boundary depicted in Figure 2 illustrates County of Santa Barbara parcel data.
28 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

4 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 OSIA-5, respectively. 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 goa l 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.

The PMP was intended to implement the vision of the Community Park designation, as detailed in the General Plan (see Table 3-1 of Open Space Element), while also reflecting community input regarding infrastructure improvements, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (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 projects.

7. Description of Project
The project includes the development of the Stow Grove Park Master Plan (project) which envisions improved, new, expanded and renovated active and passive recreational park amenities at Stow Grove Park in the City of Goleta. The Master Plan includes 25 total components/amenities, of which nine are general park improvements, six are play/active , five are social/educational, and five are passive/nature based. The 25 components/amenities of the Master Plan are shown in Figure 3.

General Park Improvements
These nine improvements include alterations to the existing parking lot located on the western edge of the site, improvements to the existing restroom and installation of a new restroom, refurbishment of the existing maintenance facility with a trash enclosure, renovation of the caretaker cottage with potential opportunities for public use 1, horseshoe area, picnic areas, park entrances, and redwood grove/walking trails. The proposed general park improvements are shown in Figure 3 and described below in Table 1.

1 The caretaker’s cottage is an existing on -site use which was previously occupied by a member of City staff. While the project includes operational improvements to the cottage for public use, the City may look to occupy the cottage by a City staff member again in the future. 29 Initial Study

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Table 1 General Park Improvements
Amenity Improvement Description
Parking Lot Regrade and repave the existing parking lot to include a pass-through lane on the north end of the existing lot, introducing 200 square feet of paved area.

Stormwater collection/drainage improvements (stormwater currently drains to the playground).

Restripe the parking lot in accordance with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements, including new ADA-compliant stalls
Existing Restroom Repair exterior of the restroom building, upgrade utilities, and install ADA compliant upgrades.

New Restroom Construct a ~375 square foot (sf) family and/or gender-neutral restroom.

Maintenance Facility Reconfigure the existing maintenance area and install new fencing.

Create a secondary entrance from North La Patera Lane for service vehicles only. Introduce ~1,400 sf of paved area that requires removal of one coast live oak placeholder for species) tree.

New Trash Enclosure Construct a trash enclosure within the existing footprint of the maintenance facility containing floating trash bins.

Horseshoe Area Install backboards, five new pits, benches/seating, curbing/edging, and placement of dirt at the horseshoe area. Existing horseshoe footprint would be maintained.

Park Entrances ADA compliant upgrades (sidewalk accessibility) and install directional signage at the four Park entrances.

Existing Picnic Areas Replacement and/or repair of broken picnic tables and existing shade structure, construct one new group picnic shade structure, new trash/recycle receptacles, repair barbeque equipment, and enhance signage and definition for the spaces of each picnic area.

Redwood Groves and
Walking
Trails/Entrances
Remove non-native plants, install mulching, plant native species, and repair fencing. Physical work requires use of hand tools only.

Play/Active Amenities
These six improvements include modifications to the existing playground, multi -use fields, walking/running paths, and volleyball courts and the introduction of a new fitness trail loop and nature/play area. The proposed play/active amenities are shown in Figure 3 and described below in Table 2.
30 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

6 Table 2 Play/Active Amenities
Amenity Improvement Description
All Abilities Playground Expand the playground by ~11,200 sf to the west of the existing playground1. Resurface with new equipment (swings, slides, spinners, sensory play elements, and create a larger inclusive play space).

Multi-Use Field Refurbish the existing lawn at the northern portion of the park, install gopher deterrents, upgrade irrigation, and install a new fence backstop
Sand Volleyball Court Remove one of the two existing sand pits, install new pole/netting, and introduce a new seating area around the perimeter.

Walking/Running Path Install ~3,000 linear feet (lf) natural gravel/decomposed granite central walking/running path to connect the north side of the park to the south. This 8-foot-wide path would connect existing paths along the eastern edge, western loop in the southern portion, and western connection from the parking lot to the fields.

Fitness/Trail Loop Create a ~1,000 ft long by up to 8 ft wide perimeter fitness trail/path around the multi-use field.

Install five fitness equipment/pads (~200 sf each) at five locations surrounding the field.

Total impact footprint includes ~13,000 sf [~9,000 sf of permanent disturbance (~8,000 sf of trail and ~1,000 sf of equipment pads) and up to~4,000 sf of temporary impact area].

Nature/Play Area Install a new natural looking boulder course, balance logs, and other exploratory/nature play elements (such as a tree fort) in four use areas comprising ~1,670 sf.2 1 There are three existing playgrounds, the project includes combining into one, expanded playground. 2 The surface of the nature/play area would be a pour in place rubber surfacing material.

Social/Educational Amenities
These five improvements include rehabilitation to the Caretaker Cottage (to include a public use for education/social purpose), creation of a family activity area, and introduction of cultural, social, and educational amenities such as a Channel/Islands Plaza, entrance junction, and entry promenade. The proposed social/educational amenities are shown in Figure 3 and described below in Table 3.

Table 3 Social/Educational Amenities
Amenity Improvement Description
Caretaker Cottage Rehabilitate the cottage to provide shared use as a classroom, education or nature center.

Install ~1,100 sf of decorative permeable paving to the walkway and install a new bioswale for stormwater collection
Family Activities Area Allocate ~1,000 sf of rentable passive space for family activity, such as corn hole, bounce houses, ping pong, etc. No physical improvements and ground surface would remain permeable (i.e., mulch, dirt, grass).

Channel Islands Plaza Introduce interpretive signage of Channel Islands flora at southern entrance.

Entrance Junction Provide decorative boulders and directional signage at the intersection of the central internal pathway/trails.

Entry Promenade Install ~2,800 sf of decorative permeable paving leading up the proposed entrance junction.

The area would be vehicle accessible from the parking lot to the north.

Install a new bioswale for stormwater collection

31 Initial Study

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Figure 3 Conceptual Master Plan

32 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

8 This page intentionally left blank.

33 Initial Study

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Passive/Nature Based Amenities
These five improvements include upgrades to the general use field and native tree grove, and creation of interpretive/bird watching trails, a botanical garden, a butterfly/pollinator garden. The proposed passive/nature-based amenities are shown in Figure 3 and described below in Table 4.

Table 4 Passive/Nature Based Amenities
Amenity Improvement Description
General Use Field Regrade and reseed areas of the general use field, upgrade/trench the irrigation system, and install gopher deterrents.

Interpretive/Bird Watching
Trails
Install seating areas and interpretive signs throughout existing trails for education, bird watching, and refuge.

Install misters/fogging devices to provide redwoods with moisture at a higher zone than standard irrigation.

Botanical/Native Garden Create a new native species botanical area under the existing redwood groves with educational tags for plants
Butterfly/Pollinator Garden Install educational signs and a new seating area for reading/relaxing/outdoor gathering.

Native Tree Grove Trail Install natural colored concrete and decomposed granite (DG) trail areas1 with interpretive signs throughout the park.
1 Concrete - ~56 lf of 8-foot width and ~1,200 lf of 5-foot width; DG -~800 lf of at 8-foot width and ~360 lf at 5-foot width Easements
As shown in Figure 2, an existing water line easement is located along the eastern boundary of the park and also bisects the park through the middle in the east/west direction. This easement would be abandoned and a new easement would be established for a directionally drilled water line, maintained by La Patera Ranch. As shown in Figure 2, the new easement would run along the eastern boundary of the site, connecting to existing infrastructure underneath Cathedral Oaks Road.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
Stow Grove Park includes designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) in two locations.

These areas and protective buffers contain existing park amenities, including three group picnic areas, horseshoe pits, a multi-use turf field, volleyball courts, restrooms, parking lot , and walking/biking trails. Proposed improvements located within ESHA include refurbishing the existing horseshoe and picnic areas, maintenance facility and caretaker cottage, as well as constructing the new restroom and all-abilities playground . U nder Chapter 17.30 .040 of the Goleta Municipal Code, no new development is allowed within ESHA and ESHA buffer, except for Capital Impr ovement Program projects, public accessways and trails, habitat restoration and enhancement projects when consistent with Sections 17.30.060(G) and 17.54.020(A)(6), and nature education and research activities.

Project Schedule/Construction Details
Planned improvements under the Master Plan are anticipated to be implemented over the next 5-15 years, beginning in 2024. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil would be disturbed to implement planned improvements. Minor use of heavy machinery (grader, ro ller, paver, and asphalt mixing equipment) would be required.
34 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

10 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is surrounded by Single Family Residential land uses to the east, west, and south. La Patera Elementary School is located across North La Patera Lane, west of the project site. The site is bordered by Cathedral Oaks Road to the north, the extent of City limits. Agricultural uses are to the north across Cathedral Oaks Road.

9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
Stow Grove Park was donated to the County of Santa Barbara in 19 64. The City of Goleta assumed ownership of the property upon incorporation in 2002, relieving the County of Santa Barbara as a decision-making entity. The City of Goleta is the lead agency for the project. There are no responsible or trustee agencies whose approval is required . A deed restriction will be updated with the Stow Family for the on-site water line easement and park improvements.

10. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1?
California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted in 2015 and expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” Pursuant to AB 52, consultation l etters were delivered to California Native American Tribes by certified by email and certified mail on June 23, 2023 and July 5, 2023, respectively . As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, two Tribes requested consultation: the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians on July 12, 2023 and the Northern Chumash Tribal Council on July 14, 2023. The City held a virtual meeting with the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians on July 14, 2023 and there was mutual agreement to notify the Tribe of future development plans and for the City to provide a copy of the CEQA compliant Cultural Resources Report. The City held a virtual meeting with the Northern Chumash Tribal Council on July 31, 2023, who requested an interpretive panel be incorporated into the project design, that a Chumash monitor be present during ground disturbing activities, and for the City to provide a copy of the CEQA compliant Cultural Resources Report . The City has complied with the tribal consultation requirements of AB 52.
35 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “ Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated ” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
■ Recreation □ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to appl icable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 36 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

12 □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) ha ve been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
JoAnne Plummer Parks and Recreation Manager
Printed Name Title

37 Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light
or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The Visual and Historic Resources Element in the City’s General Plan (2006) identifies views of scenic resources that are to be protected, which include:
▪ Pacific Ocean/Santa Barbara Channel
▪ Views of the Channel Islands
▪ Pacific shoreline, including beaches, dunes, lagoons, coastal bluffs, and open coastal mesas ▪ Goleta and Devereux Sloughs
▪ Creeks and vegetation associated with riparian corridors ▪ Agricultural areas, including those under production as well as fallow agricultural lands 38 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

14 ▪ Lake Los Carneros and the surrounding woodlands
▪ Prominent natural landforms, such as the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills Figure 6 -1, Scenic and Visual Resources , in the General Plan identifies important views of these resources throughout the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, other scenic resources along the shoreline, riparian corridors, and Lake Los Carneros are not visible from the project site. Views of agric ultural areas and the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills are visible to the north from the project site.

Proposed project improvements would occur within Stow Grove Park and would not obstruct northward views of agricultural land or the Santa Ynez Mountain s and foothills, as improvements would be small-scale, and would not include the construction of large buildings or structures that may obstruct views. Proposed amenities would enhance the existing recreational character of the park.

Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Scenic highways are California highways designated by a local governing body and protected by the State Scenic Highway Program for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through speci al conservation treatment. U.S. 101 through the City is eligible for designation as a state scenic highway but is not officially designated.

The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is Route 154, approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the proje ct site (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2018). As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5, Cultural Resources, there are no historic resources on the project site. The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The project site is located in an urbanized, residential area, characterized by single -family homes typical of a suburban neighborhood. The project includes general park improvements, as well as new recreational, social, educational, and nature -based amenities, which would enhance the existing recreational and visual character of Stow Grove Park. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 11, Land Use and Planning, project improvements would be consistent with the open space active park land use designation and zoning of the project site. The project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations that govern scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
39 Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The project is located within a primarily urbanized area of Goleta . Existing sources of light include streetlights on adjacent roadways, vehicle lights, and existing sources of glare include reflection off vehicles. Potential new sources of light could arise from the installation of new light fixtures within the parking lot, restroom, and entrance areas. Project lighting would be designed in accordance with City standards, including Goleta General Plan Visual and Historic Resources Element Policy VH 4.12, Lighting, which requires outdoor lighting fixtures to be aimed downward or toward structures (if properly shielded), retrofitted if feasible, and maintained in order to prevent over -lighting, energy waste, glare, light trespass, and sky glow (City of Goleta 2006 a). In addition, all proposed on -site lighting would comply with Chapter 17.35, Lighting, of the Goleta Zoning Ordinance, which prohibits all exterior lighting from being directed upwards and requires lig ht to be fully shielded and fully cut off to pr event light from trespassing onto adjacent properties. Chapter 17.35 also requires the preparation of an outdoor lighting plan for review by the City to ensure compliance with lighting standards. The project would not include the installation or use of reflective/glare generating sources.

The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

40 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

16 This page intentionally left blank.
41 Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526); or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 42 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

18 c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site is located on land designated by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Urban and Built Up Land (Department of Conservation 2018). As such, the project would not have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The project site is zoned Open Space Active Recreation (OSAR) and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Also, there are no lands that contain or are zoned as f orest lands or timberlands in the City of Goleta. Therefore, the project would not result in environmental changes that would involve the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use, or the conversion of forest lands to non-forest uses. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
43 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
Overview of Air Pollution
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants.

Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROC),2 nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with diameters of ten microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROC and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog).

Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:
▪ Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.

Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat.

2 CARB defines VOC and RO C similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROC and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROC is used in this IS-MND.
44 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

20 ▪ Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
▪ On-road sources that may be legally operated on roadways and highways. ▪ Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.

Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.

Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which includes Santa Barbara County, San Luis Obispo County, and Ventura County. The project site is located in Santa Barbara County and is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). As the local air quality management agency, SBCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SCCAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas designated as non-attainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts associated with these criteria pollutants, presented in Table 5, are already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition . Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance.

The Santa Barbara County portion of the SCCAB is designated a nonattainment area for the State 8- hour ozone standard and the State PM 10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) standard (SBCAPCD 2023) This nonattainment status is a result of several factors, including fuel combustion at industrial facilities, motor vehicle usage, consumer products, and marine vessels in the SCCAB.
45 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 Table 5 Health Effects Associated with Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Adverse Effects
Ozone (1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.

Carbon monoxide (CO) Reduces oxygen delivery leading to: (1) aggravation of chest pain (angina pectoris) and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (2) decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (3) impairment of central nervous system functions; and (4) possible increased risk to fetuses.

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (1) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (2) risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; and (3) contribution to atmospheric discoloration.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) (1) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms that may include wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma.

Suspended particulate
matter (PM10)
(1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).1 Suspended particulate
matter (PM2.5)
(1) Excess deaths from short- and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children, such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease, including asthma.

Lead (1) Short-term overexposures: lead poisoning can cause (a) anemia, (b) weakness, (c) kidney damage, and (d) brain damage; (2) long-term exposures: long-term exposure to lead increases risk for (a) high blood pressure, (b) heart disease, (c) kidney failure, and (d) reduced fertility.

Source: USEPA 2021a
Air Quality Management
Because Santa Barbara County currently exceeds the State 8-hour ozone standard and the State PM10 standard, SBCAPCD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of the CAAQS. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) was adopted as the County portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), designed to meet and maintain clean air standards. The 2022 Ozone Plan (2022 Plan) is the tenth triennial update to the initial state Air Quality Attainment Plan adopted by the SBCAPCD Board of Directors in 1991 (other updates were done in 1994, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019). The 2022 P lan is the first attainment plan to address the State ozone standards only because the County has been designated “attainment” for the federal 8 -hour ozone standards (SBCAPCD 2022a). Each of the ozone plan updates have implemented an “every feasible measur e” strategy to ensure continued progress toward attainment of the state ozone standards. SBCAPCD implements a control measure strategy targeting NOX and ROC emissions, which 46 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

22 are precursors to ozone (SBCAPCD 2022a). Many of these control measures also contribute to reductions in PM10 emissions.

Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds
The following thresholds are based on the County’s 2021 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual and Guidelines Manual, which have been adopted by the City, and Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts would be significant if the project would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Construction Emissions Thresholds
The County does not currently have quantitative thresholds of significance for short -term construction emissions. SBCAPCD recommends that construction-related NOX, ROC, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, from diesel and gasoline powered equipment, paving, and other activities, be quantified.

According to the Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, SBCAPCD recommends quantification of construction -related emissions and suggest a 25 tons per year threshold for ROC or NO X as a guideline for determining the significance of construction impacts (SBCAPCD 2022b). This is a limit that requires offsets if the construction activity is for a project that requires SBCAPCD permit s and also provides guidance for other construction projects involving standard grading and building activities. The City of Goleta has elected to use this threshold.

Standard dust control measures must be implemented for any discretionary project involving earthmoving activities, regardless of size or duration. According to SBCAPCD, proper implementation of these required measures reduces fugitive dust emissions to a l evel that is less than significant (SBCAPCD 2022b). Therefore, all construction activity would be required to incorporate the SBCAPCD requirements pertaining to minimizing construction -related emissions and demolition of existing structures. The City of Go leta also requires implementation of standard emission and dust control techniques for all construction, as outlined in the Conservation Element Policy CE 12.3 (City of Goleta 2006).

Operational Emissions Thresholds
As described in the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, a project would have a significant air quality effect on the environment if operation would conflict with any of the following criteria:
▪ Emit (from all sources, both stationary and mobile) more than 55 pounds per day for ROC or NOX, or more than 80 pounds per day for PM10.
▪ Emit more than 25 pounds per day of NOX or ROC from motor vehicle trips only. ▪ Exceed the APCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the APCD Board (10 excess cancer cases in a million for cancer risk and a Hazard Index of more than 1.0 for non-cancer risk). ▪ Be inconsistent with the latest adopted in federal and state air quality plans for Santa Barbara County.
47 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 Due to the relatively low background ambient CO levels in Santa Barbara County, localized CO impacts associated with congested intersections are not expected to exceed the CO health-related air quality standards (SBCAPCD 2022b). As such, CO hotspot analyses are not required.

Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction and operation were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1. CalEEMod utilizes project-specific information, including the project’s land use (s), square footage for different uses (e.g., parking lot, city park, strip mall), and location, to model a project’s construction and operational emissions. The analysis reflects the construction and operation of the project as described under Section 7, Description of Project.

Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used on - site and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips. CalEEMod estimates construction emissions by multiplying the amount of time equipment is in operation by emission factors. Construction of the project was analyzed based on the applicant - provided project characteristics, disturbance areas, and construction activities. CalEEMod defaults were used to determine an approximate construction schedule and construction equipment list.

Although the proposed amenities would be constructed over the next 5-15 years, emissions modeling assumes a proposed start date of June 2024 and CalEEMod default phases, with project construction occurring over approximately six months. A six-month schedule was applied for modeling purposes as it provides a conservative total of maximum daily emissions. The following assumptions were included in the model based on details described under Section 7, Description of Project:
▪ Regrading and paving of the existing parking lot and new secondary maintenance entrance were modeled using the land use subtype “parking lot”.
▪ The playground expansion and new restrooms were modeled using the land use subtype “city park”.
▪ The multi-use field was modeled using the land use subtype “non-asphalt surface”. ▪ Construction may require up to 2,000 cubic yards (CY) of ground disturbance. Therefore, it is conservatively assumed that half of this quantity (1,000 CY) would be exported offsite.

It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel -powered. This analysis assumes that the project would comply with all applicable regulatory standards. In particular, the project would comply with SBCAPCD standard dust control measures and Conservation Element Policy CE

12.3, which requires site watering to reduce windborne emissions, covering haul trucks to reduce loose materials, enclosing stockpiles, and revegetating graded areas.

Operational emissions modeled include energy emissions, mobile source emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by vehicle trips to and from the project site. It is assumed that the project would generate a nominal increase in vehicle trips by visitors or maintenance staff. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 17, Transportation, the project would generate fewer than 110 vehicle trips per day. For the purposes of emissions modeling, the project is assumed to generate a conservative maximum of 110 vehicle trips per day. Mobile source emissions are based on the daily trip rate and CalEEMod defaults for trip lengths and fleet mixes for the “City Park” land use. Emissions attributed to energy use include natural gas consumption for space and water heating. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings.
48 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

24 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The SBCAPCD Guidelines state that a project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan if its direct and indirect emissions have been accounted for in the Clean Air Plan’s emissions growth assumptions.

Therefore, the project as a whole would be considered to be inconsistent if the project’s direct and indirect emissions have not been accounted for in the Clean Air Plan’s emissions growth assumptions.

In addition, a project would be inconsistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan if the project fails to incorporate all applicable control measures. The Clean Air Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County, as a whole , are reliant on population projections provided by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG).

The project does not include any residential or commercial uses and would not directly or indirectly increase population growth. The proposed park improvements would provide amenities for local Goleta residents such as play structures, multi -use fields, well-maintained walking trails, restrooms, and improved parking. The project would result in a nominal increase in vehicle trips to and from the project site and would not conflict with transportation control measures (e.g., traffic flow improvements, trip r eduction programs, parking management, bicycle and pedestrian programs).

There are no other control measures in the 2022 Ozone Plan that are applicable to the project.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2022 Ozone Plan and there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The Santa Barbara County portion of the SCCAB is designated nonattainment for the CAAQS for ozone and PM10. The following subsections discuss emissions associated with construction and operation of the project.

Construction Emissions
Project construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction equipment/vehicles as well as ROC emissions released during the drying phase of architectural coating. Table 6 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during project construction. As shown therein, construction-related emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds for construction impacts.

Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Construction related impacts would be less than significant. 49 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 Table 6 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Construction Year ROC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2024 3 13 11 <1 3 2
Thresholds 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
lbs/day = pounds per day; ROC = reactive organic compounds, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Notes: See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are typically associated with area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (e.g., appliances and space and water heaters) and mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips to and from the project site). The project would result in operational emissions from area, mobile, and energy sources.

Table 7 summarizes the project’s maximum daily operational emissions by emission source. As shown therein, operational emissions would not exceed the County’s operational thresholds for criteria pollutants. Emissions of all criteria pollutants would be less than two percent of their respective total emissions thresholds. Additionally, mobile source emissions would not exceed the SBCAPCD threshold of 25 lbs/day for ROC and NO X. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 7 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source ROC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 1 <1 3 <1 <1 <1
Total 1 <1 3 <1 <1 <1
Thresholds 55 55 None None 80 None
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A No N/A
lbs/day = pounds per day; ROC = reactive organic compounds, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Notes: See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
50 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

26 c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. Therefore, most sensitive receptor locations are schools, hospitals, and residences. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include single -family residences located immediately east, south, and west of the project site as well as La Patera Elementary School located immediately west of the project site. Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically resu lt from CO hotspots and toxic air contaminants ( TACs), which are discussed in the following subsections.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.

Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 ppm or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016).

The entire SC CAB is in conformance with state and federal CO standards, and most air quality monitoring stations no longer report CO levels. As shown in Table 6, maximum daily CO emissions generated by project construction would be less than 0.1 pound. Furthermore, SBCAPCD indicates that localized CO impacts associated with congested intersections are not expected to exceed the CO health-related air quality standards (SBCAPCD 2022b). Based on the low background level of CO in the project area, ever-improving vehicle emissions standards for new cars in accordance with state and federal regulations, and the project’s low level of operational CO emissions, the project would not create new CO hotspots or contribute substantially to exi sting CO hotspots. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations, and localized air quality impacts related to CO hot spots would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The following subsections discuss the project’ s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.

Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project -generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off -road, heavy -duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non -cancer health impacts (CARB 2023) and is therefore the focus of this analysis.

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period. Use of heavy machinery during c onstruction of the project was modeled to occur over approximately 6 months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure the person with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed 51 Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70 -year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with a project (OEHHA 2015). Thus, the duration of the proposed construction activities (i.e., 6 months) is less than one percent of the total exposure period used for 70 -year health risk calculations. Current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer -term exposure perio ds of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not closely resemble the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017).

The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during site preparation and grading activities.

These activities would last for approximately 12 days. PM emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction (new restroom), trail maintenance, and architectural coating would require less intensive construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with site preparation and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst -case condition for the total construction period. This would represent less than one percent of the total 30 -year exposure period for health risk calculation. DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than one in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or to generate ground -level concentrations of non -carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) provides recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispe nsing facilities). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted similar recommendations in its Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local P lanning (2005)3. Together, CARB and SCAQMD guidelines recommend siting distances both for the development of sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC sources and for the addition of new TAC sources in proximity to existing sensitive land uses. City park/recreational land uses are not considered land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions based on review of the air toxic sources listed in SCAQMD’s and CARB’s guidelines. It is expected that the temporary quantities of hazardous TACs utilized on-site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides) for the types of proposed amenities would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. Since the project would not include substantial TAC sources and is consistent with CARB guidelines, it would not result in the exposure of off-site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

3 In 2017, SBCAPCD released a supplemental guidance document, District Guidance for Development near Busy Roadways in Santa Barbara County. This guidance document specifically addresses siting of sensitive uses near high-volume roadways and does not consider stationary sources of TAC emissions. Therefore, the recommended guidance from SCAQMD is used in this analysis. 52 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

28 d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary, ceasing upon completion, and odors disperse with distance. Overall, project construction would not generate other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

The project would comply with SBCAPCD Rule 303 (Nuisance), which prohibits the discharge of quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety or any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property (SBCAPCD 1978).

The project does not include amenities which have the potential to generate other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. No operational impacts would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
53 Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ ■
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ ■
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ ■ □ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
54 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

30 Background
Rincon Consultants prepared a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) in July 2023. The BRA, included as Appendix B, evaluated biological resources that occur, or have the potential to occur, within the park, based on results of field visits and a desktop review. The BRA provides an assessment of impacts to biological resources as a result of the project. In particular, the BRA addresses the potential for direct and indirect impacts to the monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus), Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter cooperii), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and ESHAs. The following setting and analysis has been summarized based on information and analysis in the BRA.

Setting
The following are habitats in Goleta and are identified as ESHA: marine resources, beach and shoreline resources, coastal dunes, coastal bluff scrub, foredune, oak woodlands/savannah, dense stands of native grasslands, all wetlands such as vernal pools, riparian habitats, monarch butterfly overwintering roosts, r aptor roosts and nests, and habitats that support special status -plant and wildlife species. In the Conservation Element of the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, ESHAs in Goleta are general ly mapped in Conservation Element Figure 4-1 (updated 2023). However, per General Plan Policy CE 1.3, any area not designated on the ESHA map in Conservation Element Figure 4-1 that meets the ESHA criteria shall be granted the same protections as if the area was shown on the map. As depicted in Conservation Element Figure 4-1, a portion of the project site is designated as ESHA, including coast live oak woodland and the eucalyptus grove that provides potential habitat for monarch butterfly aggregations (City of Goleta 2023).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special Status Plant Species
Based on database and literature review, as well as the field reconnaissance survey, 28 special status plant species are known or have the potential to occur in the project site (Appendix B) . No special status plants are expected to occur within the project site, based on the altered vegetation communities and high levels of recurring maintenance and disturbance in the park. In addition, the project site is not located in any designated critical habitat or preserves for special status plant species and no special status plant species were observed during the field survey within the project site.

Because no special status plant species are expected to occur on the project site, this impact would be less than significant.

Special Status Wildlife Species
Based on database and literature review , 554 special status wildlife species are known or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site (Appendix B). Of these 54 55 species, three four have a moderate or higher potential to occur, the monarch butterfly, yellow warbler, and two raptors (Cooper’s hawk and white-tailed kite). No special status wildlife species were observed during the field survey and n o designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered species is designated within the project site (Appendix B).
55 Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 The remaining 51 special status species are not expected to occur based on the BRA’s evaluation for potential to occur . Impacts to these species would be less than significant. The species reasonably anticipated to occur were determined based on the published ranges of the species and the type, extent, and condition of habitat available at the site. The monarch butterfly and raptor species with potential to occur in the project site are described below.

Monarch Butterfly – California Overwintering Population Removal of or damage to trees that create monarch butterfly overwintering habitat/ESHA may directly impact the quality of roosting habitat. The creation of a secondary entrance to North La Patera Lane that requires the removal of one coast live oak tree is not anticipated to have a substantial impact on the long -term suitability of the monarch habita t, although removal could alter wind protection to roosting monarchs. Construction, grading and trenching for project improvement elements may adversely impact tree root zones and affect their longevity to provide shelter for roosting monarchs.

Construction activities with heavy machinery and work crews have the potential to disturb and disrupt the overwintering behavior of monarch butterflies in the Stow Grove ESHA if conducted during the monarch overwintering season (Oct 15 - April 15) and nesting bird season (generally January 15 - August 15). Overwintering monarch butterflies have the potential to be impacted in the short -term by direct impacts to or disturbance of suitable habitat during the overwintering season. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and BIO -2 outline specific procedures to follow prior to and during construction and require preparation of a Monarch Roosting Protection Plan and Tree Removal and Monarch Roost Protection Plan introducing minimization efforts. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires preparation of a landscaping plan outlining specific limitations on types of pollinator species to be planted and insecticide/herbicide, toxic substance use during maintenance. Construction activities causing ground disturbance could impact tree roots and subsequently tree health, resulting in impacts to the monarch habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 requires tree protection measures to ensure that impacts to mature native (protected) trees are minimized to the extent feasible or avoided, consistent with Policy CE 9 prior to the start of project activities . With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4, potential short-term direct and indirect impacts to monarch butterflies and monarch butterfly ESHA would be reduced to a less than significant level . In addition to these required mitigation measures , the project incorporates elements such as the Butterfly/Pollinator Garden, which would improve the quality of the monarch butterfly overwintering habitat in the long term, further reducing potential impacts to monarch roosting habitat.

Raptors and Nesting Birds
The project site contains suitable habitat to support regulated nesting birds protected under the CFGC Section 3503 and the MBTA (16 United States Code §§ 703 –712). Potential nesting locations for raptors were observed throughout the project site during the field survey, with the most suitable locations being mature native and non-native trees (e.g., eucalyptus, sycamore, cottonwood, coast live oak). An inactive historic nest was observed in the redwood trees within the project site during the tree survey. The Santa Barbara Audubon Society’s Breeding Bird portal shows observations of great horned owls tending young owls as recently as 2019, and yellow warbler, and Cooper’s hawk doing the same in 2009; and a white-tailed kite nest that did not advance to nestling stage. Although white-tailed kites are fully protected species that could be indirectly impacted by construction 56 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

32 disturbance within its 0.5-mile foraging range during breeding season, foraging habitat for the kite is poor and no changes to the open foraging areas would occur (Appendix B).

Raptors and nesting birds (including special status species Cooper’s hawk, yellow warbler, and white- tailed kite) may be directly impacted if individuals and/or active nests are present in the work area through direct mortality from, physical impacts to individuals and/or active nests or causing abandonment of nests. Additionally, indirect impacts from noise and human presence may cause disturbance if active nests or foraging individuals are within the vicinity of construction and could ultimately result in nest failure. This is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would require a pre-construction nesting bird survey to identify presence, and avoidance measures to follow, if present. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -5 direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level.

In addition to this required mitigation, the project’s restoration and habitat enhancements, including eucalyptus and native understory planting, would improve long-term habitat for raptors and nesting birds, further reducing potential impacts to these species.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Monarch Butterfly Roost Protection
The City will implement measures to avoid and minimize indirect impacts on monarch butterfly overwintering roosts consistent with Policy CE 4. C onstruction activities (including tree/vegetation removal and infrastructure improvement ) within 200 feet of monarch butterfly ESHA shall be scheduled to occur between April 1 and September 30 where feasible, to avoid overwintering monarch butterflies.

If construction and infrastructure improvement activities within 200 feet of monarch butterfly ESHA cannot feasibly be scheduled to avoid the overwintering season, the following measures shall be implemented prior to construction activities (including tree/vegetation removal and/or infrastructure improvement):
▪ A monarch specialist or qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for roosting monarchs prior to the start of work and confirm the absence of roosting monarchs before the work can commence.

Roosting monarch surveys must follow the Xerces Society Protocol (2022). Surveys shall be conducted in the early morning while temperatures are low enough that monarch butterflies remain clustered from the evening before (usually when temperatures are below 13 °C or 55 °F). ▪ During the overwintering season and during construction and infrastructure improvement activities that occur, roosting monarch surveys shall be conducted weekly to confirm continued absence or to identify, map, and describe roost locations if presence of roosting monarchs is confirmed. Mapped roosting locations may be adjusted as needed under the guidance of a monarch specialist or qualified biologist.
▪ Any construction, infrastructure improvement activities, or tree/vegetation removal within 200 ft of roosting monarchs within the monarch butterfly ESHA shall be prohibited (consistent with CE 4.5 and CE 4.6d).
▪ A monarch specialist or qualified biologist shall be present to document monarch butterfly protection. The monarch monitor shall document that roosting monarchs are not disturbed by work activities. The monarch monitor shall have authority to stop work if monarchs show signs of unnatural disturbance.
57 Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 ▪ Trees removed from the monarch butterfly ESHA and trees heavily impacted by construction, grading, and trenching of the project improvement elements within the monarch butterfly ESHA shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio within the ESHA and as close to the removed tree as is reasonably feasible.

Plan Requirements and Timing: This condition shall be noted on any project plans. For construction during the overwintering season, prior to construction. The biological monitor shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Monitoring. If construction occurs during the overwintering season , surveys shall be conducted to determine presence or absence of roosting monarchs. If monarchs are not present, no buffer or monitoring are required. If monarchs are present, the requirements apply during the overwin tering season, prior to any grading or construction and throughout all development activities until occupancy clearance issued.

BIO-2: Tree Removal and Monarch Roost Protection Plan
A Tree Removal and Monarch Protection Plan is required prior to any Monarch ESHA tree removal consistent with Policy CE 4. The Plan shall include the following. • Removal of trees of any diameter possessing living foliage is prohibited within the monarch butterfly ESHA unless a tree is identified as an imminent hazard to property or life , is dead, or is otherwise approved by the City Arborist consistent Policy CE 4 . Trees being considered for removal shall be evaluated and approved by both a certified arborist and a monarch specialist or qualified biologist for critical habitat protection before project work commences (consistent with Policy CE 4.4).
• Trees removed from the monarch butterfly ESHA and trees heavily impacted by construction, grading, and trenching of the project improvement elements within the monarch butterfly ESHA shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio within the ESHA and as close to the removed tree as is reasonably feasible.

Plan Requirements: The Tree Removal and Monarch Protection Plan shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to construction. Monitoring and Reporting: Trees planted as mitigation for this project will be mitigated through replacement plantings as described in Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and BIO-5. The trees and tree health shall be monitored at a minimum of twice annually. A nnual monitoring reports, prepared by an arborist shall be submitted to the City for three consecutive years.

BIO-3 Pollinator Garden Landscape Plan
Prior to construction of the pollinator garden, a Landscape Plan with the proposed pollinator species shall be approved by the City. The Plan shall also limit the use of insecticides, herbicides, or other toxic substances by City employees and contractors in construction and maintenance. Invasive species shall be prohibited. A list of pollinator species is included in the Stow Grove Park Monarch Butterfly ESHA- Impact Analysis and Minimization Measures (Althouse and Meade 2023).

Plan Requirements and Timing: The Landscape Plan shall be approved by the City prior to construction. This condition shall be noted on any plans. Monitoring: City staff will spot check plants to confirm consistency with the approved Landscape Plan.

BIO-4 Tree Protection Measures
The following tree protection measures shall be implemented to ensure that impacts to mature native (protected) trees are minimized to the extent feasible or avoided, consistent with Policy CE 9 prior to 58 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

34 the start of project activities All measures below will be conducted by or under the direct supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist:
▪ A certified arborist or qualified biologist shall monitor any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that have a potential to impact protected trees. ▪ A minimum 3-foot-tall snow fence shall be placed around the TPZ in areas where project activities have the potential to impact protected trees. Fencing shall be maintained and in place throughout the duration of these activities.
▪ Any grading, cut-and fill, trenching, or other ground disturbance shall be done slowly using hand tools as feasible to avoid ripping or tearing roots. Roots two inches or greater in diameter shall be avoided to the extent feasible.
▪ Any root pruning shall be done at a 90-degree angle with a clean sharp blade, and new cuts shall be wetted and covered with absorbent tarp or heavy cloth fabric until backfill is completed. ▪ No equipment or materials shall be stored within TPZs as feasible. In areas where vehicles or equipment may impact tree roots, steel plates shall be installed to protect the root zones as needed.
▪ Pruning shall be limited to only what is necessary for project activities. Inadvertent damage to limbs and branches from equipment shall be immediately trimmed with clean blades. All pruning shall rely on best practices as determined by the arborist. ▪ If any protected trees are damaged to the point where continued viability is threatened, as determined by a certified arborist, the tree will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with like species grown from locally obtained seed. Replacement shall occur on site as feasible, or off site (within the same watershed) if on site replacement is not feasible. Replacement trees shall be monitored for a period of 5 years.

Plan Set Requirements and Timing: This condition shall be noted on any plans. The name and contact information for the arborist shall be submitted to the City prior to commencement of construction.

Monitoring: For construction with the potential to impact protected trees, the arborist or qualified biological monitor shall be approved prior to the start of construction . Monitoring shall occur throughout all development activities with the potential to impact protected trees until occupancy clearance issued.

BIO-5 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys
• To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, including raptor species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, project activities including vegetation removal, ground disturbance, construction, and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), if feasible.
▪ If work must begin during the breeding season, a pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of project activities. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted inside the project footprint plus a 500 -foot for raptors and special -status species and a 300 -foot buffer for all other birds. Inaccessible parts of the survey area shall be scanned using binoculars. The survey shall be conducted by a City-approved biologist familiar with the identification of bird species known to occur in southern California communities. ▪ If active nests (those containing eggs, nestlings, or associated with dependent fledglings) are found on-site, an avoidance buffer shall be implemented around each nest and demarcated with fencing or flagging. The size of the buffers shall be determined by the biologist based upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside 59 Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 of the site. No project activity shall occur inside a nest buffer until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active. If recommended by the avian biologist, a Nesting Bird Management Plan shall be prepared, which would assist in maintaining status and avoidance of multiple active nests. The Nesting Bird Management Plan would include the requirements of this measure (ex. timing of surveys, buffer size, and avoidance efforts/techniques). ▪ If no nesting birds are observed during pre -construction surveys, no further actions would be necessary.

Plan Requirements and Timing: This condition shall be noted on any plans. The name and contact information for the avian biologist and a Nesting Bird Management Plan, if recommended by the avian biologist, shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to commencement of construction.

Monitoring: If a nesting bird survey is required (construction occurs during the nesting bird season), the s urvey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of project activities . A summary memo shall be submitted to the City for approval within 14 days of the survey. If white- tailed kite nests are observed, avoidance buffers shall be determined in consultation with CDFW.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? According to the CNDDB, one sensitive plant community, southern coastal salt marsh, has been documented within five miles of the project site; this community is not present within the project site (Appendix B). No other CNDDB sensitive plant communities were observed during the field survey and there are no riparian habitats present on the site (Appendix B).

Two types of ESHA are mapped within the project site: landscaped native upland woodlands, comprised of the trees and landscaped vegetation, and monarch butterfly and raptor roosting habitat, which is also comprised of trees. Construction activities including ground disturbance, improvements to existing buildings and infrastructure, and creation of new buildings and infra structure could potentially impact ESHA. Specifically, construction activities causing ground disturbance could impact tree roots and subsequently tree health. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and BIO -2 outline specific procedures to follow prior to and during construction and require preparation of a Monarch Roosting Protection Plan and Tree Removal and Monarch Roost Protection Plan introducing minimization efforts. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires preparation of a landscaping plan outlining specific limitations on types of pollinator species to be planted and insecticide/herbicide, toxic substance use during maintenance. Mitigation Measures BIO- 4 and BIO -5 require tre e protection measures and nesting bird surveys to identify presence, and procedures to follow if nests are found. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, potential project short -term direct and indirect impacts to special status species and ESHA would be reduced to a less than significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No waters, wetlands, or riparian vegetation that meet the standards for federal protection under jurisdiction of the U nited States Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB, or CDFW were observed during 60 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

36 the field survey and there are no waters or wetlands identified by the Conservation Element National Wetlands Inventory, or National Hydrography Dataset mapped within the project site (Appendix D).

There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The project site is not in an area identified as a wildlife corridor and the potential movement of wildlife through the project site is minimal given the densely developed nature of the site and adjacent properties to the south, east, and west (Appendix B). Although open space is present north of the project site, Cathedral Oaks Road is a substantial barrier to wildlife movement. The project would not impede wildlife movement and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
As discussed in Environmental Checklist Item a, a portion of the project site is designated as ESHA, including coast live oak woodland and the eucalyptus grove that provides habitat for monarch butterfly aggregations. Project construction and operation has the potential to result in impacts to ESHA, thereby potentially resulting in conflicts with City policies intended to protect biological resources. Conservation Element Policies CE 1.1-1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10 define ESHA uses, development standards, on-site and off-site mitigation, setbacks/buffers, and management. Policy CE 4 relates to protection of monarch butterfly habitat areas, and Policy CE 9 relates to protection of native woodlands. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO -5 address potential project short -term direct and indirect impacts to special status species and ESHA by requiring implementation of a monarch roost protection plan, tree removal and monarch roost protection plan, preparation of landscape plan comprising of specific lists of species for planting/maintenance, implementing native tree protection measures, and requiring nesting bird surveys to identify presence.

Table 8 provides a consistency analysis, illustrating how the project would be consistent with policies protecting biological resources , with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO -5.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Table 8 City of Goleta Biological Resource Policy Consistency Analysis Policy Discussion
Policy CE 1: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Designations and Policy.

CE 1.1-1.3 and 1.5: ESHA
Designation and Mapping
Consistent. ESHA has been designated and mapped consistent with Policies CE 1.1,

1.2, and 1.3 to the extent of current and previously designated ESHA. No map correction specified under CE 1.5 is required or proposed (Appendix B) CE 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8:

Protection of ESHAs and ESHA
Buffers
Consistent. The public access improvement components of the project (e.g., walking/running path, fitness/ trail loop, parking lot replacement) are considered allowed use in ESHA under Policy CE 1.6.c. The butterfly/pollinator garden and native garden are considered allowed use (resource restoration and enhancement) under CE

1.6.d.
61 Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 Policy Discussion
The project was designed to minimize impacts to ESHA. All impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of required mitigation. The design requires minimal modification and alteration of natural landforms as possible.

An ESHA buffer under CE 1.8 is not required since the project use is allowed to be located within ESHA.

CE 1.7: Mitigation of Impacts
to ESHA
Consistent. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 and BIO-4 potential project short-term direct and indirect impacts would be less than significant to monarch butterflies and monarch butterfly ESHA. Two trees are anticipated to be removed, one for the La Patera entrance and one for the maintenance facility refurbishment. Project impacts are mitigated through Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-5, which require tree replacements. Impacts to trees’ roots and canopies would be mitigated through Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO- 4 for all project activities including for establishment of trails, improvements to buildings and infrastructure, and building of new structures. Potential direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds would be reduced by Mitigation Measure BIO-5 to less than significant. Environmental protection practices that describe best management practices during construction would be developed and included with the project construction specifications.

CE 1.9: Standards Applicable
to Development Projects
Consistent. No night lighting or non-native species planting is proposed. The design preserves existing wildlife corridors and habitat networks and are of sufficient width to protect habitat and dispersal zones for small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. Stow Grove Park has been heavily modified from its natural landform and landscaped with both native and non-native woodlands and vegetation. With adherence to the site plan, development would minimize grading, alteration of current landforms and physical features, and vegetation clearance in order to reduce or avoid soil erosion, increased runoff, and reduced infiltration of stormwater and prevent net increases in baseline flows for any receiving water body.

CE 1.10: Management of
ESHAs
Consistent. Construction impacts would be avoided though adherence to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, including a prohibition on invasive species and limits on chemical use under Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Adherence to City and State stormwater requirements would ensure any grading during the rainy season would be conducted consistent with CE 1.10.j and would maintain the ESHA ecological functions.

Policy CE 4: Protection of Monarch Butterfly Habitat Areas CE 4.1 through4.3: Definition
of Habitat Area, Designation
of Monarch Butterfly ESHAs,
and Site-Specific Studies and
Unmapped Monarch ESHAs.

Consistent. Current and historical butterfly habitat and roosts have been recently mapped and identified as ESHA by the City. All suitable habitat in the project site have been surveyed according to City and current Xerces protocol.

CE 4.4: Protection of Monarch
Butterfly ESHAs, CE 4.5
Buffers Adjacent to Monarch
Butterfly ESHAs.

Consistent. The project components are allowed uses in monarch butterfly ESHA and has been sited to avoid impacts to aggregation sites and potential habitat. The only monarch butterfly ESHA vegetation removal proposed includes the removal of an individual eucalyptus tree located in the eucalyptus stand along the western boundary of the park. Removed trees would be replaced with the objective of monarch butterfly habitat restoration and enhancement.

CE 4.6: Standards Applicable
to New Development
Adjacent to Monarch ESHAs.

Consistent. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires construction to occur outside the overwintering period (April 1 to September 30), and avoidance measures if construction must occur during the overwintering season. Impacts to habitat as a result of tree removal would be addressed through Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2
62 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

38 Policy Discussion
CE 8: Protection of Special-
Status Species
Consistent. Direct and indirect impacts to nesting raptors (if present) in the project site would be avoided though adherence to Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-5.

Policy CE 9: Protection of Native Woodlands
CE 9.1, 9.2, and 9.4: Tree
Protection Plan and
Standards
Consistent. Based on Policy CE 9.1, 9.2, and 9.4, impacts (including removal, fragmentation of habitat, removal of understory, disruption of canopy, alteration of drainage patterns, siting of structures/roads/driveways) to mature native trees will be avoided or minimized to the extent feasible through project design and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-4. Policy CE 9 does not include specific tree protection standards; as such, the tree protection measures include industry protection standards (measures to be implemented prior to, during, and after construction including methods of avoiding injury, damage treatment and inspections, activities permitted/prohibited within tree protection zones (TPZs), and monitoring requirements for work within TPZs). Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires mitigation at a 3:1 ratio for removal of trees.

CE 9.3: Native Oak
Woodlands or Savannas
Consistent. Native oak woodlands are mapped as ESHA within the project site and tree trimming, weed abatement, and brush clearance under the project would be the same as is currently being conducted, which is the minimum required to achieve public safety and habitat restoration. The project would not impact native oak woodlands.

CE 9.5: Mitigation of Impacts
to Native Trees
Consistent. Based on Policy CE 9.5, mitigation for the removal of native trees shall include, at a minimum, the planting of replacement trees on site, if suitable area exists on the subject site, or off site (within the same watershed) if suitable onsite area is unavailable. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for a period of 5 years. The project is not anticipated to threaten the continued viability of any native trees. Encroachment into the TPZ would be minimized through project design and Mitigation Measures BIO- 2 and BIO-4.

Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2023; Appendix B

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The project is not within the coverage area of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (Appendix B). There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
63 Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
Rincon Consultants prepared a Cultural Resources Technical Report in July 2023, documenting background and archival research, records searches conducted for the project site, and Phase 1 and Extended Phase 1 survey testing results (Rincon 2023) .4 The following setting has been summarized based on information presented and cited in the Technical Report.

Setting
Indigenous History
The project site is in what is generally described as the Northern Bight archaeological region, one of eight organizational divisions of the state. The Northern Bight encompasses the northern portion of the California Bight, which is marked by the curve of the coastline along central California. The prehistoric cultural chronology for the Northern Bight is generally divided into six periods: Paleo - Indian Period (ca. 10,000 - 7000 BCE), Millingstone Period (7000 - 5000 BCE), Early Period (5000 - 2000 BCE), Middle Period (2000 BCE - 1 CE), Middle-Late Transition Period (1 - 1000 CE), and Late Period (1000 CE - Historic Contact).

Ethnographic Setting
The project site lies within Chumash ethnographic territory, which extends from the current city of Malibu, north beyond San Luis Obispo, and inland as far as 42 miles. The Chumash also inhabited the northern Channel Islands. The Chumash are divided into t hree main groups, including Interior, Coastal, and Northern Channel Islands Chumash. Although the Chumash languages are no longer commonly spoken (Timbrook 1990), many descendants of the Chumash still live in the region and a cultural revitalization has be en ongoing since the 20th century. Today, the Santa Ynez Band of

4 This report is confidential and therefore not included for public distribution. Archaeological site locations are exempt from the California Public Records Act, as specified in Government Code 6254.10, and from the Freedom of Information Act (Exemption 3), under the legal authority of both the National Historic Preservation Act (PL 102 -574, Section 304[a]) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (PL 96-95, Section 9[a]).
64 40
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
Chumash Indians, whose reservation is approximately 17.5 miles northwest of the project site, is the only federally recognized Chumash tribe.

Local History
Following Mexican independence from Spain, the Goleta area was divided into two large land grants:

Rancho Dos Pueblos and Rancho La Goleta, named for the sailing ship or “goleta”, which wrecked several years earlier. After California officially became a U.S. state, the larger ranchos were subdivided into smaller, individual farms, and the Goleta Valley became an agricultural center known as a prominent lemon-growing region during the late 19th and 20th centuries. The earliest agricultural pioneers in the area included the Hollister Ranch, Cooper Ranch, and Stow Ranch, where within which the project site was originally historically located. What is currently Stow Grove Park was part of Stow Ranch. During this period, the project site was used as an unofficial gathering place for members of the Stow family and locals alike, who referred to the present redwood grove as Stow’s Grove. The grove was surrounded by lemon orchards owned by the Stow Ffamily. Members of the Stow Family who lived in on the property, in what is referred to today as the Stow House, (Santa Barbara County Landmark #6; designated Goleta Landmark, NRHP and CRHR listed), located southwest of the current day park at 304 North Los Carneros Road.

Agriculture continued to be the driving economic force in the area until the late 1950s when the completion of Cachuma Dam brought a reliable source of water to Goleta, the aerospace industry established offices, and the University of California, Santa Barbara was established in the area .

Following these developments, new residents flooded into the area and single-family residential communities were constructed in the former agricultural fields, including those surrounding Stow Grove Park. To further support increased residential development, additional amenities and institutional facilities such as parks, hospitals, and schools were constructed. Stow Grove Park was donated to the County of Santa Barbara in 1964 and developed for active recreation. Goleta was incorporated as a city in 2002.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
On May 16, 2023, Rincon submitted a records search request to the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Rincon also reviewed the N ational Register of Historic Places (NRHR) , the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) , the California Historical Landmarks list, and the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), as well as its predecessor the California State Historic Property Data File. Additionally, Rincon reviewed the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list.

Field survey and background research resulted in the identification of one historic-age property within the project site, Stow Grove Park. The property was recorded and evaluated on DPR forms for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and local designation as a Goleta Landmark listing and was recommended ineligible for listing for all three under all criteri ons (Rincon 2023) . Although Stow Grove Park is recommended eligible for designation as a Goleta Point of Historical Interest, according to the City of Goleta Municipal Code Section 17.33.070, Points of Historical Interest are not considered Since Stow Grove Park is ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and local designation, it is not considered a historical resource s pursuant to CEQA. Because there are no historical resources on the sit e, the 65 Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 project would not result in adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
City staff requested a contact list of Native American Tribes culturally affiliated with the project area from NAHC on May 11, 2023. Rincon contacted the NAHC on May 16, 2023, to request a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) . On June 15, 2023, the NAHC responded to Rincon’s request; the results of the SLF request were positive, indicating that a sacred land is recorded within the Public Lands Survey System section that encompasses the project site. The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search results from the CCIC identified 14 cultural resources studies that have been previously conducted within 0.5 -mile of the project site (Rincon 2023). Of these studies, one covered the northern portion of the project site, along Cathedral Oaks Road. Review of the CHRIS records search, the Santa Barbara County Built Environment Resource Directory, and the City of Goleta Historic Resources Inventory identified 11 cultural resources that have been previously recorded within 0.5-mile of the project site (Rincon 2023).

Rincon conducted a Phase 1 cultural resources pedestrian survey of the project site on May 23, 2023.

Substantial evidence of past ground -disturbing activities in association with park development and landscaping was visible throughout the entire project site. Soils observed throughout the project site included dark brown to dark grayish brown and silty sand. Two shell fragments were observed on the ground surface during the Phase 1 pedestrian survey, resulting in completion of an Extended Phase I Study to determine the presence or absence of subsurface archaeological materials within the project site. A total of four shovel test pits were excavated. Native American monitoring during the Extended Phase 1 excavations was conducted by the Honorable Eleanor Fishburn of the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians. No archaeological deposits were found through the course of the Extended Phase 1 testing (Rincon 2023).

Although no resources were found on-site as part of the Phase 1 and Extended Phase I Studies, based on the presence of Native American resources nearby, the project site is considered sensitive for archaeological resources (Rincon 2023). Construction of the proposed park amenities would therefore have the potential to uncover previously unidentified archaeological or tribal cultural resources, which could lead to damage or destruction of the resource. Impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources would therefore be potentially significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3, the City would require a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training, retain an on-call archaeologist, require Native American monitoring, and follow adequate procedures in case of unanticipated discovery of archaeological or tribal cultural resources, including halting of work to evaluate the find . Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program
Prior to the start of ground disturbance, the construction crews shall participate in training led by an archaeologist under the direction of a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric archaeology (NPS 1983) on the proper 66 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

42 procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources are uncovered during the project excavations, site preparation, or other related activities. A Native American representative shall be provided the opportunity to participate and present in the WEAP training. This Worker Environmental Awareness Program shall include a comprehensive discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law, samples or visuals of artifacts that might be found in the vicinity of the project site, a discussion of what such artifacts may look like when partially buried or wholly buried and then freshly exposed, a discussion of what prehistoric and historic-period archaeological deposits look like at the surface and when exposed during co nstruction, and instruction that employees are to halt work in the vicinity of a discovery (within 100 feet). This information shall be provided in an informational brochure that outlines reporting procedures in the event of a discovery . Plan Requirements: This condition shall be printed on all building/grading plans. Monitoring: The City shall check plans prior to issuance of a permit and City compliance monitoring staff shall spot check in the field throughout grading.

CR-2 Native American Monitoring
A City -qualified archaeologist and Native American observer shall monitor all excavation related activities throughout the project site to ensure that if prehistoric materials important to the Native American community are identified , they are assessed consistent with City of Goleta Cultural Resources Guidelines. In the unlikely event human remains are encountered during grading, excavation must be immediately suspended, and the protocol identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15065.4(e) and the State Public Resources Code section 5097.98 shall be followed. Any diagnostic prehistoric artifacts that are identified must be recovered and either curated at the Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections located at University of California, Santa Bar bara or reburied at a location determined through consultation between the City of Goleta and tribal representatives.

Timing: This condition shall be printed on all building/grading plans. Before the City issues permits for any excavation related activities, verify contact information of the Native American consultant, and the agreed upon procedures to be followed. If remains are found and if the remains are found to be of Native American origin, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission and the Commission shall name the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD , City -retained archaeologist, and City staff shall consult as to the disposition of the remains. If the remains are not identified of Native American origin, the County Coroner will take possession of the remains and comply with all state and local requirements in the treatment of the remai ns. Monitoring: The Department of Neighborhood Services Director, or designee, shall confirm that a Native American Monitor is retained, that the County Coroner is notified in the event human remains are found, and that the Native American Heritage Commiss ion is contacted if the remains are of Native American Chumash origin.

CR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground -disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the resource. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be 67 Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics o f the resource, per the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justi fies the resource’s significance. In compliance with City of Goleta Development Standards (17.43.040) set forth in Council Resolution No. 08-40, the City of Goleta shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the CHRIS, per CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). Plan Requirements: This condition shall be printed on all building /grading plans. Monitoring: The City shall check plans prior to issuance of a grading permit and compliance monitoring staff shall spot check in the field if a resource is found.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. In compliance with City of Goleta Development Standards (17.43.040), i f human remains are unexpectedly found, no further disturbance would occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the City of Goleta Planning and Environmental Review Department and County Coroner would be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner would notify the NAHC, which would determine and notify a n MLD. The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner would reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. Adherence to existing regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
68 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

44 This page intentionally left blank.
69 Environmental Checklist
Energy

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ ■ □
Setting
As a state, California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 49 th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (United States Energy Information Administration 2022). Electricity and natural gas are primarily consumed by the built environment for lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems , fireplaces, and other uses such as industrial processes in addition to being consumed by alternative fuel vehicles. Petroleum fuels are primarily consumed by on -road and off -road equipment in addition to some industrial processes, with California being one of the top petroleum-producing states in the nation (CEC 2021). Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles, is the most used transportation fuel in California with 13.8 billion gallons sold in 2021 (CEC 2022a). Diesel, which is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles, is the second most used fuel in California with 1.8 billion gallons sold in 2021 (CEC 2022b).

In 2018, Senate Bill 100 accelerated the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 pe rcent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Electricity and natural gas service would be provided to the project by Southern California Edison. Table 9 summarizes the electricity and natural gas consumption for Santa Barbara County and for Southern California Edison, as compared to statewide consumption. 70 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

46 Table 9 2021 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption Energy Type
Santa
Barbara
County
Southern
California
Edison (SCE) California
Proportion of
SCE
Consumption
Proportion of
Statewide
Consumption1
Electricity (GWh) 2,733 81,129 280,738 3.4% 1.0%
Natural Gas (millions of therms) 131 5,101 11,923 2.6% 1.1% GWh = gigawatt-hours
1 The population of Santa Barbara County (440,557 persons) is approximately 1.1 percent of the population of California (38,940,231 persons) (California Department of Finance 2023).

Source: CEC 2023a; 2023b
Table 10 summarizes the petroleum fuel consumption for Santa Barbara County , as compared to statewide consumption.

Table 10 2021 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption
Fuel Type
Santa Barbara County
(gallons)
California
(gallons)
Proportion of Statewide
Consumption1
Gasoline 168 13,818 1.2
Diesel 17 1,883 0.9
1 The population of Santa Barbara County (440,557 persons) is approximately 1.1 percent of the population of California (38,940,231 persons) (California Department of Finance 2023).

Source: CEC 2023c
Energy consumption is directly related to environmental quality in that the consumption of nonrenewable energy resources releases criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. The environmental impacts of air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the project’s energy consumption are discussed in detail in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, and Environmental Checklist Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project r esult in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The project would use nonrenewable and renewable resources for construction and operation al activities. The anticipated use of these resources is detailed in the following subsections. CalEEMod outputs for the air pollutant and GHG emissions modeling (Appendix C) were used to estimate energy consumption associated with the project.

Construction Energy Demand
The project would require site preparation and grading, including hauling material off-site; pavement and asphalt installation; building construction; architectural coating; and landscaping and hardscaping. During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the site. As shown in Table 11, project construction would require approximately 119 gallons of gasoline and 71 Environmental Checklist
Energy

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 approximately 8,185 gallons of diesel fuel. These construction energy estimates are conservative as they assume that the construction equipment utilized in each phase of construction is operating every day of construction.

Table 11 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction Source
Fuel Consumption (gallons)
Gasoline Diesel
Construction Equipment & Hauling Trips N/A 8,185
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 56 N/A
See Appendix C for energy calculation sheets.

Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar -sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption.

Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption.

Furthermore, per applicable regulatory requirements such as 2022 CALGreen, the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction debris. These practices would result in the efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. In the interest of cost-efficiency, construction contractors also would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and construction impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Demand
As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, the project would result in a nominal increase in vehicle trips upon completion of construction activities. Additionally, the proposed 375 sf restroom would be a new source of operational energy consumption.

Vehicle trips associated with future visitors and maintenance personnel represent the greatest operational use of energy associated with the project. Table 12 summarizes estimated operational annual energy consumption for the project5. As shown therein, project operation would result in the consumption of approximately 8,955 gallons of gasoline and 2,011 gallons of diesel for transportation fuels, 1,402 kWh of electricity, and zero U.S. therms of natural gas, on an annual basis.

5 The operational energy consumption is based on a modeled conservative maximum of 110 vehicle trips per day. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 17, Transportation, as the project would not change the use nor add substantial new facilities that would draw substantial additional recreators to use the park, the modeled operational energy use is presented as a worst case maximum. 72 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

48 Table 12 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption Source Energy Consumption1
Transportation Fuels
Gasoline 8,955 gallons 983 MMBtu
Diesel 2,011 gallons 256 MMBtu
Electricity 1,402 kWh 5 MMBtu
Natural Gas Usage 0 U.S. therms 0 MMBtu
MMBtu = million metric British thermal units; kWh = kilowatt-hours 1 Energy consumption is converted to MMBtu for each source See Appendix C for energy calculation sheets and Appendix A for CalEEMod output results for electricity and natural gas usage.

The project would be required to comply with all standards set in the latest iteration of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24), which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources by the built environment during operation. CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11) require implementation of energy -efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects. Furthermore, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6) require newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the CEC. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, per CALGreen, all plumbing fixtures used for the project would be high -efficiency fixtures, which would minim ize the potential for inefficient or wasteful consumption of energy related to water and wastewater.

Therefore, project operation would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Goleta adopted the Strategic Energy Plan in July 2019, which is intended to assist the City of Goleta meet its 100 percent renewable electricity goals and address resiliency concerns by promoting renewable energy development (Goleta 2019). As detailed in Environmental Checklist Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Goleta General Plan (2006) Conservation Element contains goals and policies related to energy conservation, including Policy CE 13.4: Energy Conservation for City Facilities and Operations , which ensures compliance with Title 24 energy regulations and encourages project design that increases energy efficiency. As demonstrated in Environmental Checklist Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would not conflict with the energy-related policies of the City’s General Plan. The project would be required to comply with the nonresidential mandatory me asures in 2022 CALGreen, which would reduce energy consumption compared to standard building practices. The project would also be required to comply with the energy standards in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Measures included in the project to meet these energy standards include low-flow plumbing fixtures, water-efficient irrigation systems, and energy- efficient lighting. Compliance with these regulations would avoid potential conflicts with adopted 73 Environmental Checklist
Energy

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 energy conservation plans. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and this impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

74 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

50 This page intentionally left blank.
75 Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? □ □ ■ □

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ ■ □

4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property? □ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature? □ ■ □ □
76 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

52 Impact Analysis
a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone . The closest Alquist-Priolo mapped earthquake fault to the project site is the Pitas Point —Red Mountain Fault South Strand Fault, located over 20 miles to the southeast (Department of Conservation 2022). The project site is located in a region of high seismic activity, with the potential for large seismic events that could generate strong ground shaking. Primary seismic risks at the project site would be earthquakes generated by local faults, as well as larger regional faults, such as the San Andreas Fault. Figure 5-1, Geologic Hazards Map, in the Goleta General Plan identifies these local faults. Faults within one mile of the project site include the Glen Annie Fault and Carneros Fault (City of Goleta 2006a).

The project would not include construction of buildings that would be permanently occupied by humans. Furthermore, the design and construction of the new restroom, upgrades to the Caretaker’s House, trail features and other components would be constructed in conformance with California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which identifies specific construction design requirements to reduce damage from strong seismic ground shaking . These CBC Title 24 requirements are adopted and incorporated into the Goleta Municipal Code and include recompaction measures to ensure structural stability during a seismic event. Compliance with applicable CBC requirements would reduce impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault and the risk of loss, injury, or death involvi ng strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil strength due to rapid increase in soil pore water pressures resulting from ground shaking during an earthquake. According to the City’s General Plan, areas most vulnerable to liquefaction and seismic settlement are u nderlain by younger alluvium where groundwater and granular sediments are both present. These areas include low-lying lands adjacent to rivers, creeks, beaches, and estuaries (City of Goleta 2006a). The project site is not located in a low- lying area adjacent to a river, creek, beach, or estuary. The project would be designed and constructed in conformance with CBC Title 24, which identifies specific construction design requirements to reduce damage from liquefaction. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
77 Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The project site exhibits a predominately level topography with minimal variation in elevation. There are no adjacent hillsides that pose landslide hazards, and as identified by Figure 5-1, Geologic Hazards Map, in the Goleta General Plan, the project site is not located in an area of moderate or high landslide potential (City of Goleta 2006a). Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Project construction and ground disturbing activities, including grading, have the potential to cause a loss of topsoil and soil erosion. During construction activities, short-term erosion impacts would be reduced by compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, which would require the implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and the implementation of various best management practices ( BMPs) to reduce erosion during construction activitie s. Compliance with the NPDES permit and implementation of BMPs during construction, such as straw wattles and silt fencing , would reduce impacts resulting from loss of topsoil. In addition, the project would be required to prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit in the City , pursuant to Section 15.09.290 of the Goleta Municipal Code. Compliance with these regulations would reduce impacts to soil erosion and a loss of topsoil to a less than significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Unstable soils may experience liquefaction, subsidence, lateral spreading, settlement, or landslides during seismic events. L iquefaction specifically refers to the loss of soil strength during seismic activity, subsidence refers to the downward sinking of the ground surface, lateral spreading involves horizontal movement of soil or rock layers, and settlement encompasses the vertical movement or subsidence of the ground. As discussed under Checklist Item a.3., the project would not exacerbate or increase exposure to liquefaction hazards. As discussed under Checklist Item a.4., the project would not result in exposure to landslide hazards. Project components would be designed and constructed in conformance with CBC Title 24, which identifies specific construction design requirements to reduce damage from potential lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse. Pursuant to c ompliance with applicable CBC requirements , the project would not result in on - or of -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. This impact would be less than significant impact.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
78 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

54 d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils have a high shrink/swell potential. Clay minerals in these soils expand when moisture content increases and shrink when moisture content decreases. According to the City’s General Plan, soils deriving from the Rincon and Monterey Formations are associated with high shrink/swell potentials (City of Goleta 2006a). Soils underlying the project site include Milpitas-Positas fine sandy loams with 2 to 9 percent slopes (MeC); Goleta loam with 0 to 2 percent slopes (GdA); and Camarillo fine sandy l oam, fine substratum (Cb) (United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2023). On-site soils do not belong to the Rincon and Monterey Formations. As such, the project would not be located on expansive soil. Additionally, project components would be designed and constructed in conformance with CBC Title 24, which identifies specific construction design requirements to reduce damage from expansive soils. The project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to lif e or property due to expansive soils and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The new restroom would connect to the existing sewer system. The use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be required. Therefore, the project would have no impact from proposed septic tanks or wastewater.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Most of the project site has been previously disturbed and does not contain unique geologic formations. The project site is in an urbanized, residential area of the City, where it is unlikely that unique paleontological resources exist in surficial soils on the project site. Although project implementation is not expected to uncover paleontological resources, the possibility to encounter sub surface paleontological resources exists during ground disturbing related activities. Construction of the proposed pa rk amenities would have the potential to uncover previously undiscovered paleontological resources, which could lead to damage or destruction of the resource. Impacts to paleontological resources would therefore be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure GEO -1 requires implementation of specific procedures should unanticipated resources be found, including halting of work and retainment of a qualified professional paleontologist to monitor and evaluate the find. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources In the event an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during the course of project development, construction activity shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the fossil, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall be notified and retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its significance, and 79 Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 determine if additional mitigation or treatment is warranted. Work near the discovery may resume once the find is properly documented and the qualified professional paleontologist authorizes resumption of construction work. Any significant paleontological resources found during construction monitoring shall be prepared, identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum repository under the oversight of the qualified paleontologist. Plan Requirements & Timing:

If paleontological re sources are encountered during construction, identify and retain a qualified paleontologist prior to additional ground disturbing activity in the vicinity of the find. This condition shall be printed on all building/grading plans. Monitoring: The Department of Neighborhood Services Director, or designee, must verify compliance before grading/construction in the vicinity of a find may be resumed.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

80 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

56 This page intentionally left blank.
81 Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of GHG emissions contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence which takes place in Earth’s atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. Most radiation from the sun hits Earth’s surfa ce and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions.

GHG emissions occur both naturally and from human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.

GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide ( CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specifi ed timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of a specific GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO 2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).

The United Nations IPCC expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO 2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021).

Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is est imated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, that a total of 2,390 gigatons of anthropogenic CO 2 was emitted. It is likely that anthropogenic activities have inc reased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate 82 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

58 change impacts in California may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Natural Resource Agency 2019).

Significance Thresholds
Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]).

According to the State CEQA Guidelines, projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project -level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the proposed project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan. This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (2016) in its white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020 , to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions.

The City of Goleta has not adopted quantitative GHG emissions thresholds for land use development projects. The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2014 which identified measures enabling the City to meet the GHG reduction target for 2020 consisten t with AB 32. However, the CAP does not establish a pathway to achieving the State’s goal for 2030. Therefore, the CAP does not qualify as a GHG reduction plan for projects with horizon years beyond 2020. On January 26, 2021, Santa Barbara County adopted new Interim GHG Emissions Thresholds of Significance (referred to herein as “Interim GHG Thresholds”), which are recommended for use until completion of the County’s 2030 Climate Action Plan.6 The Interim GHG Thresholds recommend that land use projects be first assessed against a screening criterion of 300 MT CO 2e. For projects that exceed the screening threshold, a service population threshold of 3.8 MT CO2e is recommended.

The City of Goleta is in Santa Barbara County, and thresholds deemed applicable in Santa Barbara County would also reasonably apply to projects within the City of Goleta. The City has consistently relied on these standards as the methodology for establishing a threshold for analyzing the potential greenhouse gas impacts of a project. Therefore, this analysis uses the County’s recommended screening criterion of 300 MT CO 2e with a service population threshold of 3.8 MT CO 2e for projects that exceed the screening criterion to assess the potential significance of project GHG emissions. In addition, the project is evaluated based on consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, and City of Goleta CAP for the purposes o f reducing GHG emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change.

Methodology
GHG emissions associated with project construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1, with the assumptions described under Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality.

Construction emissions occur for a limited period of a project’s lifetime; as a standard practice, GHG emissions from construction are amortized over a presumed project lifetime. The project is assumed

6 The 2030 Climate Action Plan is planned for adoption in 2023. 83 Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 to have a 25-year lifespan. Therefore, GHG emissions from construction are amortized over a period of 25 years and combined with annual operational GHG emissions.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The project would generate GHG emissions from construction and operation. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 17, Transportation, the project would result in a net increase in vehicle trips and would therefore result in operational mobile source emissions.

Construction activities facilitated by the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from the operation of construction equipment onsite, as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site, and heavy trucks to transport materials. As shown in Table 13, construction associated with the project would generate 74 metric tons (MT) of CO 2e.

Amortized over a 25 -year period, construction associated with the project would generate 3 MT of CO2e per year.

Table 13 Construction GHG Emissions
Year Emissions (MT of CO2e)
2024 74
Total 74
Amortized over 50 years 3
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: Table 2.2 “Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated” emissions. Annual emissions results are shown for all emissions. See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix AQ.

Project operation would generate GHG emissions primarily from mobile sources, energy sources (i.e., water heating and electricity consumption), water conveyance, and area sources (i.e., landscaping equipment). As shown in Table 14, project operation would generate approximately 78 MT of CO2e per year. Combined with amortized construction emissions, the project would generate a total of 81 MT of CO2e per year. Mobile sources would represent the vast majority of project emissions. Overall project emissions would not exceed the County of Santa Barbara’s recommended screening criterion of 300 MT CO2e. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment . Impacts would be less than significant.
84 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

60 Table 14 Combined Annual GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e per year)
Construction 3
Operational
Area <1
Energy <1
Mobile 78
Solid Waste <1
Water <1
Total Emissions 81
Screening Threshold 300
Exceeds Threshold? No
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: Table 2.2 “Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated” emissions. Annual emissions results are shown for all emissions. See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix A.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the City of Goleta and Santa Barbara County, including the City of Goleta CAP, City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, and the State’s 2022 Scoping Plan. The City of Goleta CAP and General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan both contain policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions from municipal operations through upgrades, water conservation strategies, and improved building standards (City of Goleta 2006; 2014). The project would be consistent with these policies by providing general improvements to an existing public park and constructing a new restroom that meets water use and energy efficiency requirements. The project would also be consistent with General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies OS 6.10 (Design and Management of Public Parks and Open Space) and OS 7.9 (Open Space or Greenbelt around Goleta), which support preservation of open green spaces and expansion of pedestrian trail networks. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City of Goleta CAP and General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.

The new restroom would comply with 2022 CALGreen standards for plumbing and wastewater conveyance. In addition, the project would comply with the latest Title 24 building standards by installing energy-efficient light fixtures. Therefore, the project would be consistent w ith the Draft County of Santa Barbara 2030 CAP.

This analysis also evaluates the project against the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022). One of the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan is to support climate adaptation and biodiversity that includes protection of the state’s water supply, natural and working lands , and infrastructure to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible (CARB 2022). The proposed improvements would ensure continued preservation of the existing open space without introducing a significant source of GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would maintain natural lands. Although the project would generate 85 Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 temporary construction emissions, the project would be consistent with the goals of CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan.

The project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions and impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

86 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

62 This page intentionally left blank.
87 Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create
a significant hazard to the public or the
environment? □ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ ■ □
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ ■ □
88 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

64 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Construction and operation/maintenance activities of the park improvements would not involve the use or transport of hazardous materials beyond those used in operation of typical construction equipment or typical landscaping materials. Materials used for construction would be transported to and within the project site for regular construction activities, and may include: diesel fuel, lubricants, adhesives, cleaning solutions, and chemical toilets. Hazardous materials used during project operation would incl ude pesticides for landscaping purposes, and such use would not increase compared to existing operational conditions.

Hazardous materials use and transport during both construction and operation of the project would be required to comply with pertinent federal, State, and City regulations regarding their storage, on- site use, and off -site disposal such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. These regulations would ensure safe transport of hazardous materials on roads to the project site, as well as safe disposal of hazardous materials used for the project. Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure the project has a less than significant impact.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest school to the project site is La Patera Elementary School, located approximately 70 feet to the west across North La Patera Lane . Although greater than 0.25 mile , three other schools are located near the project site: Goleta Valley Junior High School and Santa Barbara Charter School (approximately 0.45 mile to the east), and Montessori Center School of Santa Barbara (approximately

0.65 mile to the east). The project includes park improvements which would not involve the use of large quantities of hazardous materials. In addition, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Items a and b, although small quantities of potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, and oils could be used during construction and operation of the project, the transport, use, and storage of any and all hazardous materials would be conducted in accordance with all applicable State and federal laws, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Items a and b. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
89 Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop an updated Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, also known as the Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List; other state and local government agencies are also required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. The analysis for this section included a review of the following resources on June 28, 2023, to provide hazardous material release information:
▪ State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2023) ▪ DTSC EnviroStor database (DTSC 2023)
The project site is an existing park and has an existing land use and zoning designation of Open Space Active Recreation (OSAR). Based upon review of the SWRCB and DTSC databases, there are no active hazardous material sites mapped within the project site. As such, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to listed cleanup sites. Therefore, the project would have no impact re garding hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

NO IMPACT
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The project does not include habitable structures. The project site is located approximately one mile north of the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport and is outside of the airport’s safety zones and noise exposure contours (SBCAG 2023). The project does not involve the construction of any structures or features that would subject users of the project site to substantial aircraft safety risks. The project would have no impact involving aircraft safety hazards or excessive aviation-related noise.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Goleta, in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA), the County of Santa Barbara, and State Offices of Emergency Services, is responsible for emergency preparedness and response. Components of emergency preparedness and response include identification of evacuation routes and secondary emergency accesses, as well as provision of information to the community regarding appropriate individual actions in the event of various types of emergencies. The City of Goleta maintains an Emergency Operations Plan that provides directions to staff on the first steps that need to be taken in an emergency, and lays out the general response structure to the event . The Plan does not identify specific emergency response/evacuation routes (City of Goleta 2021).

Project construction would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, as construction staging and construction worker parking would occur on- site and would not impede existing roadway traffic. The project would not result in the construction 90 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

66 of new facilities or establishment of new uses that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan during project operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is located approximately 80 feet south of a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and one mile southeast of a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2023). The project site itself is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone in a State Responsibility Area and is within the incorporated area of local responsibility (City of Goleta 2006a). The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Goleta and is surrounded by existing residential development. Project components include the expansion and development of recreational amenities, and the project would not construct housing or other habitable structures.

The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires or worsen the risk of wildfire and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
91 Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ ■ □
92 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

68 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Construction Impacts
Overall construction for the project would result in disturbance of up to approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil and would require the minor use of heavy machinery. Grading and other construction activities would have the potential to impact soil erosion and increase sediment loads in stormwater runoff resulting from exposed or disturbed soil. Additionally, spills, leakage, or improper handling and storage of substances such as oils, fuels, chemicals, metals, and other substances used during various construction phases could be collected in stormwater runoff and impact water quality.

The City of Goleta's Stormwater Management Program protects water quality in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to NPDES requirements (City of Goleta 2020a). On-site construction activities would be subject to the NPDES Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater permit, which would require visual monitoring of stormwater and non - stormwater discharges, sampling, analysis, and monitoring of non-visible pollutants; and compliance with applicable water quality standards established for receiving waters potentially affected by construction discharges. Additionally, construction site operators would be responsible for preparing and implementing a Stormwate r Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which would outline project - specific BMPs (e.g., straw waddles and silt fencing) to control erosion, sediment release, and otherwise reduce the potential for discharge of pollutants in stormwater.

Implementation of construction BMPs would minimize surficial erosion and transport of pollutants and provide compliance with applicable NPDES requirements. In addition to the permit and SWPPP requirements, the project would be required to comply with the City of Goleta Municipal Code Section

15.09.290, which requires preparation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Plan would contain requirements of the City’s BMPs for erosion and sediment control, which would prevent erosion and siltation in surface water runoff and in the storm drain system during site grading and soil disturbance activities. Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of construction BMPs would ensure that the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality . Construction related impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
Project operation could impact water quality from stormwater generated by new impervious parking lots, sidewalks, and paved areas on the project site, which could contain pollutants from automotive chemicals, trash, landscaping, and sediment. The project would include the introduction of new bioswales, located by the caretaker’s cottage and by the entry promenade, for stormwater collection, which would reduce average concentrations of a broad range of contaminants from entering the City’s stormwater system.

The project would be subject to the Central Coast RWQCB’s Post Construction Requirements, which apply to all development projects resulting in 2,500 square feet or more of net impervious surface area. In compliance with the Central Coast Post Construction Requirements, the City would need to submit a complete Stormwater Control Plan for the project to the RWQCB, which would demonstrate adequate stormwater management features and facilities to treat and capture stormwater on-site. In addition, the Stormwater Control Plan would include an operation and maintenance plan which would 93 Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 identify the individuals responsible for maintenance of the stormwater control facilities. The Stormwater Control Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City of Goleta Engineering Division.

Pursuant to compliance with applicable regulations and measures, the project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Operational impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project s ubstantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Water for the project would be provided by the Goleta Water District (GWD), which relies on four sources of water to meet its existing and future demands: (1) surface water via the Cachuma Project; (2) surface water from the State Water Project (SWP); (3) groundwater from the Goleta Groundwater Basin; and (4) recycled water (GWD 2021). The GWD operates under the Wright Judgment which prohibits overdrafting of the Goleta Groundwater Basin (GGWB) and mandates the maintenance of the basin in a hydrologically balanced condition (Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. (1985) 174 Cal. App. 3d

74.). The GGWB is designated as a very low-priority basin (Department of Water Resources 2023), and a Groundwater Sustainability Plan has not been prepared.

The project would not involve on -site groundwater extraction that would result in substantial drawdown of an underlying aquifer. However, the proposed new bathroom facility would generate new water demand. The caretaker’s cottage would also use water, but the project would not increase the amount of water compared to existing conditions. The potential increase in operational water use from the new bathroom facility would be minimal. As such, no substantial decrease in groundwater supplies would occur. Anticipated runoff from the addition of approximately 9,500 square feet of new impervious surfaces would flow into the surrounding landscaped areas and proposed bioswale s, facilitating groundwater recharge.

As discussed in Environmental Checklist Item a, the project would not violate water quality standards or degrade water quality during construction or operation . There is no applicable sustainable groundwater management plan for the GGWB. Therefore, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge and would not conflict with a water quality control plan or a sustainable groundwater management plan . Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
94 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

70 c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? The project site is not located in a flood zone, as discussed under Environmental Checklist Item d, and does not contain a river or stream which would be altered and result in flooding on - or off -site.

Construction or modification of project components, such as the parking lot, maintenance facility, fitness trail loop, and native tree grove trail, would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site through the addition of paved areas. However, compliance with NPDES requirements, implementation of SWPPP BMPs, and the project-specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would prevent erosion or siltation on or off the project site. Furthermore , the project would implement a Stormwater Control Plan that would demonstrate adequate stormwater management features and facilities to treat and capture stormwater on-site. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, in runoff that leads to flooding, in runoff that exceeds stormwater drainage capacity, or in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, w ould the project risk release of pollu tants due to project inundation?
According to the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer, the project site is not located in a flood zone (FEMA 2012). According to Figure 5 -2 of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, the project site is not located in a Tsunami Inundation Zone (City of Goleta 2016). In addition, the project site is not located near a large body of water with seiche hazards. Therefore, there would be no risk of release of pollutants due to inundation associated with a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche, and the project would have no impact.

NO IMPACT
95 Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ ■ □
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The project would not divide an established community. The project site is an existing park located within a residential neighborhood. The project would not expand the existing park such that it would lead to the division of the neighborhood. Rather, the project would include connectivity improvements, such as a walking/running path that would connect the nort hern and southern ends of Stow Grove Park, that would facilitate access to the new and expanded recreational amenities.

There would be no impact involving the physical division of an established community.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project would not require a General Plan amendment or Specific Plan amendment and would not conflict with a land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As a park-specific master plan, the project is designed to be consistent with the City’s General Plan Open Space Element. The project site has a land use designation of Open Space Active Recreation (OSAR), and project components—which include general park improvements as well as recreational, social, education al, and nature -based amenities —would be consistent with permitted land uses under this designation. Therefore, the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
96 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

72 This page intentionally left blank.
97 Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ □ ■
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan EIR indicates that there are no existing or planned surface mining operations within the City (City of Goleta 2006b). The Ellwood Oil Field is the only extractive industry with the City of Goleta, located approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the project site in the Ellwood Mesa. The project would not result in the loss of availability of known or locally important mineral resources and there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
98 City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

74 This page intentionally left blank.
99 Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ □ ■
Overview of Sound Measurement
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (Caltrans 2013).

Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A -weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A -weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensi tive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hertz (Kinsler, et. al. 1999).

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Crocker 2007).

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible 100
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

76 (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud [(10.5x the sound energy) Crocker 2007].

Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver. The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop -off rate) result simply from the geometric spreading of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and dense woods, and man -made features such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels.

Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior -to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.

The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (L eq); it considers both duration and sound power level. L eq is defined as the single steady A -weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time.

Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest root mean squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period (Crocker 2007).

Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. It is also measured using CNEL, which is the 24 -hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by L dn and CNEL usually differ by about 1 dBA. The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the Ldn/CNEL depends on the distribution of traffic during the day, evening, and night. Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 dBA, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60-plus CNEL range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65-dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA L eq can interrupt conversations (FHWA 2018).
101
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in te rms of Hz. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).

While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low -frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low -frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Although groundborne vibra tion is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern related to vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.

Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the sp ectrum at large distances from the source.

Discontinuities in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020). When a building is impacted by vibration, a ground -to-foundation coupling loss will usually reduce the overall vibration level.

However, under rare circumstances, the ground -to-foundation coupling may amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec).

PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020).

Sensitive Noise Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. According to the City of Goleta Noise Element, the following land uses are considered noise-sensitive: residential neighborhoods, schools, libraries, hospitals and rest homes, auditoriums, certain open space areas, and public assembly places (City of Goleta 2006).

Vibration-sensitive receivers, which are similar to noise -sensitive receivers, include residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and some passive recreation areas. Vibration -sensitive receivers also include buildings where vibrations may in terfere with vibration -sensitive equipment that is affected by vibration levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance (e.g., recording studios or medical facilities with sensitive equipment).

The nearest sensitive receivers to project construction include the single -family residences along Windsor Avenue adjacent to the eastern project site boundary, single-family residences across North 102
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

78 La Patera Lane approximately 70 feet west of the project site , and La Patera Elementary School located approximately 70 feet west of the project site.

Noise Sources and Regulation
The primary existing noise source in the vicinity of the project site is vehicular traffic on Cathedral Oaks Road. Secondary noise sources include vehicular traffic on North La Patera Lane and other local neighborhood roadways.

City of Goleta Noise Element Policy NE 6.4 restricts construction activities near or adjacent to residential buildings and other sensitive receptors to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday and 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday for c onstruction in nonresidential areas. Noise Element Policy NE 6.5 requires the following measures to be incorporated into grading and building plan specifications to reduce construction noise:
▪ All construction equipment shall have properly maintained sound -control devices, and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust system.
▪ Contractors shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures including but not limited to changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, and installing acoustic barriers around significant sources of stationary construction noise.
▪ To the extent practicable, adequate buffers shall be maintained between noise -generating machinery or equipment and any sensitive receptors. The buffer should ensure that noise at the receptor site does not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. For equipment that produces a noise level of 95 dBA at 50 feet, a buffer of 1600 feet is required for attenuation of sound levels to 65 dBA.

Goleta Municipal Code Chapter 9.09 regulates noise in the City. The purpose of the chapter is to preserve public peace and comfort for citizens of Goleta from unwarranted noise and disturbances.

The Goleta Municipal Code prohibits loud and unreasonable noise from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 AM to 7:00 AM Friday and Saturday. Loud and unreasonable noise is defined as sound which is clearly discernible at a distance of 100 feet from the property line of the property upon which it is broadcast or sound which is above 60 dBA at the edge of the property line upon which the sounds is broadcast. The City does not have any code requirements related to noise from construction activities.

For traffic-related noise, impacts would be considered significant if project -generated traffic would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to an unacceptable increase in noise levels. For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if project-related traffic increases the ambient noise environment of noise-sensitive locations by 3 dBA or more. 103
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise
Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at noise sensitive receivers near the project site. RCNM provides reference noise levels for standard construction equipment, with an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.

Variation in power imposes additional complexity in characterizing the noise source level from construction equipment. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference distance from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle of the activity to determine the Leq of the operation (FHWA 2018). Each phase of construction has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished during that phase. Each phase also has its own noise characteristics; some having higher continuous noise levels than others, and some having high-impact noise levels.

Construction activity would result in temporary noise in the project site vicinity, exposing surrounding nearby receivers to increased noise levels. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location.

In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8 -hour operating day.

Project construction would involve relatively light construction activities (e.g., minor site preparation, grading, and building construction). Therefore, for this analysis it was conservatively assumed the two loudest pieces of equipment, a crane and a backhoe, would operate simultaneously.

The nearest sensitive receivers to the project site are single-family residences directly adjacent to the east and those to the west across North La Patera Lane. Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would be located as close as 50 feet to the properties but would typically be located at an average distance farther away due to the nature of construction and the lot size of the project. For example, during a typical construction day, the equipment may operate across the horizontal distance of the site (50 to 350 feet) from a nearby noise receiver. Therefore, it is assumed that over the course of a typical construction day the construction equipment would operate at an average distance of 200 feet from the single-family residences.

At a distance of 200 feet, a crane and a backhoe are estimated at a noise level of 64.1 dBA Leq at the exterior of nearby residential sensitive receptors, which would not exceed the threshold of 65 dBA (calculations are included in Appendix D). At distances greater than 200 feet, noise levels would be lower due to the attenuation of sound at increased distances. Therefore, the La Patera Elementary School would not be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City threshold of 65 dBA. Construction activities would also be required to comply with Policy NE 6.4 and NE 6.5 of the Goleta General Plan, which limit noise -generating construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and require implementation of noise reducing measures during construction (i.e., shutting off idling equipment, installation of acoustic barriers, and implementing sound -control devices on heavy machinery). These measures are required by the City on a case-by-case basis and would further reduce noise levels below the noise level determined above. Therefore, the project would not result 104
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

80 in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 17, Transportation, the project would generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips per day, which would be a new source of operational noise. Generally, a doubling of traffic (i.e., a doubling of the sound energy) would result in a 3 dBA increase. A potential maximum increase of 110 daily trips would be much lower than a doubling of traffic 7; therefore, project-related traffic would not result in a 3 dBA increase in noise levels. Additional park improvements would improve existing facilities and would not constitute new sources of operational noise. As such, project operation would not generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Thus, construction activities have the greatest potential to generate ground -borne vibration affecting nearby receivers, especially during grading and excavation of the project site. The greatest vibratory source during construction in the project vicinity would be a large bulldozer. Neither blasting nor pile driving would be required for construction of the project. Construction vibration estimates are based on vibration levels reported by FTA (FTA 2018). Table 15 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the assessment of construction vibration (FTA 2018).

Table 15 Vibration Levels Measured during Construction Activities Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: FTA 2018
Maximum recommended vibration limits by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are identified in Table 16. Based on AASHTO recommendations, limiting vibration levels to below 0.2 In/sec PPV at residential structures would prevent structural damage regardless of building construction type. These limits are applicable regardless of the frequency of the source.

7 According to the City of Goleta General Plan Figure 7-1 Existing and Projected Future Traffic Volumes and Intersection LOS, 2005 PM peak hour vehicle trips averaged 922 vehicle trips.
105
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 Table 16 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage Type of Situation Limiting Velocity (in/sec)
Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2–0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4–0.5 Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0–1.5
Source: Caltrans 2020
A dozer creates approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. A dozer may be used within 100 feet of the nearest off-site structure; at this distance, vibration levels would be 0.019 in/sec PPV.

This would be lower than the structural damage imp act of 0.20 in/sec PPV. Therefore, the project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels .

Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Santa Barbara Airport is the nearest public airport, located approximately 1.3 miles to the south of the project site. According to the noise compatibility contours figure for Santa Barbara Airport in the Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Commission 2023), the project site is located outside the airport’s 60 -65 CNEL noise contour. The project would not expose construction workers or park users to excessive noise levels from the airport. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT

106
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

82 This page intentionally left blank.
107
Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project includes improvements to an existing park intended to serve existing Goleta residents .

The project does not include new residences that would directly induce population growth, nor would it facilitate indirect growth. As such, the project would not induce a substantial unplanned population growth in the area either directly or indirectly . The project includes improvements to the caretaker cottage and the project site does not contain existing residences that could be displaced because of the project. As such, it would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
108
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

84 This page intentionally left blank.
109
Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
Impact Analysis
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Fire protection services would continue to be provided by the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, and police protection services would continue to be provided by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office under contract to the City. The nearest fire station to the project site is Santa Barbara County Fire Station 14, located at 320 North Los Carneros Road, 0.5 mile west from the project site, adjacent to Los Carneros Park. The nearest police station is approximately four miles east from the project site, located at 4434 Calle Real in the unincorporated County of Santa Barbara. The project site is located in an urbanized residential area of Goleta. The site is an existing park that is currently served by fire and police protective services. The project entails minor park improvements that would not introduce new uses at the site that would demand increased fire or police protection services such that new or 110
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

86 expanded police or fire protective facilities would be required . Impacts involving fire and police protection services would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not include the construction of housing and would not generate population growth. Since the project would not introduce new students to the local school districts, the project would not require new or altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives . There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
The project involves the expansion and development of recreational facilities and amenities. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing , the project would not induce population, and consequently would not increase demand for existing parks/recreational facilities. Since the project would not require other new or physically altered parks, t here would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not include the construction of housing and would not generate population growth. Implementation of the project would not introduce new residents to the area, thereby resulting in an increased need for new or altered public facilities, such as libraries . The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
111
Environmental Checklist
Recreation

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87 16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ ■
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ ■ □ □
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The project includes improvements to an existing park , which would not increase the use of this or other existing parks or recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. In fact, the project would replace already deteriorated facilities at Stow Grove Park and include improvements that would extend the lifetime of the existing park. In addition, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing , the project would not induce population , thereby increasing demand for existing recreational facilities. The environmental impacts associated with construction activities necessary to implement the Master Plan are analyzed in this IS-MND in Environmental Checklist Sections 1-20. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project includes improvements to an existing park . The improvement/construction of recreational facilities could have potential environmental impacts and are the basis for this Initial Study. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 4, Biological Resources, mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to special status species and ESHA. Environmental Checklist Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 7, Geology and Soils, note that impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would be potentially significan t. Mitigation measures in these respective sections would reduce potential environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
112
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

88 This page intentionally left blank.
113
Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89 17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Construction
Traffic impacts during project construction would be primarily associated with worker vehicles and construction equipment and material deliveries. During project construction, it is expected that vehicles would continue to utilize the surrounding street system and existing parking lot within Stow Grove Park. The increased number of vehicles on adjacent roadways would be minimal during the temporary construction period and would cease once construction is complete. Project construction would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system , and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The project would include restriping the existing parking lot in accordance with ADA regulations and would introduce a second drive aisle to improve circulation. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Item b, p roject o peration would add fewer than 110 vehicle trips to the circulation network and existing park users would continue to utilize the parking lot on -site when accessing by vehicle.

Although some residents/visitors would continue to access Stow Grove Park by vehicle, most users would be pedestrian and bicycle users from the immediate area and surrounding neighborhoods.

Worker vehicle trips and supply deliveries may occur during project operation when maintenance of the park is needed or for landscaping purposes; however, it is anticipated that these numbers would 114
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

90 be minimal , similar to existing conditions, and not affect the local circulation network. Project operation would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The project would result in the development of recreational and open space amenities with active transportation facilities, including walking trails, walking/running paths, a fitness/trail loop, bird watching trails, and native tree grove trail. These amen ities would provide recreational options for pedestrians and bicyclists within an existing suburban area . Pursuant to the Resolution No. 20 -44 adopting the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) related thresholds and screening criteria for small projects, a project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if the project generates 110 or fewer average daily trips (City of Goleta 2020b). The project site is an existing public park, and the proposed project includes upgrades to the existing facilities. The project would not change the use nor add substantial new facilities that would draw substantial additional recreators to use the park.

As such, the project would not generate more than 110 vehicle trips per day and would thus be under the City’s screening criteria for impacts to VMT. The project would have a less than significant impact involving VMT and would thus be consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? During construction, equipment staging would occur on-site, and construction personnel would park on-site, minimizing the potential for construction to increase hazards from construction equipment.

The project would not involve changes to existing roadways and the new secondary access point for maintenance/emergency vehicles would comply with Chapter 17.38 of the Goleta Municipal Code, which outlines requirements for ingress/egress. Project o peration would not introduce new incompatible uses, as the site is an existing park and proposed improvements would not change this use. Since the project does not include features which would increase hazards due to design or incompatible uses, there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project would not involve the construction of any new roadways. Ingress/egress to the Park would be maintained and improved through construction of the additional drive aisle in the parking lot and the addition of a secondary access point for maintenance/emergency vehicles. As discussed under Checklist Item a, project construction equipment and staging areas would not interfere with the local circulation system. During construction, equipment staging would occur on -site, and construction personnel would park on -site, minimiz ing the potential for construction to result in inadequate emergency access. Adherence to Chapter 17.38 of the Goleta Municipal Code would ensure operation of the project would provide adequate egress for emergency access. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
115
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in a Public
Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? □ ■ □ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ ■ □ □
Background
AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084. 3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:
116
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

92 1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, t o be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? On May 16 , 2023, Rincon contacted the NAHC and requested a search of the SLF . City staff also contacted NAHC and requested a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project area. The NAHC responded on June 15, 2023, stating that the results of the SLF search were positive.

The City prepared and mailed letters to local Native American groups listed in the SLF results on June 23, 2023.

Of the eight Native American groups, two responded and requested consultation: the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians on July 12, 2023 and the Northern Chumash Tribal Council on July 14, 2023. The City held a virtual meeting with the Barbareño Band of Chuma sh Indians on July 14, 2023 and there was mutual agreement to keep them included during the development of plans to include information related to educational opportunities and native species plantings. The City held a virtual meeting with the Northern Chu mash Tribal Council on July 31, 2023, who requested an interpretive panel be incorporated into the project design, that a Chumash monitor be present during ground disturbing activities, for the City to provide a copy of the CEQA compliant Cultural Resources Report.

As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5, Cultural Resources, although no resources were found on-site as part of the Phase 1 and Extended Phase I Studies, b ased on the presence of Native American resources nearby, the project site is considered sensitive for archaeological resources .

Construction of the proposed park amenities would therefore have the potential to uncover previously unidentified tribal cultural resources, which could lead to damage or destruction of the resource. Impacts to tribal cultural resources would therefore be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 require a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training, retain an on-call archaeologist, Native American monitoring, and adequate procedures to follow in case of unanticipated discovery of archaeological or tribal cultural resources, including halting of work to 117
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 evaluate the find. Although the City has not received any other responses requesting further consultation to date, the City will respond to any correspondence received from tribal contacts in response to these notices consistent with the requirements of AB 52. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

118
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

94 This page intentionally left blank.
119
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95 19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Stow Grove Park is currently served by water, wastewater, stormwater, electric, gas, and telecommunication facilities. The project would require minor relocations or improvements of utilities, such as stormwater collection/drainage improvements and replacement of water line .

However, these improvements would occur within the footprint of existing on-site development and 120
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

96 are included in the environmental analysis herein. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Item b, the project would not increase water demand such that off-site improvements would be necessary, and as discussed in Environmental Checklist Item c, the project would not exceed existing wastewater infrastructure capacity such that offsite improvements would be necessary. The project would not require relocation of utilities which would create significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Water for the project would be provided by GWD, which relies on four sources of water to meet its existing and future demands: (1) surface water via the Cachuma Project; (2) surface water from the State Water Project (SWP); (3) groundwater from the Goleta Groundwater Basin; and (4) recycled water. According to the most recent Urban Water Management Plan, GWD has adequate water supplies to meet its projected demands through the year 2040 in normal, dry, and multiple dry years; the projected water supply in a normal year 2040 is 16,244 acre-feet (AF) (GWD 2021).

The project would require water to supply the caretaker’s cottage, which is an existing use that would not operationally change as part of the project, as well as water to supply the new restroom. The project would continue to utilize water for landscaped park and recreational areas. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan estimates the total amount of water required for landscaping purposes throughout the City as 445 AF in 2040 (GWD 2021).

Based on water demand generation factors included in the County’s 2021 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual and Guidelines Manual, the new restroom would demand approximately 0.1 AFY.8 The project’s water use would be nominal, and constitute a fraction of the 445 AF, which is 2.7 percent of the City’s total estimated water supply of 16,244 AF in 2040. The project would not result in substantial water supply reductions and sufficient water supply is available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years . This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Wastewater from the project would be collected and treated by the Goleta Sanitary District (GSD), which services approximately 80,000 people. GSD operates the Goleta Wastewater Treatment Plant, which has a maximum capacity of 9.7 million gallons per day (MGD) based on the average daily flow rate. However, the discharge is restricted under the facility’s NPDES Order R3 -2017-0021 permit CA0048160 to an average daily dry weather flow of 7.64 MGD (Central Coast RWQCB 2017). Current average daily dry weather flo ws are approximately 4.8 MGD , therefore, the Goleta Wastewater Treatment Plant operates with approximately 2.8 MGD average available capacity. (GSD 2018).

The project site is within GSD’s service area and is currently served by GSD for wastewater produced by the existing on-site bathrooms and caretaker’s cottage . The construction of a new on -site

8 There is no generation factor for Open Space land uses in Goleta Valley in the County’s 2021 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual and Guidelines Manual. The commercial land use water demand (0.3 AFY per 1,000 square feet) has been applied for the proposed 375 square foot restroom.
121
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97 bathroom would not substantially increase wastewater production such that the project would exceed the Goleta Wastewater Treatment Plant’s available capacity. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Waste generated within the City is handled at the South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, where recyclable and organic materials are sorted. The remaining solid waste is disposed of at the Tajiguas Landfill, which is owned by the County of Santa Barbara. Was te collection and disposal services are provided by Marborg Industries in the City of Goleta. The Tajiguas Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 23.3 million cubic yards and a maximum daily capacity of 1,500 tons per day ( California Department of Re sources Recycling and Recovery [ CalRecycle] 2023a). Construction of the project would generate minimal construction waste during repairs of existing amenities and resurfacing the parking lot. Construction contractors would be required to comply with CalGreen Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Requirements, which require the diversion of 65 percent of construction waste. In addition, waste from construction activities would be temporary.

Pursuant to the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, a project is considered to result in significant impacts if the project would generate an increase of 196 tons per year of solid waste sent to local landfills. T he City maintains a Franchise Agreement with MarBorg Industries for waste collection and hauling services ; MarBorg Industries currently provides solid waste services to the park. Operational solid waste generation would be minimal, given the project’s existing use as a recreational and open space park, and would not exceed the City’s project specific impact threshold of 196 tons of solid waste per year (County of Santa Barbara 2021). Therefore, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

According to CalRecycle, the City, which is a part of the Santa Barbara Regional Integrated Waste Management Reporting Authority, is meeting its waste disposal requirements under AB 939 (CalRecycle 20 23b). The project is a City Capital Improvement P roject and would be required to comply with applicable solid waste diversion programs and state reduction statutes. Therefore, the project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
122
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

98 This page intentionally left blank.
123
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 99 20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ ■ □
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ ■ □
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes? □ □ ■ □
Impact Analysis
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area and is within the incorporated area of local responsibility (City of Goleta 2006a). Although the site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is located approximately 80 feet south of a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and one mile southeast of a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2023). As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials , the project would require the movement of construction equipment, hauling of construction materials, and transport of construction workers which could temporarily increase traffic on the roadways in the vicinity of the site. However, any minor delays during project construction would be temporary in nature a nd would not impair an 124
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

100
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts to emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project , due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area and is within the incorporated area of local responsibility (City of Goleta 2006a). Although the site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it is located approximately 80 feet south of a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and one mile southeast of a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2023).

Construction equipment utilized on the site may produce sparks that could ignite vegetation. PRC Section 4442 mandates the use of spark arrestors, which prevent the emission of flammable debris from exhaust on earth -moving and portable construction equipme nt with internal combustion engines that are operating on any forest-covered, brush-covered, or grass-covered land. PRC Section 4428 requires construction contractors to maintain fire suppression equipment during the highest fire danger period (April 1 to December 1) when operating on or near any forest-covered, brush-covered, or grass -covered land. Therefore, in consideration of compliance with applicable PRC provisions, project construction would not substantially exacerbate wildfire risk.

Project components include the expansion and development of recreational amenities and the project would not construct housing or other habitable structures. Part of the grove restoration would include removal of dry/dead brush and limbs and provide new plantings with improved irrigation. The project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfires, exacerbate wildfire risks through the installation or maintenance of infrastructure, or expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
125
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory? □ ■ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ □ ■ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 4, Biological Resources, the project site contains ESHA and habitat for three special status species. Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO -5 include requirements related to monarch and tree protection and pre -construction nesting bird surveys.

Additionally, the project would se rve a beneficial purpose through the creation of the butterfly/pollinator garden, which would improve the long term quality of the monarch butterfly overwintering habitat, as well as restoration and habitat enhancements to the eucalyptus and native understory to improve long-term habitat for raptors and nesting birds. 126
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

102
As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would minimize potential effects of related to unanticipated discovery of cultural resources at the project Site. Since the project site does not contain important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, the project would not have a significant effect on these resources. All mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would be included in the required Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Therefore, the project’s potential impacts would be reduced below applicable thresholds of significance with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
As described in the discussion of Environmental Checklist Sections 1 through 20, with respect to all environmental issues, potential impacts associated with project construction and operation would be no impact, less than significant , or reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of required mitigation. This is because project construction would be temporary and not exceed established thresholds of significance with implementation of required mitigation and project operation would not result in adverse effects on the environmental baseline conditions.

Cumulatively considerable impacts could occur if construction of other projects would occur at the same time as the project and in the same vicinity, such that the effects of similar impacts of multiple projects combine to expose a resource to greater levels of impact than would occur under the project.

Certain resource areas (e.g., Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) are by their nature specific to a project location, such that impacts at one location typically do not add to impacts at other locations. Other resource areas include an evaluation of potential cumulative impacts alongside the evaluation of project -level impacts. As noted in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would comply with the applicable plans and policies, along with other regulations that would reduce the project’s air quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions to less than -significant levels. The 2022 Ozone Plan is designed such that a pr oject that demonstrates compliance with these items would not have an individually or cumulatively significant impact. Consequently, the project would not contribute considerably to a cumulative impact to air quality or greenhouse gas emissions.

The project is surrounded by residential development to the east and west, La Patera Elementary School to the west, and the extent of City limits to the north. Any cumulative projects that may be developed near Stow Grove Park would be subject to similar regulatory requirements as the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to, the federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These regulations are designed to protect individual species and their habitats. Cumulative projects would be required to abide by the provisions of these regulations and subject to review from agencies including, but not limited to, CDFW and USFWS, to ensure potential impacts to species or habitat are minimized. However, existing regulatory requirements alone cannot guarantee species loss, habitat loss, or other impacts to biological resources due to cumulative development would be avoided. The project may temporarily impact habitat utilized by special status species; however, the project would implement required mitigation measures, such as biological monitoring, implementation of species and tree protection and landscaping plans, and special status species relocation or avoidance, which would ensure the project 127
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103 would not contribute considerably to a cumulative species loss, habitat loss, or other regional effects on biological resources.

Anticipated project impacts are temporary, localized effects that would occur during construction. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Sections 14, Population and Housing, Section 15, Public Services, and Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, the project would not generate or induce growth in the area and existing utilities are available to service operation of the project. The project would not have significant long-term adverse environmental impacts or induce development in the area that could combine with other projects’ effects to create cumulatively significant impacts. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the project would be reduced to a less -than-significant level through compliance with existing regulations and implemen tation of mitigation measures . T he project would not increase beyond a level of significance project -generated impacts that would cumulatively impact the environment. Required mitigation measures would similarly ensure that the project’s contribution to cumulative species loss, habitat loss, or other regional environmental effects, would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impacts to human beings are typically associated with air quality, hazardous materials, noise , and wildfire impacts. These impacts are addressed in Environmental Checklist Section 4.3, Air Quality, Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.13, Noise, and Section 4.20, Wildfire. As discussed in these sections, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects to humans due to the release of pollutants which would violate ambient air quality standards, would not result in the creation of public safety hazards due to exposure to hazardous materials, and would not result in the exposure to excessive noise or wildfire hazards . The project would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

128
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

104

This page intentionally left blank.

129
References

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105 References
Bibliography
Association of Environmental Professionals. 2016. Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California. October 18, 2016.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed July 2023).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005.
______. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last modified: May 4, 2016. (accessed July 2023). ______. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf (accessed July 2023). ______. 2023. “Overview Diesel Exhaust & Health” [webpage]. N.d. (accessed July 2023).

California Department of Conservation. 2018. Important Farmland Data Viewer. (accessed July 2023).
______. 2022. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones. Updated April 2022. https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/ee92a5f9f4ee4ec5aa731d3245ed9f53/explore?location=34.36 7939%2C-119.573150%2C12.00 (accessed July 2023).

California Department of Finance. 2023. “E-1 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1 2022 and 2023.” May 2023.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/ (accessed July 2023).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023a. Tajiguas Res Rec Project and Sanitary Landfill (42-AA-0015).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1252?siteID=3283 (accessed July 2023).
______. 2023b. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost200 6 (accessed July 2023).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2023. EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=stow+grove+park+goleta (accessed July 2023).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013- a11y.pdf (accessed July 2023).
______. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. (accessed July 2023). 130
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

106
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01). September. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed July 2023).

California Department of Water Resources. 2023. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/# (accessed July 2023).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. “California’s Petroleum Market.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market (accessed July 2023).
______. 2022a. “California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics (accessed July 2023).
______. 2022b. “California Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics (accessed July 2023).
______. 2023a. Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation (accessed July 2023).
______. 2023b. “Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas- california (accessed July 2023).

California Natural Resource Agency. 2019. “California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report.” January 16, 2019.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance- manual-preparation-health-risk-0 (accessed June 2023).

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2017. Order No. R3-2017-0021, NPDES No.

CA0048160. https://goletasanitary.org/images/09-28-2017_NPDES_Goleta_permit.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Crocker, Malcolm J. 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control. 2007.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2012. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552 9aa9cd (accessed July 2023).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02).
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook (accessed July 2023). ______. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (FHWA-HEP-10-025). ______. 2018. Noise Measurement Handbook – Final Report. June 1. 131
References

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 107 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Goleta, City of. 2006a. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. September 2006. (accessed July 2023).
______. 2006b. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Report. October 2006. (accessed July 2023).
______. 2014. Final Climate Action Plan. July 2014.
______. 2016. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan: Fire, Flood, and Tsunami Hazards Map. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showpublisheddocument/11832/63603323851183000 0 (accessed July 2023).
______. 2019. Strategic Energy Plan: City of Goleta. July 2019. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24553/63743818002723000 0 (accessed July 2023).
______. 2020a. Stormwater Management. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/city-hall/public- works/storm-water-management (accessed July 2023).
______. 2020b. Resolution Number 20-44 and VMT Threshold Study. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showpublisheddocument/23879/63731714634027000 0 (accessed July 2023).
______. 2021. Emergency Operations Plan. December 2021. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showpublisheddocument/27234/63796510283243000 0 (accessed July 2023).

Goleta Sanitary District (GSD). 2018. Sewer System Management Plan. August 2018. https://goletasanitary.org/downloads?task=download.send&id=587&catid=12&m=0 (accessed July 2023).

Goleta Water District. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F530825 5851%2FGWD%202020%20UWMP%20FINAL%202021-06-22.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L.

Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press.

Rincon Consultants - Losco, A., L. Nichols, C. Johnson, C. Felt. 2023 Stow Grove Park Master Plan Cultural Resources Technical Report, Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. Rincon Consultants Project No. 23-14176. Report on file at the Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History
Santa Barbara, County of. 2021. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. January. https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/vtxutffe2n52jme97lgmv66os7pp3lm5 (accessed July 2023).
132
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

108
______. 2023. Draft County of Santa Barbara 2030 Climate Action Plan. https://sbcountycap.konveio.com/draft-2030-climate-action-plan (accessed July 2023).

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 1978. Rule 303 – Nuisance. October 1978. https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/rule303.pdf (accessed July 2023). ______. 2022a. 2022 Ozone Plan. December 2022. https://www.ourair.org/wp- content/uploads/2022-Ozone-Plan.pdf (accessed July 2023). ______. 2022b. Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. January 2022.
______. 2023. “Meeting Air Quality Standards” [website] N.d. (accessed July 2023).

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. 2023. Santa Barbara Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. January 2023.
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/sba_alucp_final.pdf (accessed July 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=stow+grove+par k+golet# (accessed July 2023)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2023. Soil Data Explorer. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed July 2023).

United States Energy Information Administration. 2021. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. February 18, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA (accessed July 2023).

List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to the City of Goleta. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Megan Jones, MPP, Principal
Nik Kilpelainen, Project Manager/Environmental Planner
Yuling Huo, Biologist
Kaitlyn Weaver, Biologist
Nicholas Carter, Environmental Planner
Lucas Carneiro, Environmental Planner
Isabelle Radis, MESM, GIS Analyst
133

Appendix A
CalEEMod
134
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
1 / 44
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
135
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
2 / 44

3.9. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
136
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
3 / 44

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings
137
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
4 / 44

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation
138
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
5 / 44

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
139
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
6 / 44

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
140
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
7 / 44

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Stow Grove Park
Construction Start Date 6/1/2024
Operational Y ear 2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.40
Precipitation (days) 24.0
Location 34.44931263578158, -119.84607506125394
County Santa Barbara
City Goleta
Air District Santa Barbara County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3372
EDFZ 8
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.14

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
141
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
8 / 44
Parking Lot 1.60 1000sqft 0.04 0.00 0.00 — — Parking lot/addtl entrance
City Park 0.26 Acre 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Playground +
Restroom
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

13.0 1000sqft 0.30 0.00 13,000 13,000 — Multi Use
Field

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.52 1.24 12.5 11.4 0.03 0.55 2.31 2.86 0.50 1.07 1.57 — 2,548 2,548 0.12 0.14 1.73 2,594 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.72 2.69 5.60 6.98 0.01 0.26 0.11 0.32 0.23 0.03 0.23 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 0.01 1,309 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.23 0.23 1.91 2.30 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.02 0.10 — 442 442 0.02 0.01 0.03 444 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.04 0.04 0.35 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 — 73.1 73.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 73.5 142
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
9 / 44

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.52 1.24 12.5 11.4 0.03 0.55 2.31 2.86 0.50 1.07 1.57 — 2,548 2,548 0.12 0.14 1.73 2,594 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.72 2.69 5.60 6.98 0.01 0.26 0.11 0.32 0.23 0.03 0.23 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 0.01 1,309 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.23 0.23 1.91 2.30 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.02 0.10 — 442 442 0.02 0.01 0.03 444 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.04 0.04 0.35 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 — 73.1 73.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 73.5

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.51 0.49 0.32 2.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.01 469 469 0.04 0.03 2.04 480 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.51 0.49 0.35 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.01 462 462 0.04 0.03 0.05 472 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
143
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
10 / 44
Unmit. 0.51 0.49 0.34 2.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.01 462 462 0.04 0.03 0.88 472 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 76.6 76.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 78.2

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.51 0.48 0.32 2.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 465 465 0.03 0.03 2.04 476 Area 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 2.04 2.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Total 0.51 0.49 0.32 2.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.01 469 469 0.04 0.03 2.04 480 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.51 0.48 0.35 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 458 458 0.04 0.03 0.05 468 Area — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 2.04 2.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Total 0.51 0.49 0.35 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.01 462 462 0.04 0.03 0.05 472 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.51 0.47 0.34 2.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 458 458 0.04 0.03 0.88 468 144
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
11 / 44
Area 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 2.04 2.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Total 0.51 0.49 0.34 2.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.01 462 462 0.04 0.03 0.88 472 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 75.9 75.9 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 77.6 Area 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.34 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.01 Total 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 76.6 76.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 78.2

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.60 0.50 4.60 5.56 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 858 858 0.03 0.01 — 861 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 145
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
12 / 44
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.2 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.33 2.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.34 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 32.1 32.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 32.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.07 0.02 1.13 0.39 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 787 787 0.05 0.12 1.51 826 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
146
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
13 / 44
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.14 2.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.25

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.41 1.19 11.4 10.7 0.02 0.53 — 0.53 0.49 — 0.49 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 2.07 2.07 — 1.00 1.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.19 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.3 147
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
14 / 44
———————0.020.02—0.030.03——————Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.66 4.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.68 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.1 48.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 49.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.07 0.02 1.13 0.39 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 787 787 0.05 0.12 1.51 826 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.78 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.79 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
15 / 44
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.14 2.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.25

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.67 0.56 5.60 6.98 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.67 0.56 5.60 6.98 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 0.15 1.53 1.91 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 357 357 0.01 < 0.005 — 359 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.28 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.2 59.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59.4 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
149
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
16 / 44
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
150
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
17 / 44
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.63 0.53 4.52 5.32 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.19 — 0.19 — 823 823 0.03 0.01 — 826 Paving — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.87 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 112 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
151
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
18 / 44
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 2.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.84 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
152
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
19 / 44
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 153
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
20 / 44

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.51 0.48 0.32 2.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 465 465 0.03 0.03 2.04 476 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.51 0.48 0.32 2.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 465 465 0.03 0.03 2.04 476 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.51 0.48 0.35 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 458 458 0.04 0.03 0.05 468 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.51 0.48 0.35 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 458 458 0.04 0.03 0.05 468 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 75.9 75.9 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 77.6 154
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
21 / 44
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 75.9 75.9 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 77.6

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.04 2.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.04 2.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.04 2.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.04 2.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
155
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
22 / 44
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.34 City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.34

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 156
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
23 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
157
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
24 / 44
————————————————0.01—Consum
er
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 158
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
25 / 44

1.95—< 0.005< 0.0051.951.950.00———————————Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.95 1.95 < 0.005
< 0.005 — 1.95
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.32 0.32 < 0.005
< 0.005 — 0.32
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
159
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
26 / 44
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.01 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.01

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 160
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
27 / 44
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
161
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
28 / 44

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
162
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
29 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
163
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
30 / 44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
164
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
31 / 44
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2024 6/10/2024 5.00 6.00 — Grading Grading 6/11/2024 6/18/2024 5.00 6.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 6/19/2024 11/5/2024 5.00 100 — Paving Paving 11/6/2024 11/12/2024 5.00 5.00 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/13/2024 11/19/2024 5.00 5.00 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 165
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
32 / 44
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Av
erage 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 10.5 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 7.50 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
166
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
33 / 44
Grading Hauling 10.5 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 17.5 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.00 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 563 188 876
167
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
34 / 44

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation 0.00 500 3.00 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 500 4.50 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Parking Lot 0.04 100%
City Park 0.00 0%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.30 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
168
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
35 / 44
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 110 110 110 40,143 548 548 548 199,900
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 563 188 876

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Parking Lot 1,402 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
169
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
36 / 44
City Park 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 345,032

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Parking Lot 0.00 —
City Park 0.02 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
170
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
37 / 44
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
171
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
38 / 44

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will contin
ue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 10.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 10.1 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 37.9 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data
(32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or
heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea
level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population
density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
172
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
39 / 44
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The
adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability
to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The
adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability
to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
173
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
40 / 44

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 22.2
AQ-PM 13.7
AQ-DPM 63.6
Drinking Water 30.9
Lead Risk Housing 39.2
Pesticides 27.6
Toxic Releases 25.3
Traffic 46.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 61.8
Groundwater 96.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 86.0
Impaired Water Bodies 58.7
Solid Waste 2.52
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 25.9
Cardio-vascular 41.2
Low Birth Weights 18.0
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.5
Housing 12.0
174
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
41 / 44
Linguistic 42.1
Poverty 13.7
Unemployment 58.4

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 82.24047222
Employed 98.1265238
Median HI 81.14974978
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 75.91428205
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 22.87950725
Transportation —
Auto Access 83.51084306
Active commuting 21.95560118
Social —
2-parent households 49.58295907
Voting 98.04953163
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 87.39894777
Park access 62.19684332
Retail density 44.01385859
Supermarket access 48.99268574
Tree canopy 51.94405235
175
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
42 / 44
Housing —
Homeownership 90.85076351
Housing habitability 92.15963044
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 47.94045939 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 88.29718979
Uncrowded housing 74.48992686
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 53.9715129
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 68.6
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 81.3
Cognitively Disabled 58.3
Physically Disabled 28.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 80.7
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 56.5
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
176
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
43 / 44
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 76.4
Elderly 3.5
English Speaking 85.6
Foreign-born 16.4
Outdoor Workers 47.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 64.7
Traffic Density 43.6
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 18.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 97.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 30.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 87.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No 177
Stow Grove Park Detailed Report, 7/24/2023
44 / 44
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Parking lot and maintenance entrance modeled as parking lot. Playground and restroom modeled as city park.

Multi use field/loop modeled as non asphalt surfaces
Construction: Construction Phases Demolition phase (10 days) removed and reallocated to site prep and grading phases. All else retained as def
ault
Operations: Refrigerants No refrigerants per project description Operations: Vehicle Data Based on applicant indication of a nominal increase in trips of 110 trips per day. 178
Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment
179
Stow Grove Park Master Plan Project
Biological Resources Assessment
prepared for
City of Goleta
Parks and Recreation Department
Contact: JoAnne Plummer
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California, 93117
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
319 East Carrillo Avenue, Suite 105
Santa Barbara, California 931011
July 2023
180
Table of Contents

Biological Resources Assessment i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 2

1.2.1 General Park Improvements ............................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Play/Active Amenities ......................................................................................... 5

1.2.3 Social/Educational Amenities ............................................................................. 6

1.2.4 Passive/Nature Based Amenities ........................................................................ 7

1.3 Regulatory Summary ........................................................................................................... 8

1.3.1 Definition of Special Status Species .................................................................... 8

1.3.2 Environmental Statutes ...................................................................................... 8

1.3.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance .................................................. 9 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................10

2.1 Biological Study Area ........................................................................................................10

2.2 Literature Review ..............................................................................................................10

2.3 Biological Surveys ..............................................................................................................11

2.3.1 Protected Tree Inventory..................................................................................11

2.3.2 Baseline Environmental Surveys .......................................................................12

2.3.3 Monarch / Raptor ESHA Survey ........................................................................13 3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................14

3.1 Physical Characteristics .....................................................................................................14

3.1.1 Topography and Geography .............................................................................14

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages ................................................................................14

3.1.3 Soils ...................................................................................................................15

3.2 Vegetation and Other Land Cover ....................................................................................15

3.3 General Wildlife ................................................................................................................21 4 Sensitive Biological Resources ......................................................................................................22

4.1 Special Status Species .......................................................................................................22

4.1.1 Special Status Plant Species ..............................................................................22

4.1.2 Sp
ecial Status Wildlife Species..........................................................................23

4.2 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................25

4.3 Wildlife Movement ...........................................................................................................25

4.4 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances ....................................................26

4.4.1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas .........................................................26

4.5 Habitat Conservation Plans ...............................................................................................30 5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................31 181
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

ii

5.1 Special-Status Species .......................................................................................................31

5.2 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................33

5.3 Wildlife Movement ...........................................................................................................33

5.4 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances ....................................................33

5.5 Impacts Related to Habitat Conservation Plans ...............................................................36

5.6 Mitigation Measures .........................................................................................................36 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance ................................................................................40 7 References ....................................................................................................................................41 8 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................44 Tables
Table 1 General Park Improvements ............................................................................................... 5 Table 2 Play/Active Amenities ......................................................................................................... 6 Table 3 Social/Educational Amenities ............................................................................................. 6 Table 4 Passive/Nature Based Amenities ........................................................................................ 7 Table 5 Field Surveys Summary ....................................................................................................11 Table 6 Summary of Vegetation Community and Land Cover Types in the BSA ...........................16 Table 7 Native Trees within the BSA ..............................................................................................29 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ..............................................................17 Figure 4 ESHA Mapping Comparison ..............................................................................................28 Appendices
Appendix A Regulatory Framework
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Floral and Faunal Compendium
Appendix D Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Appendix E Native Tree Inventory
Appendix F Stow Grove Monarch Letter

182
Executive Summary

Biological Resources Assessment 1
Executive Summary
This report documents the findings of a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) conducted by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) for the City of Goleta’s (City’s) Stow Grove Park Master Plan Project. This BRA documents the biological resources that occur, or have the potential to occur, within the park , based on results of field visits and a desktop review , and also provides an assessment of impacts to those resources as a result of proposed activities. In particular, this BRA addresses the potential for direct and indirect impacts to the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter cooperii), and w hite-tailed kite ( Elanus leucurus ), and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs).

The following habitats in Goleta are considered to be ESHA: marine resources, beach and shoreline resources, coastal dunes, coastal bluff scrub, foredune, oak woodland s/savannah, dense stands of native grasslands, all wetlands such as vernal pools, riparian habitats, monarch butterfly overwintering roosts, raptor roosts and nests, and habitats that support special status -plant and wildlife species. In the Conservation Element (CE) of the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP), ESHAs in Goleta are generally mapped in Figure 4 -1 (updated 2023). However, per CE Policy 1.3, any area not designated on the ESHA map in Figure 4 -1 that meets the ESHA criteria shall be granted the same protections as if the area was shown on the map. As shown in Figure 4-1, a part of the Biological Study Area is designated ESHA in Stow Grove Park, including coast live oak woodland and the eucalyptus grove that provides ha bitat for monarch butterfly aggregation s (City of Goleta 2023).

This BRA recommend s the following mitigation measures for protection of sensitive resources occurring in the property:
 BIO-1: Monarch Butterfly Roost Protection
 BIO-2: Tree Removal and Monarch Roost Protection Plan  BIO-3: Pollinator Garden Landscaping
 BIO-4: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey
 BIO-5: Tree Protection Plan
183
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

2 1 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. has prepared this biological resources assessment (BRA) to document the existing conditions and evaluate the potential impacts to biological resources associated with the Stow Grove Park Master Plan Project ( project) located in the City of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. For the purpose of this report, the project site is referred to as the biological study area (BSA).

1.1 Project Location
The project is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 077-160-009 and is located along the east side of North La Patera in the city of Goleta (City) (Figure 1). The project site is located in Township 4 north, Range 28 west (San Bernardino meridian), and is depicted on the Goleta U.S. Geological Survey

7.5-minute quadrangle map (USGS 2023). The project site is an 11.44 acre public park and is southeast of the intersection of North La Patera Lane and Cathedral Oaks Road (Figure 2). The approximate center of the project is located at latitude 34.449882 and longitude -119.845762 (NAD83). The project site is currently developed with manicured grass and trails, groves of trees, group barbecue and seating areas, a caretaker’s cottage and maintenance area, two sand volleyball courts, a multi- use field with a baseball backstop, multiple playground areas, a bathroom building, and a surface parking lot. An existing residential neighborhood exists immediately adjacent on the east side of the park; an elementary school and residential neighborhood are to the south and west; and a developed farm is located to the north.

The project is in the Santa Ynez – Sulphur Mountains subsection of the Southern California Coast (USFS 2014), an ecological sub-unit that extends from the mouth of the Santa Ynez River in northern Santa Barbara County south and east into the Sulphur Mountains just we st of the Ventura River in northern Ventura County. The ecological unit is defined by its mountainous topography inland, with coastal plains along the coastline. The Santa Ynez Mountains to the north form relatively steep hillsides vegetated with chaparral and scrub vegetation types, drained by incised streams. The project is on the coastal plain between the southern foot of the mountains and the Pacific Ocean.

1.2 Project Description
The project includes the development of the Stow Grove Park Master Plan which envisions improved, new, expanded and renovated active and passive recreational park amenities at Stow Grove Park. The Master Plan includes 25 total components/amenities, of which nine are general park improvements, six are play/active, five are social/ed ucational, and five are passive/nature based. The 25 components/amenities of the Master Plan are discussed below.

1.2.1 General Park Improvements
These nine improvements include alterations to the existing parking lot located in the northwestern corner of the si te, installation of a new restroom, and refurbishment of the existing maintenance facility with a trash enclosure , horseshoe area, picnic areas, park entrances, and redwood grove/walking trails. The proposed general park improvements are described below in Table 1. 184
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 3
Figure 1 Regional Location

185
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

4 Figure 2 Project Location

*The Master Plan boundary terminates at the end of the park limits along Cathedral Oaks Road. The boundary depicted in Figure 2 illustrates County of Santa Barbara parcel data.
186
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 5
Table 1 General Park Improvements
Amenity Improvement Description
Parking Lot Regrade and repave the existing parking lot to include a pass-through lane on the north end of the existing lot, introducing 200 square feet of paved area.

Stormwater collection/drainage improvements (stormwater currently drains to the playground).

Restripe the parking lot in accordance with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements, including new ADA-compliant stalls
Existing Restroom Repair exterior of the restroom building, upgrade utilities, and install ADA compliant upgrades.

New Restroom Construct a ~375 square foot (sf) family and/or gender-neutral restroom.

Maintenance Facility Reconfigure the existing maintenance area and install new fencing.

Create a secondary entrance from North La Patera Lane for service vehicles only. Introduce ~1,400 sf of paved area that requires removal of one tree.

New Trash Enclosure Construct a trash enclosure within the existing footprint of the maintenance facility containing floating trash bins.

Horseshoe Area Install backboards, five new pits, benches/seating, curbing/edging, and placement of dirt at the horseshoe area. Existing horseshoe footprint would be maintained.

Park Entrances Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant upgrades (sidewalk accessibility) and install directional signage at the four Park entrances.

Existing Picnic Areas Replace and/or repair broken picnic tables and, existing shade structure, construct one new group picnic shade structure, new trash/recycle receptacles, repair barbeque equipment, and enhance signage and definition for the spaces of each picnic area.

Redwood Groves and
Walking Trails/Entrances
Remove non-native plants, install mulching, plant native species, and repair fencing.

Physical work requires use of hand tools only.

1.2.2 Play/Active Amenities
These six improvements include modifications to the existing playground, multi -use fields, walking/running paths, and volleyball courts and introduction of a new fitness trail loop and nature/play area. The proposed play/active amenities are described below in Table 2. 187
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

6 Table 2 Play/Active Amenities
Amenity Improvement Description
All Abilities Playground Expa nd the playground by ~11,200 sf to the west of the existing playground1. Resurface with new equipment (swings, slides, spinners, sensory play elements, and create a larger inclusive play space).

Multi-Use Field Refurbish the existing lawn at the northern portion of the park, install gopher deterrents, upgrade irrigation, and install a new fence backstop
Sand Volleyball Court Remove one of the two existing sand pits, install new pole/netting, and introduce a new seating area around the perimeter.

Walking/Running Path Install ~3,000 linear feet (lf) natural gravel/decomposed granite central walking/running path to connect the north side of the park to the south. This 8-foot-wide path would connect existing paths along the eastern edge, western loop in the southern portion, and western connection from the parking lot to the fields.

Fitness/Trail Loop Create a ~1,000 ft long by up to 8 ft wide perimeter fitness trail/path around the multi-use field.

Install five fitness equipment/pads (~200 sf each) at five locations surrounding the field.

Total impact footprint includes ~13,000 sf [~9,000 sf of permanent disturbance (~8,000 sf of trail and ~1,000 sf of equipment pads) and up to~4,000 sf of temporary impact area].

Nature/Play Area Install a new natural looking boulder course, balance logs, and other exploratory/nature play elements (such as a tree fort) in four use areas comprising ~1,670 sf. 2 1 There are three existing playgrounds, the project includes combining into one, expanded playground. 2 The surface of the nature/play area would be a pour in place rubber surfacing material.

1.2.3 Social/Educational Amenities
These five improvements include rehabilitation to the Caretaker Cottage, creation of a family activity area, and introduction of cultural, social, and educational amenities such as a Channel Islands Plaza, entrance junction, and entry promenade. The propos ed social/educational amenities are described below in Table 3.

Table 3 Social/Educational Amenities
Amenity Improvement Description
Caretaker Cottage Reh abilitate the cottage to provide shared use as a classroom, education or nature center.

Install ~1,100 sf of decorative permeable paving to the walkway and install a new bioswale for stormwater collection
Family Activities Area Allocate ~1,000 sf of rentable passive space for family activity, such as corn hole, bounce houses, ping pong, etc. No physical improvements and ground surface would remain permeable (i.e. mulch, dirt, grass).

Channel Islands Plaza Introduce interpretive signage of Channel Islands flora at southern entrance.

Entrance Junction Provide decorative boulders and directional signage at the intersection of the central internal pathway/trails.

Entry Promenade Install ~2,800 sf of decorative permeable paving leading up the proposed entrance junction.

The area would be vehicle accessible from the parking lot to the north.

Install a new bioswale for stormwater collection
188
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 7

1.2.4 Passive/Nature Based Amenities
These five improvements include upgrades to the general use field and native tree grove, and creation of interpretive/bird watching trails, a botanical garden, a butterfly/pollinator garden. The proposed passive/nature based amenities are described below in Table 4.

Table 4 Passive/Nature Based Amenities
Amenity Improvement Description
General Use Field Regr ade and reseed areas of the general use field, upgrade/trench the irrigation system, and install gopher deterrents.

Interpretive/Bird Watching
Trails
Install seating areas and interpretive signs throughout existing trails for education, bird watching, and refuge.

Install misters/fogging devices to provide redwoods with moisture at a higher zone than standard irrigation.

Botanical/Native Garden Create a new native species botanical area under the existing redwood groves with educational tags for plants
Butterfly/Pollinator Garden Add a garden and install educational signs and a new seating area for reading/relaxing/outdoor gathering.

Native Tree Grove Trail Install natural colored concrete and decomposed granite (DG) trail areas1 with interpretive signs throughout the park.
1 Concrete - ~56 lf of 8-foot width and ~1,200 lf of 5-foot width; DG -~800 lf of at 8-foot width and ~360 lf at 5-foot width Easements
As shown in Figure 2, an existing water line easement is located along the eas tern boundary of the park and also bisects the park through the middle in the east/west direction. This easement would be abandoned, and a new easement would be established for a directionally drilled water line, maintained by La Patera Ranch. As shown in Figure 2, the new easement would run along the eastern boundary of the site , connecting to existing infrastructure underneath Cathedral Oaks Road. The water line would be underground and would not affect the finished configuration of park amenities.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
Stow Grove Park includes designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) in two locations.

These areas and protective buffers contain existing park amenities, including three group picnic areas, horseshoe pits, a multi-use turf field, volleyball courts, restrooms, the parking lot, and walking/biking trails. Proposed improvements located within ESHA include refurbishing the existing horseshoe and picnic areas, maintenance facility and caretaker cottage, as well as constructing the new restroom and all abilities playgroun d. Under Chapter 17.30.040 of the Goleta Municipal Code, no new development is allowed within ESHA and ESHA buffer, except for Capital Improvement Program projects, public accessways and trails, certain habitat restoration and enhancement projects, and nature education and research activities.
189
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

8 Project Schedule/Construction Details
Planned improvements under the Master Plan are anticipated to be implemented over the next 5-15 years, beginning in 2024. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil would be disturbe d to implement planned improvements. Minor use of heavy machinery (grader, roller, paver, and asphalt mixing equipment) would be required for construction/rehabilitation of the parking lot and multi- use field and resurfacing the all-abilities playground.

1.3 Regulatory Summary
Regulated or sensitive resources studied and analyzed herein include special status plant and wildlife species, nesting birds and raptors, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement, and locally pro tected resources such as protected trees and ESHA. Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by Federal, State, and local authorities. Primary authority for regulation of general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the City of Goleta).

1.3.1 Definition of Special Status Species
For the purposes of this report, special status species include:
 Species listed as threatened or endangered under the f ederal Endangered Spec ies Act (ESA); including proposed and candidate species
 Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
 Species designated as Fully Protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) , and Species of Special Concern or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)  Plants listed as Rare under the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA)  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4  Species designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance, local policy, etc.

1.3.2 Environmental Statutes
For the purpose of this report, potential impacts to biological resources were analyzed based on the following statutes (Appendix A):
 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
 Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
 California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
 California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)
 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
 The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
190
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 9

1.3.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance
The following threshold criteria, as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Initial Study Checklist, were used to evaluate potential environmental effects. Based on these criteria, the proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or f ederally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc. ) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

This report was prepared to be consistent with the City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP) and the City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual Appendix A Biological Resources/Technical Background (County 2021).
191
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

10 2 Methodology

2.1 Biological Study Area
The BSA boundary and the project boundary are the same. The BSA does not include a buffer because the immediately adjacent properties are developed as residences, a public school, and public roads and are heavily used.

2.2 Literature Review
Rincon conducted a literature review to characterize the nature and extent of biological resources on and adjacent to the BSA. The literature review included an evaluation of current and historical aerial photographs of the site (Google Earth), regional and site-spec ific topographic maps, and climatic data.

Querie
s of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation system (IPaC; UFWS 2023a ), CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 20 23), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2023) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding State and federally listed species, and other special status species, considered to have potential to o ccur within the Goleta, California USGS 7.5
-minu
te topographic quadrangle and the surrounding five quadrangles ( Dos Pueblos Canyon, Santa Barbara, Little Pine Mountain, San Marcos Pass, and Lake Cachuma). The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 2 miles to the south). The results of database queries and lists of special status species were reviewed by Rincon’s regional biological experts for accuracy and completeness. The final list of special status biological resources (species and sensitive natural communities) was evaluated based on documented occurrences within the nine-quadrangle search area and biologists’ expert opinions on species known to occur in the region. The evaluation results and justification were compiled into a table (Appendix D).

The fol
lowing resources were reviewed for additional information on existing conditions relating to biological resources within the BSA:
 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2023)
 Santa Barbara Audubon Society’s Breeding Bird Study online portal (2023a)  USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (2023b)
 CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (CDFW 2023c)  CDFW Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (2023d)  CDFW Special Animals List (2023e)
Communities considered sensitive were determined based on the under the City’s ESHA definitions (per GP/CLUP policies) and the CDFW’s Sensitive Natural Communities list ( CDFW 2022) The vegetation community characterizations for this analysis were based on the classification systems presented in A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009).

The potential for wildlife movement corridors was evaluated based on the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project commissioned by the California Department of Transportation and CDFW (Spencer et al. 2010) and on direct observations of site conditions. 192
Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment 11

2.3 Biological Surveys
Table 5 summarizes recent field surveys conducted in the BSA, with details provided below. Biologists conducted the protected tree inventory, the baseline environmental survey, and monarch/ raptor ESHA surveys within the 11.5-acre BSA.

Table 5 Field Surveys Summary
Date Personnel Time Weather Conditions Survey Type
03/16/2022,
3/17/2022
Y . Huo, K. Weaver 0830-1400 Clear, 0-50% cloud cover, wind 0-5 miles per hour (mph),
temperature 65-80°F
Protected Tree Inventory
04/13/2022 C. Welch, K. Weaver 0700-1115 Clear, 25% cloud cover, wind 0-5 mph, temperature 49-68°F
Baseline Environmental
Survey
09/14/2022 K. Weaver 0715-0830 Clear, 0% cloud cover, wind 0 mph, temperature 43-52°F
Monarch/ Raptor ESHA
Survey
05/16/2023 K. Weaver 0930-1300 Clear, 100% cloud cover, wind 0-10 mph, temperature 60-68°F
Field Reconnaissance
Survey

2.3.1 Protected Tree Inventory
A tree inventory and assessment was conducted by Rincon Certified Arborist, Yuling Huo (#WE - 11975A) and biologist Kaitlyn W eaver on March 16 and March 17, 2022. There is currently no Tree Protection Ordinance in place in the City. GP/CLUP Policy CE 9 states that all mature native trees are protected but does not define the size requirement for protection. As such, the protection size threshold of live oaks in the Grading Ordinance Guidelines for Native Oak Tree Removal in the City’s Municipal Code was utilized, as is typical for this type of impact analysis . Native trees with at least one trunk over eight inches diameter at breast height (DBH; measured at 54 inches above grade) were considered protected. The inventory documented protected trees as well as undersized native trees for reference. The survey-grade geographic location of trees within Stow Grove Park was provided by Rick Engineering. Rincon collected the field locations using a global positioning system (GPS) device capable of sub- meter accuracy, f or any additional native trees not included in Rick Engineering’s survey. Note that coast redwoods ( Sequoia sempervirens) have been extensively mapped and inventoried by the City in the past and actions to maintain them are ongoing, though they are not considered native to southern California and were not surveyed for this report. Previous surveys of the redwood trees within the park were conducted in 2014 by Bill Spiewak and in 2020 by Rincon arborists. All protected trees were visually evaluated, and general assessments of tree vigor were conducted based on the above ground portions of each tree. The following information was gathered for each protected tree (note only the species, DBH, and field location of undersized native trees was collected):
 Scientific and common name
 DBH and visually estimated crown height and spread
 A letter grade (A=excellent, B=good, C=fair, D=poor, F=dead) was assigned to each tree based on vigor, overall health, aesthetics, and balance.

A unique tree identification number assigned to each tree with a corresponding metal tag (existing tree numbers/tags were used). Tree data is found in matrix under Appendix E. 193
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

12 2.3.2 Baseline Environmental Surveys
Rincon Biologists Carolyn Welch and Kaitlyn Weaver conducted a baseline environmental survey of the BSA on April 13, 2022. Weather during the survey was typical for the time of year, ranging from 49-62 degrees Fahrenheit with winds approximately 0 -5 miles per hour. The survey was conducted on foot between the hours of 7:00 am and 11:15 am.

An additional field reconnaissance survey was conducted to confirm information regarding sensitive vegetation communities and water features, that are regulated by federal, state and local agencies.

Rincon Biologist Kaitlyn Weaver conducted a reconnaissance survey of the BSA area on May 16, 2023 (Table 1). Weather on -site for the survey date was typical for the time of year, with temperatures ranging between 60-68 degrees Fahrenheit and with winds approximately 1 to 10 miles per hour.

The surveys were conducted to document the on-site vegetation communities and land cover types and assess which areas qualify as City ESHAs and CDFW sensitive natural communities. General site characteristics were noted and the dominant and conspicuous plant species present on -site were documented. The survey was conducted to document the existing conditions and general biological context of the BSA and to evaluate the potential presence of sensitive biological resources, including special status plant and wildlife species, sensitive plant communities, and habitat for raptors and nesting birds protected by federal and state laws. The survey also estimated the probable additional wildlife use of the BSA. The survey consisted of walking the extent of the BSA documenting general site conditions, vegetation and land cover types, and recording the plants and animals observed.

Compendia of plants and animals observed are provided in Appendix C. For areas that were inaccessible within the BSA (e.g., private property), the biologist visually inspected those areas with binoculars. Wildlife species were identified by direct observation, vocalization, or by sign (e.g., tracks, scat, burrows). Several sensitive species were eliminated from consideration as having potential to occur on site due to lack of suitable habitat, lack of suitable soils/substrate, and/or knowledge of regional distribution.

Natural and semi-natural vegetation community classification was based on the systems provided in the online database of A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2, Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2023). Classifications were modified as appropriate to reflect the e xisting site conditions. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition and online Jepson eFlora were used for plant identification and nomenclature (Baldwin et al. 2012; Jepson Flora Project 2021). Wildlife identification and nomenclature followed standard reference texts, including Sibley Birds West: Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2016). Natural communities are designated as sensitive by CDFW, based on NatureServe’s (NatureServe 2012) methodologies to rank communities at both the Global (G) and State (S) levels, resulting in a rank ranging from 1 (very rare and threatened) to 5 (demonstrably secure). Natural communities with ranks of S1-S3 are considered sensitive natural communities ( CDFW 2022 ). Communities dominated by non -native species are considered semi - natural alliances and have no Global and State rankings (ranking denoted as GNA SNA).

A Geode global positioning Geode system (GPS) capable of submeter accuracy was used to delineate between these separate communities, where feasible, and review of aerial imagery was used to refine vegetation community and land cover boundaries in areas where the Geode could not be used. This information has been digitized in a computer -aided design (CAD) file, which includes the vegetation communities and land covers mapped on -site, the City’s mapped ESHA and which vegetation communities qualify as City ESHA and/or are CDFW sensitive communities. Representative site photos were taken of all vegetat ion communities, land cover types, and ESHAs (Attachment 1). Refer to Appendix B for photographs that depict current site conditions. 194
Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment 13

2.3.3 Monarch / Raptor ESHA Survey
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 the BSA. 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 Rincon 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), S anta Barbara Audubon Breeding Bird Study (Santa Barbara Audubon Society 2022), and the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2023a ). 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.

Monarch butterfly habitat ESHA is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 shows both the ESHA mapped in the General Plan, and ESHA recently mapped by Rincon Biologists. Mapping conducted by Rincon includes the landscaped redwood forest and landscaped coast live oak woodlands. Althouse and Meade Biologist Charis van der Heide assessed the project and project impacts to monarch butterfly overwintering habitat and provid ed a letter summary (Appendix F). The findings summary and recommended mitigation has been incorporated into this report. 195
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

14 3 Existing Conditions
This section summarizes the results of the surveys and provides analysis of the data collected in the field. Brief discussions regarding the general environmental setting, soils, vegetation and land cover types, and plant and wildlife species, are presented below. Representative photographs of the BSA are provided in Appendix B, and complete lists of all plant and wildlife species observed within the BSA are presented in Appendix C.

3.1 Physical Characteristics

3.1.1 Topography and Geography
Existing trails meander throughout the park between landscaped non-native grass areas and planted tree stands (eucalyptus, redwood, myoporum, and oak). These trails are compacted soils and highly disturbed from public use (e.g., walkers). Land uses within the vicinity of the BSA include roadways (North La Patera Lane and Cathedral Oaks Road), a n elementary school and private residential developments.

The regional climate is Mediterranean, influenced by proximity to the ocean with hot, dry summers and mild winters . According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s National Water and Climate Center data records between 1941 and 2000, average annual temperatures in Goleta ranged between 49- and 69-degrees Fahrenheit, with the warmest temperatures occurring between August and September and the coldest temperatures occurring between January and February . Goleta receives an average rainfall of approximately 1 7.37 inches, with the most rain occurring between January and March (USDA, NRCS 2000).

Elevations on-site range from 85 to 90 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and the topography of the BSA is primarily flat.

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages
The BSA is located within the San Pedro Creek Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subwatershed (HUC -12 No. 180600130202) in western portion of the San Pedro Creek -Frontal Santa Barbara Channe l watershed (HUC-10 No. 1806001302) (California Nature 2023).

A formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted. However, no waters , wetlands, or riparian vegetation that might meet the standards for federal or State protection under jurisdiction of th e United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW were observed during the field survey. No waters or wetlands identified by the NWI are mapped within the BSA. San Pedro Creek is approximately 0.21 miles west the BSA.

The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD ) does not identify any water features within the BSA.

However, a roadside agricultural ditch is located in an adjacent parcel across Cathedral Oaks Road from the site. The ditch likely accepts flows from the roadway and the large orchard operation directly to the north (Appendix C; Photograph 11). Ponded water was present after the field reconnaissance survey on May 16, 2023 which was conducted after a storm event. As of June 2023 , no water was present in the ditch and no wetland or riparian vegetation is associated with it. 196
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 15

3.1.3 Soils
Information about the soil types present within the BSA was obtained from the NRCS Online Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2023) and the Santa Barbara Area Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 1958). Based on data from the soil survey, the BSA includes nine soil map units, as described below. One soil type (Camarillo fine sandy loam, fine substratum) is included on the National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS 2022).

Camarillo Fine Sandy Loam, Fine Substratum
Camarillo fine sandy loam, fine substratum , consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils located on relatively flat floodplains from 10 to 100 feet amsl. A typical soil profile is composed of alluvium derived from s edimentary rocks and extends from the surface to 80 inches in depth.

Camarillo series soils are frequently used in agriculture. The Camarillo fine sandy loam, fine substratum, is a hydric soil (USDA, NRCS 2022b) , however the area in the park with this soil type is maintained as a multi-use grass field.

Goleta Loam, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes
Goleta Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, consists of deep, well drained soils formed in coarse and medium textured soils found on alluvial fans and in valleys between 25 to 500 feet amsl. A typical soil profile is composed of alluvium weathered from sedimentary rocks to a depth of 72 inches. Goleta series soils may be used for growing irrigated crop s and for urban purposes . Goleta clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is not a hydric soil (USDA, NRCS 2022b).

Milpitas-Positas Fine Sandy Loams, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes Milpitas-Positas fine sandy loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes, consists of Milpitas series soils and Positas series soils. Milpitas series soils are moderately well drained soils with medium runoff and very slow permeability located on gently sloped old terraces between 30 to 500 feet amsl. A typical soil profile is moderately acidic to slightly alkaline and is composed of alluvium derived largely from sandstone to a depth of 68 inches. Milpitas series soils may support native herbaceous, scrub, and oak savannah communities, and may be used for pasture, agriculture, or urban development.

Positas series soils are moderately well drained soils located on stream terraces and ter race side slopes between 200 to 1,600 feet amsl. A typical soil profile is composed of alluvial material from mixed rock sources to a depth of 64 inches. Positas series soils support annual herbaceous and oak savannah communities and may be used as rangela nd and agriculture. Milpitas-Positas fine sandy loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes, is not a hydric soil (USDA, NRCS 2022b).

3.2 Vegetation and Other Land Cover
Ten vegetation communities occur within the BSA as summarized in Table 6 and illustrated on Figure 3. The vegetation classification used for this analysis is based on Sawyer et al. (2009) but was modified as needed to most accurately describe the existing vegetation communities on the project site. All of the vegetation communities mapped are heavily disturbed and maintained for human use.

The ground around the trees is regularly maintained, resulting in moderate soil compaction , and human uses are evident in the presence of picnic tables, playground equipment, benches, and other structures. A total of 27 plant species were identified in the BSA during the survey (Appendix C ), of which most were ornamental or weedy, non-native species. 197
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

16 Table 6 Summary of Vegetation Community and Land Cover Types in the BSA Vegetation Community
Approximate
Acreage
Approximate
Percent Area
CDFW Sensitive Natural
Community Rank (Yes/No)1
Landscaped California Sycamore- Coast Live
Oak Riparian Woodland

0.26 1.0% G3S3; No (landscaped)
Landscaped Canary Island Pine Stand 0.19 0.8% GNA SNA; No Landscaped Coast Live Oak Woodland and
Forest

3.00 12.6% G5S4; No
Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove 0.83 9.1% GNA SNA; No
Landscaped Island Live Oak Woodland 0.15 0.6% G3S3; No (landscaped) Landscaped Myoporum Grove 0.19 0.8% GNA SNA; No
Landscaped Non-native Woodland1 1.42 6.0% None; No
Landscaped Redwood Forest and Woodland 2.31 9.7% G3S3.2; No (landscaped) Landscaped Tree of Heaven Grove 0.08 0.3% GNA SNA; No
Developed1 3.56 59.1% None; No
1 Not listed as a vegetation community in Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) Source: CDFW 2021
G – Global
S – State
GNA SNA – No Global and State rankings
Landscaped California Sycamore – Coast Live Oak Riparian Woodland (Platanus racemosa - Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance) California sycamore – coast live oak riparian woodland ( Platanus racemosa – Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance) is typically found from sea level to 2,100 meters in elevation in gullies, intermittent streams, springs, seeps, stream banks, and terraces adjacent to floodplains. Surrounding soil is rocky or cobbly alluvium with permanent moisture at depth. This commun ity is characterized by an open to intermittent canopy and shrub layer with a sparse or grassy herbaceous layer. California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) contributes at least 50 percent relative cover in the tree layer, or coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) may be dominant in a riparian setting. In mixed stands, California sycamore must have at least 5 percent of absolute cover in tree layers, and in areas with codominant trees layers sycamores must maintain at least 30 percent relative tree cover. This native vegetation community is ranked G3S3 and is considered a CDFW sensitive natural community (CDFW 2021), however, because the understory layer is highly disturbed and landscaped and the trees are maintained as landscaping, this alliance does not qualify as a natural sensitive community.

California sycamore is dominant in the tree canopy, with some scattered coast live oaks and no shrub layer. Based on discussions with the City’s Open Space Manager, George Thomson, these trees were not likely historically irrigated and are not currently irrigated. These trees may be remnants of historic riparian habitat, but this is not clear based on historic aerial imagery (UCSB Library, 1956 and 1967).

This community is designated as “landscaped” because the herbaceous layer consists of a maintained non-native grass lawn, dirt paths, playground equipment, and sand. The BSA contains 0.26 acres of this alliance.
198
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 17
Figure 3 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types

199
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

18 Landscaped Canary Island Pine Stand (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa – Pinus radiata Forest & Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance)
Canary Island pine stand, which is described by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as the Monterey cypress – Monterey pine stand ( Hesperocyparis macrocarpa – Pinus radiata Forest & Woodland), is typically found planted as trees, groves, and windbreaks in coastal areas between sea level and 1,200 meters in elevation. This vegetation community is characterized by tree and shrub layers that ranges from continuous to open, and variable herbaceous layers. Introduced Pinus sp. Or other conifers must consist of at least 75 percent relative cover or are co -dominant with other non- natives in the tree layer. This non-native vegetation community is ranked provisional GNA SNA and is not considered a CDFW sensitive natural community (CDFW 2021).

This alliance is located at the northwest section of the BSA and planted in linear rows, bordering the parking lot. Canary Island pine is dominant and satisfies membership requirements for the vegetation community as an introduced Pinus species with about 90 percent relative cover in the tree canopy.

There is no shrub layer, and the herbaceous layer is mostly bare ground, paved walkways, paved parking lot, and scattered non-native grasses. The BSA contains 0.19 acres of this alliance.

Landscaped Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest (Quercus agrifolia Forest & Woodland Alliance)
Coast live oak woodland and forest (Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance) is typically found on canyon bottoms, slopes, and flats between sea level and 1,200 meters in elevation. Soils are typically deep and sandy or loamy with high organic matter. This vegetation community is characterized by a tree layer that ranges from continuous to open and sparse shrub and herbaceous layers. Coast live oak contributes to at least 60 percent relative cover in the tre e layer (Sawyer et al. 2009). This native vegetation community is ranked G5S4 and is not considered a CDFW sensitive natural community (CDFW 2021), however, because the understory layer is highly disturbed and landscaped, this alliance does not qualify as a natural sensitive community.

This alliance is located throughout the entire BSA, but most heavily concentrated in the center of the park. Coast live oak is dominant in the tree canopy, but the other tree species present include scattered Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervierens), California sycamore, bottlebrush (Callistemon sp.), pine ( Pinus sp.), ash ( Fraxinus sp.), and cypress ( Cupressus sp.). The herbaceous layer is heavily landscaped and mostly bare ground; it includes dirt paths, mulch, lawn, and picnic benches. Based on historic aerial imagery, some of the coast live oaks (in the middle of the site) are likely remnants of natural oak woodlands, while others (primarily along the site boundaries) are volunteers and/or planted (UCSB Library, 1956 and 1967). Based on discussions with the City’s Open Space Manager, George Thomson, these trees were not likely historically irrigated and are not currently irrigated. The BSA contains 3.00 acres of this alliance.

Landscaped Eucalyptus Groves (Eucalyptus camaldulensis Woodland Semi- Natural Alliance)
Eucalyptus groves (Eucalyptus camaldulensis Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance) is found planted as trees, groves, and windbreaks, as well as in settings where it has become naturalized on uplands or bottomlands and adjacent to stream courses, lakes, or levees from sea level to 1,900 meters in elevation. Eucalyptus species , including red gum ( Eucalyptus cam aldulensis), consist of over 80 percent cover within the tree layer. This non-native vegetation community is ranked GNA SNA and is not considered a CDFW sensitive natural community (CDFW 2021). 200
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 19
This alliance is found on the west side the BSA, adjacent to North La Patera Lane, and is crossed by dirt footpaths. Within the BSA, this alliance is dominated by red gum planted in a linear row , which forms a closed canopy. The herbaceous layer primarily consist s of non-native grasses, cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and common plantain ( Plantago major ). The BSA contains 0.83 acres of this alliance.

Landscaped Island Live Oak Woodland (Quercus tomentella Forest & Woodland Alliance)
Island live oak woodland ( Quercus tomentella Forest and Woodland Alliance) is found in moist canyons along slopes and concavities from sea level to 450 meters in elevation with marine sedimentary, granitic, or volcanic soils and substrates. This alliance is characterized by trees under 20 meters, a continuous canopy and sparse to continuous shrub and herbaceous layers. Island live oak (Quercus tomentella) contributes to over 50 percent cover within the tree layer but may be co - dominant with coast live oak or other trees. This native vegetation community is ranked G3S3 and is considered a CDFW sensitive natural community (CDFW 2021, however, because the Island Live Oaks were planted and the understory layer is highly disturbed and landscaped, this alliance does not qualify as a natural sensitive community.

This alliance is found exclusively in the southern portion of the BSA and is crossed by dirt footpaths.

Island Live Oak is dominant in the tree canopy, but other tree species present include bottlebrush (Callistemon sp.) and ash (Fraxinus sp.). The herbaceous layer is heavily landscaped and mostly bare ground. The BSA contains 0.15 acres of this alliance.

Landscaped Myoporum Groves (Myoporum laetum Forest & Woodland Semi- Natural Alliance)
Myoporum groves (Myoporum laetum Forest & Woodland Semi- Natural Alliance) are most common in coastal canyons, washes, slopes, riparian areas, and planted along roadsides at elevations 185-300 meters. Myoporum species, including Ngaio tree (Myoporum laetum), must be at least 50% of tree layer. This non -native vegetation community is ranked GNA SNA and is not considered a CDFW sensitive natural community (CDFW 2021).

This alliance is planted in a linear row in the north central section of the BSA, along the parking lot.

Ngaio tree is the only tree present in the closed tree canopy. There are no shrubs, and the herbaceous layer is heavily landscaped and mostly bare ground; it includes dirt paths, non -native grasses, and picnic benches. The BSA contains 0.19 acres of this alliance.

Landscaped Non-native Woodland
This land cover type consists of areas landscaped with primarily non -native trees and shrubs. These areas are regularly maintained by people and do not constitute a vegetation community as described in MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009 , CNPS 2021). Landscaped non -native woodland is present in multiple locations throughout the BSA. A diverse selection of plants is found in this land cover type, including non-native trees such as paper bark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia), lace bark tree ( Brachychiton discolor), golden rain tree ( Koelreuteria paniculata), coral tree ( Erythrina sp.) , Callery pear ( Pyrus calleryana), and non -native herbs such as cheeseweed ( Malva parviflora) , burr clover ( Medicago polymorpha), and non- native grasses . The herb aceous layer includes dirt paths, playground equipment, picnic tables, and maintained non-native grass lawns. The BSA contains 1.42 acres of this land cover type.
201
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

20 Landscaped Redwood Forest and Woodland (Sequoia sempervirens Forest & Woodland Alliance)
Redwood forest and w oodland ( Sequoia sempervirens Forest & Woodland Alliance) are typically found near raised stream terraces, benches, slopes, and ridges at elevations between 10 and 975 meters in elevation. This alliance is characterized by int ermittent or continuous tree canopy (with trees up to 120 meters tall) that may be two tiered. Shrubs are either infrequent or common, and the herbaceous layer is either absent or abundant. Coast redwoods must have at least 50 percent of relative cover in the tree canopy, or over 30 percent relative cover with other conifers present. Rarely coast redwood makes up less than 5 percent of absolute cover. This native vegetation community is ranked G3S3.2 and is considered a CDFW sensitive natural community (CDF W 2021) , however, because the Coast Redwoods were planted and the understory layer is highly disturbed and landscaped, this alliance does not qualify as a natural sensitive community.

This alliance was planted in the north central portion of the BSA. Redwoods are dominant in the tree canopy, with scattered cedars (Cedrus sp.), coast live oaks, and lacebark trees (Brachychiton discolor).

The shrub layer is sparse and consists of lily of the Nile (Agapanthus sp.) and greater periwinkle (Vinca major). The herb aceous layer is mostly bare ground and mulch, but also includes some non -native grasses. The Redwood Forest and Woodlands is currently irrigated by the City. The BSA contains 2.31 acres of this alliance.

Landscaped Tree of Heaven Groves (Ailanthus altissima Woodland Semi- Natural Alliance)
Tree of heaven groves ( Ailanthus altissima Groves) are found as planted trees, groves, and windbreaks, as well as in settings where it has become naturalized on uplands or bottomlands and adjacent to stream courses, lakes, or levees from sea level to 1,900 meters in elevation. Tree of heaven ( Ailanthus altissima) comprise over 80 percent cover in the tree l ayer. This non -native vegetation community is ranked GNA SNA and is not considered a CDFW sensitive natural community (CDFW 2021).

This alliance is found exclusively in the southern portion of the BSA. Tree of heaven is dominant in the tree canopy, and the shrub layer consists of emergent coast live oak, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), pride of Madeira ( Echium candicans), and nightshade ( Solanum sp.). The sparse herbaceous layer consists of a dirt path, non -native grasses, and cheeseweed. The BSA contains 0.07 acres of this alliance.

Developed
This land cover type consists of lawn, bare ground, parking areas, buildings, volleyball courts, picnic tables, barbeque pits, buildings, and a concentration of dirt and paved paths. There are scattered emergent trees throughout. Vegetated areas in this land cover type are regularly maintained by people and do not constitute a vegetation community as described in MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2021). The BSA contains 3.56 acres of this land cover type. 202
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 21

3.3 General Wildlife
The BSA provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for avian species due to numerous tree stands but provides little suitable habitat for other wildlife species due to developed understory and lack of native vegetation. Species observed in the BSA during the survey are listed in Appendix C. All species observed are avian except the California ground squirrel. 203
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

22 4 Sensitive Biological Resources
This section discusses special status species and sensitive biological resources observed on the project site and evaluates the potential for the project site to support additional sensitive biological resources. Assessments for the potential occurrence of special status species are based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB and other sources, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the survey area, previous reports for the project site, and the results of surveys of the project site. The potential for each special status species to occur in the BSA was evaluated according to the following criteria:
 No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plan t community, site history, disturbance regime) , and species would have been identifiable on the site if present (e.g., oak trees). Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species.  Low Potential. Few of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species.
 Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.  High Potential. All the h abitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.  Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently (within the last 5 years).

4.1 Special Status Species

4.1.1 Special Status Plant Species
Documented occurrences of species within five miles of the BSA, and species included on USFWS lists, and within a nine quad radius tracked by CNPS that have potential to occur are included in Appendix C.

Based on the database and literature review, as well as the field reconnaissance survey, 28 special status plant species are known or have the potential to occur in the BSA. No special status plants are expected to occur within the BSA, based on the altered vegetation communities and high levels of recurring maintenance and disturbance in the park. Please see Appendix B for additional justification on species’ potential to occur. In addition, the BSA is not located in any designated critical habitat or preserves for special status plant species. No special status plant species were observed within the BSA. No special status plant species have the potential to occur and special status plants are not discussed further.
204
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 23

4.1.2 Special Status Wildlife Species
Based on the database and literature review, 54 special status wildlife species are known or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site. Documented occurrences of species within five miles of the BSA are included in Appendix B. Of these 54 species, three have a moderate or higher potential to occur (Appendix C). No special status wildlife species were observed within the BSA. No designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered species is designated within the BSA.

The remaining special status species are not expected to occur based on the criteria presented above.

The species reasonably anticipated to occur were determined based on the published ranges of the species and the type, extent, and condition of habitat available at the site. The three species with potential to occur in the BSA are described below.

Monarch Butterfly – California Overwintering Population The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a conspicuous black and orange butterfly that occurs in the United States, Mexico, northern South America, southwestern Europe, and Oceania.

Overwintering roosting sites are predominately in dense eucalyptus groves to provide cover from wind and storms , and breeding sites are variable but characterized by the presence of milkweed (Asclepias spp.), the larval host plant. The migratory phenomenon causes butterflies to become concentrated at suitable overwintering sites, making overwintering habitat the single most valuable resource needed to complete the monarch’s life cycle.

The monarch butterfly is listed on the CDFW’s Special Animals List, with aggregation roosts designated as imperiled to vulnerable in the state (CDFW 2018c). In 2014, monarchs were petitioned to be listed under the federal ESA. In December 2020, the USFWS found that listing was warranted but precluded by o
ther listing actions on its National Priority List. The monarch is currently slated to be listed in 2024 (CDFW 2022d). Monarch butterfly aggregation sites located in Stow Grove Park , including historic aggregation sites that are no longer used, are also designated as ESHA in the Goleta GP/CLUP CE Policies 4 through 4.5.

The Stow Grove Park site was first doc umented as monarch butterfly overwintering habitat during the 1990-1991 overwintering season. In February of 1991, a peak population count of 100 monarchs was observed at the park. Monarchs were observed roosting, basking and patrolling in the groves of redwood trees. The site was also described as a valuable way station and transitory habitat for monarchs sheltering during the spring dispersal (Calvert 1991). Between 1991 and 1997, 200 monarchs were noted roosting at the site. During the 1998 -1999 season, a peak of 100 monarchs were observed in February and the site was again noted as important for transiting monarchs during spring dispersal. Since 2015, only a handful of monarchs have been observed during the overwintering season. Historically, monarch s utilized this site more frequently and in the greatest numbers in January and February. Recent surveys during the Western Monarch Thanksgiving count are likely not an adequate representation of how monarchs are utilizing the site through the overwintering season.

Monarch butterflies have been observed roosting in the redwood trees surrounding a large open group picnic area in the northern end of the park south of the multi-use field. Further information on historical monarch count data can be found in Appendix F.

The mapped monarch butterfly ESHA are important to protect because they provide shelter and wind protection for overwintering monarch butterflies. The monarchs are known to roost in the center of the northern portion of the park and the surrounding trees are adding valuable wind protection to the central roosting trees. The Stow Grove Park site has been historically valuable habitat for 205
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

24 transitory monarch butterflies during the spring dispersal and may continu e to provide shelter for roosting monarchs despite recent low November population counts.

Cooper’s Hawk
The Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) is a CDFW watch list (WL) species and protected as ESHA under the City’s GP/CLUP (City of Goleta 2006), that typically inhabits woodlands and forest edges but can also be found in urban parks and neighborhoods where trees are present. Nests are constructed 25 - 50 feet high in a variety of tree species, including pines, oaks, beeches, and spruces. Nests are made of sticks and are often lined with bark flakes and green twigs. Cooper’s hawks are aerial predators that feed primarily on medium -sized birds, such as mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura), American robin ( Turdus migratorius ), California quail ( Callipepla californica), and European starling ( Sturnus vulgaris). In addition to preying on adult birds, Cooper’s hawks will also occasionally rob nests and hunt rabbits, rodents, and bats (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2022).

White Tailed Kite
The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) is a CDFW fully protected species and nests are protected as ESHA under the City’s GP/ CLUP (City of Goleta 2006) . A yearlong resident in coastal and valley lowlands, the species inhabits a wide range of habitats, mostly in cismontane California. The species prefers trees with dense canopies for cover. Their diet consists mostly of voles and other small, diurnal mammals, but the species occasionally feeds on birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians. Typical foraging habitat is undisturbed, open grasslands, meadows, farmlands and emergent wetlands.

Nesting is typically near top of dense oak, willow, or other tree stands, located near foraging areas.

This species preferentially selects herbaceous lowlands with a range of woodland structure, and high density of voles, and substantial groves of dense, broad- leafed deciduous trees for nesting and roosting.

Numbers declined in the Goleta area beginning in the 1970s through the early 1990s, but subsequently rebounded, based on annual Santa Barbara Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count data and annual monitoring of kite populations by local biologists (National Audubon Society 2015).

White-
tailed kites are known to forage up to tens of kilometers from communal roost sites, so when prey reductions occur at the local level, kites have a sufficiently large daily range that they can find other areas to hunt (Dunk, 1995). When collapse of prey populations occurs at the regional scale, kites can vacate an area until prey populations rebuild at which time kites gradually reoccupy suitable foraging areas, nest sites, and roost locations (Dunk, 1995). The local population of white -tailed kites has fluctuated dramatically presumably in response to prey abundance. Kites are a nomadic species able to adopt new home bases and vacate long- used areas quite abruptly (Dunk, 1995). Breeding is the Goleta Valley has been tracked and monitored for mo re than 30 years with consistent breeding population observed at More Mesa and Lake Los Carneros (Audubon 2023). White tailed kite nests have not been observed in the BSA; if present they would have been expected to have been reported.

White tailed kite has been observed nesting and roosting at Lake Los Carneros approximately a half mile south of the BSA. Therefore, white-tailed kite has a high potential to occur forage in the BSA.

Nesting Birds and Raptors
The BSA contains suitable habitat to support regulated nesting birds (i.e., California horned lark), including raptors (i.e., red- tailed hawk and Cooper’s hawk), protected under the CFGC Section 3503 and the MBTA (16 United States Code §§ 703 –712). Potential nesting locations for r aptors wer e observed throughout the BSA, with the most suitable locations being mature native and non-native 206
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 25
trees (e.g., eucalyptus, sycamore, cottonwood, coast live oak). An inactive historic nest was observed in the redwood trees within the BSA during the tree survey. The Santa Barbara Audubon Society’s Breeding Bird portal shows observations of great horned owls tending young owls as recently as 2019, and Cooper’s hawk doing the same in 2009.

Sensitive Natural Communities
According to the CNDDB, one sensitive pl ant community, southern coastal salt marsh, has been documented within 5 miles of the BSA. However, this community is not present in the BSA. No other CNDDB sensitive plant communities were observed within the BSA.

Trees that meet the City’s tree protection policies were observed throughout the BSA and are further discussed below in Section 4.5.

4.2 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:

A formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted. However, no waters , wetlands, or riparian vegetation that might meet the standards for federal protection under jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW were observed during the field survey. No waters or wetlands identified by the NWI are mapped within the BSA. San Pedro Creek is approximately 0.21 miles west the BSA.

4.3 Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections betwee n habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some h abitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.

Wildlife movement corridors can be both large - and small-scale. Overall, the BSA is surrounded by developed land uses. At the regional/landscape-level scale, the BSA is not included within any mapped landscape models, such as an Essential Connectivity Area (ECA) or Natural Landscape block in the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California (Spencer et al. 2010). ECAs are regions in which land conservation and management actions should be prioritized to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity. ECAs are mapped based on coarse ecological condition indicators, rather than the needs of particular species and thus serve the majority of species in each region. Habitat in the city is generally isolated from larger expanses of similar habitat to north, along the foothills and into the Santa Ynez Mountains. Creeks within the city typically serve as the remaining links between the coast and habitat to the north, though they are impeded with barriers such as culverts and urban development. No mapped wildlife movement corridors are present within the BSA. While the site likely supports local movement of urban-adapted species, it is surrounded by development on three sides and is not likely to provide a connection between important habitat areas.
207
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

26 4.4 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances

4.4.1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
ESHAs are defined, but are not limited to, any areas that through professional biological evaluation are determined to meet the following criteria (City of Goleta 2009):
 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;
 any area that includes habitat for species and plant communities recognized as threatened or endangered by the state or federal governments; plant communities recognized by the State of California (in the Terrestrial Natural Communities Inventory) as restricted in distribut ion and very threatened; 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; and  any area that has been previously designated as an ESHA by a competent authority.

The following habitats in Goleta and are considered to be ESHAs: marine resources, beach and shoreline resources, coastal dunes, coastal bluff scrub, foredune, oak woodlands/sav annah, dense stands of native grasslands, all wetlands such as vernal pools, riparian habitats, butterfly roosts, raptor roosts and nests, and habitats that support special status-plant and wildlife species.

In the CE of the Goleta GP/ CLUP, ESHAs in Golet a are generally shown in CE Figure 4 -1. Per CE Policy 1.3, any area not designated on the ESHA map in Figure 4 -1 that meets the ESHA criteria for the resources specified in CE Policy 1.1 shall be granted the same protections as if the area was shown on the map. As shown in Figure 4-1, a part of the BSA is designated ESHA in Stow Grove Park, including coast live oak woodland and the eucalyptus grove that provides habitat for monarch butterfly aggregation areas (City of Goleta 2023).

Policy CE 1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Designations and Policy In the City ESHAs are defined under Policy CE 1.1 (in italics). Section a incorporates the same ESHA language as the CCA (§ 30107.5) to include areas where plant or animals or habitat are rare or especially valuable and that can be easily disturbed/degraded.

CE 1.1 Definition of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. [GP/CLUP]. ESHAs shall include, but are not limited to, any areas that through professional biological evaluation are determined to meet the following criteria:
a. 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;
b. any area that includes habitat for species and plant communities recognized as threatened or endangered by the state or federal governments; plant communities recognized by the State of California (in the Terrestrial Natural Communities Inventory) as restricted in distribution and very threatened; and those habitat types of limited distribution recognized to be of 208
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 27
particular habitat value, including wetlands, riparian vegetation, eucalyptus groves associated with monarch butterfly roosts, oak woodlands, and savannas; and c. any area that has been previously designated as an ESHA by a by the [CCC], the [CDFW], City of Goleta, or other agency with jurisdiction over the designated area.

While the City and Rincon-mapped boundaries differ slightly as shown in Figure 4, no reduction in the GP/CLUP CE Figure 4 -1 ESHA mapping are proposed. Consistent with Policy CE 1.5, once ESH A is designated it can only be removed though a GP/CLUP amendment. However, per Policy CE 1.3, any area not designated on the GP/CLUP Figure 4-1 that meets the requirements of Policy CE 1.1 and 1.2 ESHA criteria are granted the same protections. Therefore, the areas considered ESHA in this report include the GP/CLUP CE Figure 4 -1 mapping and the additional 2022 Rincon- mapped habitat. Policy CE 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10 define ESHA uses, development standards, on -site and off-site mitigation, setbacks/buffers, and management.

Policy CE 4 Protection of Monarch Butterfly Habitat Areas Protection of Monarch Butterfly Habitat Areas is intended to “preserve, protect, and enhance habitats for monarch butterflies in Goleta, including existing and historical autumnal a nd winter roost or aggregation sites, and promote the long -term stability of over -wintering butterfly populations.” CE Policy 4.2 designates monarch butterfly ESHAs, which include the eucalyptus grove in the BSA. CE Policy 4.4 restricts development in monarch butterfly ESHA and sets forth development standards adjacent to monarch butterfly ESHA. Subsection (c) of CE Policy 4.4 specifically states “removal of vegetation within monarch ESHAs shall be prohibited, except for minor pruning of trees or removal of dead trees and debris that are a threat to public safety.” CE Policy 4.5 defines a protective buffer (100 feet wide in most cases) around active and historic aggregation sites and restricts the activities that may occur in the butterfly ESHA buffer.

Two potential monarch ESHA are present in the BSA:
 The City has designated the western border of the park, mapped as “Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove” on Figure 4, as a monarch butterfly and raptor roosting ESHA.  The City has designated the central portion of the park, near the “Landscaped Redwood Forest and Woodland” and “Landscaped Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest” as a monarch aggregation ESHA. This ESHA is mapped as a point representing a general area rather than a clearly defined polygon, in the western portion of the City -mapped native upland woodlands/savannahs ESHA.

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces) spearheads the Western Monarch Conservation effort, which includes delineating and monitoring historical monarch overwintering habitat. Xerces mapped a monarch overwintering site (#2762) within the north-central portion of the BSA (Xerces 2022). The boundary of this site closely matches the boundary of the City-mapped native upland woodlands/savannahs ESHA. As such, the monarch aggregation site ESHA point is assumed to be associated with the native upland woodlands/savannahs ESHA (Figure 4). 209
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
28 Figure 4 ESHA Mapping Comparison
210
Sensitive Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment 29
Policy CE 9 Protection of Native Woodlands
Protection of Native Woodlands is intended to maintain and protect existing native trees and woodlands as a valuable resource needed to support wildlife and provide visual amenities.

Within the City, there is currently no tree protection ordinance in place. Protection of trees within the City is regulated by CE Policy 9, the Goleta Municipal Code (GMC) Appendix A Grading Ordinance Guidelines for Native Oak Tree Removal, and the Draft State of the Goleta Urban Forest Report: An Urban Resource Asse ssment for the City of Goleta (herein referred to as the Goleta Urban Forest Report; City of Goleta 2009). The CE Policy 9 is intended to preserve native trees including oaks (Quercus spp.), California black walnut ( Juglans californica), California sycamor e, cottonwood (Populus spp.), willows (Salix spp.) and other native trees that are otherwise not protected in ESHAs.

Specifically, CE Policy 9.5 states that removal of mature native trees or encroachment into the protected zone that could threaten the con tinued viability of the tree(s) should, at a minimum, be mitigated by planting of replacement trees on -site. CE Policy 9 does not define a size threshold for mature native trees and states that tree protection standards and mitigation measures shall be detailed in the Tree Protection Ordinance, which has not yet been established. While the GMC Appendix A Grading Ordinance Guidelines for Native Oak Tree Removal does not apply to the coastal zone and urban boundaries, it provides a size threshold for protecti on of live oaks with at least one trunk that is 8 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH). As such, this protection size will be referenced for the purposes of this report and protected trees are defined herein as any native tree with at least one trunk with a DBH of 8 inches or greater. Tree protection zones are considered as the area within the tree’s dripline.

Section 3.2 describes four vegetation communities as landscaped native (native to the western United States) woodlands or forests, which are shown on Figure 3. All four communities are landscaped, are maintained through mowing, weeding, watering, etc. and are not naturally sustained.

A total of 202 trees were inventoried during the tree survey. Of the 202 trees, 121 trees (including coast live oaks, Monterey pine, Oregon oak, and Western sycamores ) are considered City protected trees with at least one trunk with a DBH of eight inches or greater . The remaining 81 trees are undersized native trees. N ative trees are located primarily within the landscaped coast live oak woodland and landscaped California sycamore woodland.

Table 7 provides a summary of the protected trees in the survey area, that comprise the woodlands mapped in Figure 3. Data regarding all 199 trees inventoried is provided in Appendix E.

Table 7 Native Trees within the BSA
Species Undersized Natives Protected Trees
Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 80 105
Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 0 2
Oregon oak (Quercusgarryana) 0 1
Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) 1 13
Total 81 121
211
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

30 4.5 Habitat Conservation Plans
The BSA is not subject to any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Habitat Conservation Plans are not discussed further.
212
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 31
5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
A significant impact on biological resource s would be expected to occur if the proposed project resulted in any of the impacts noted in the above CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist or exceeds the City of Goleta’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (2021) biological resources thresholds of significance, as discussed below. This section discusses potential impacts to biological resources that may occur from implementation of the proposed project and suggests appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce effects, ensure consistency with the GP/LUP.

5.1 Special-Status Species
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

City: Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal, plant or the habitat of the species.

City: Substantially diminish for fish, wildlife or plants.

Should special status species be encountered during the proposed project there could be direct impacts through injury or mortality to individuals that are present during the use of construction equipment and ground disturbance. These activities could cause direct strikes to wildlife. Indirect impacts could result from noise and dust from construction equipment.

California overwintering population s of monarch butterflies have been recorded within the BSA previously, but have not been observed since 20 18 (Althouse and Meade 2023). Nesting habitat for Copper’s hawk is present, and foraging habitat for white-tailed kite is present within the BSA .

Potential impacts to these resources are described below in Section 5.5.

Overwintering Monarch Butterflies
Removal or damage of trees that create monarch butterfly overwintering habitat/ESHA may directly impact the quality of roosting habitat. The creation of a secondary entrance to North La Patera Lane that requires the removal of one coast live oak tree would likely have a minimal impact on the long - term suitability of the monarch habitat. Its removal could alter wind protection to roosting monarchs (Althouse and Meade 2023). Construction, grading and trenching for project improvement elements may adversely impact tree root zones and affect their longevity to provide shelter for roosting monarchs. Impacts to trees are addressed in Section 5.5 below.

Construction activities with heavy machinery and work crews have the potential to disturb and disrupt the overwintering behavior of monarch butterflies in the Stow Grove ESHA if conducted during the monarch overwintering season (Oct 15 - April 15) and nesting bird season (generally January 15 - August 15). Overwintering monarch butterflies may be impacted in the short-term by direct impacts to or disturbance of suitable habitat during the overwintering season. With implementation of avoidance and minimization measures BIO-1 and BIO -2, potential project short- term direct and indirect impacts will be less than significant to monarch butterflies and monarch butterfly ESHA. In 213
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
32 addition, the proposed project incorporates elements such as t he Butterfly/Pollinator Garden, that will improve the quality of the monarch butterfly overwintering habitat in the long term.

Raptors and Nesting Birds
Raptors and nesting birds (including special status species Cooper’s hawk and white -tailed kite) may be directly impacted if individuals and/or active nests are present in the work area through direct mortality, physical impacts to active nests, or causing abandonment of nests. Additionally, indirect impacts from noise and human presence may cause disturbance if active nests or foraging individuals are within the vicinity of construction and could ultimately result in nest failure. Potential direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds would be reduced by BIO -4- to less than significant . White-tailed kites are fully protected species that could be indirectly impacted by construction disturbance within its 0.5-mile foraging range during breeding season. Foraging habitat for the kite is poor and changes to the open foraging areas, the open field and grassy areas, are not proposed. Therefore, impacts to white tailed kite foraging habitat would be less than significant. Additionally, the project’s restoration and habitat enhancements, including eucalyptus and native understory planting, will improve long - term habitat for raptors and nesting birds.

Sensitive Natural Communities and ESHA
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

City: Impacts to habitat types or species may be considered significant, based on substantial evidence in the record, if they substantially: (1) reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance; (2) reduce or eliminate the quality of nesting areas; (3) limit reproductive capacity through losses of individuals or habitat; (4) fragment, eliminate, or otherwise disrupt foraging areas and/or access to food sources; (5) limit or fragment range and movement; or (6) interfere with natural processes, such as fire or flooding, upon which the habitat depends.

City: Riparian Habitats Project created impacts may be considered significant due to: direct removal of riparian vegetation; disruption of riparian wildlife habitat, particularly animal dispersal corridors and or understory vegetation; or intrusion within the upland edge of the riparian canopy leading to potential disruption of animal migration, breeding, etc. through increased noise, light and glare, and human or domestic animal intrusion; or construction activity which disrupts critical time periods for fish and other wildlife species.

CDFW sensitive communities are not present on site. The project would not have an operational or construction direct or indirect impact on sensitive communities.

Two types of ESHA are mapped within Stow Grove Park : 1) landscaped native upland woodlands , comprised of the trees and landscaped vegetation described in Section 3.2, and 2) monarch butterfly and raptor roosting habitat, which is also comprised of trees. Construction activities including ground disturbance, improvements to existing buildings and infrastructure, and creation of new buildings and infrastructure could potentially impact ESHA . Specifically, construction activities causing g round disturbance could impact tree roots and subsequently tree health. However, impacts to ESHA would be mitigated to less than s ignificant through mitigation BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-4, and BIO-5. See Section

5.4 for a detailed discussion regarding consistency with Policy CE 1. 214
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 33

5.2 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

City: Wetlands Projects which result in a net loss of important wetland area or wetland habitat value, either through direct or indirect impacts to wetland vegetation, degradation of water quality, or would threaten the continuity of wetland-dependent animal or plant species are considered to have a potentially significant effect on the environment. Projects which substantially interrupt wildlife access, use and dispersal in wetland areas would typically be considered to have a potentially significant impact. Projects which disrupt the hydrology of wetlands systems would be considered to have a potentially significant impact.

No waters, wetlands, or riparian vegetation that might meet the standards for federal protection under jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW were observed during the field survey. No waters or wetlands identified by the GP/CLP Figure 4-1, NWI or NHD are mapped within the BSA.

5.3 Wildlife Movement
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

The BSA is not in an area identified as a wildlife corridor. The potential movement of wildlife through the BSA is minimal given the densely developed nature of the site and adjacent properties to the south, east, and west. Although open space is present north of the BSA, the Cathedral Oaks Road is a substantial barrier to wildlife movement. The proposed project would not impede wildlife movement, and no direct impacts would occur.

5.4 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
City: Individual Native Trees Project created impacts may be considered significant due to the loss of 10 percent or more of the trees of biological value on a project site 215
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
34 Policy CE 1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Designations and Policy CE 1.1-1.3 and 1.5: ESHA Designation and Mapping
Consistent. As discussed under Section 4.2, ESHA has been designated and mapped consistent with Policies CE 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 to the extent of current and previously designated ESHA. No map correction specified under CE 1.5 is required or proposed.

CE 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8: Protection of ESHAs and ESHA Buffers Consistent. The public access improvement components of the projects (e.g., walking/running path, fitness/ trail loop, parking lot replacement) are considered allowed use in ESHA under Policy CE 1.6.c.

The butterfly/pollinator garden and native garden are considered allowed use (resource restoration and enhancement) under CE 1.6.d.

The project was designed to have the fewest impacts to ESHA. All impacts will be mitigated through the CEQA analysis or offset through environmental protection practices. The design requires the least amount of modification and alteration of natural landforms as possible.

An ESHA buffer under CE 1.8 is not required since the project use is allowed to be located within ESHA.

CE 1.7: Mitigation of Impacts to ESHA
Consistent. With implementation of avoidance and minimization measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, potential project short-term direct and indirect impacts will be less than significant to monarch butterflies and monarch butterfly ESHA. Two trees are anticipated to be removed, one for the La Patera entrance and one for the maintenance facility refurbishment. Project impacts are fully mitigated through Bio- 2 and Bio-5, which require tree replacements. Impacts to trees’ roots and canopies will be mitigated through Bio -1, BIO -2, and BIO -5 for all project activities including for establishment of trails, improvements to buildings and infrastructure, and building of new structures. Potential direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds would be reduced by BIO -4- to less than significant Environmental protection practices that describe best management practices during construction will be developed and included with the project construction specifications.

CE 1.9: Standards Applicable to Development Projects
Consistent. No night lighting, or non -native species planting is proposed. The design preserves existing wildlife corridors and habitat networks and are of sufficient width to protect habitat and dispersal zones for small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. Stow Grove Park has been heavily modified from its natural landform and landscaped with both native and non -native woodlands and vegetation. With adherence to the site plan, development would minimize grading, alteration of current landforms and physical features, and vegetation clearance in order to reduce or avoid soil erosion, increased runoff, and reduced infiltration of stormwater and prevent net increases in baseline flows for any receiving water body.

CE 1.10: Management of ESHAs
Consistent. Construction impacts would be avoided though adherence to Mitigations M easures 1-5, including a prohibition on invasive species and limits on chemical use under Mitigation Measure 3 .

Adherence to City and State stormwater requirements would ensure any grading during the rainy season would be conducted consistent with CE 1.10.j and would maintain the ESHA ecological functions.
216
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 35
Policy CE 4 Protection of Monarch Butterfly Habitat Areas CE 4.1-4.3: Definition of Habitat Area, Designation of Monarch Butterfly ESHAs, and Site-Specific Studies and Unmapped Monarch ESHAs.

Consistent. Current and historical butterfly habitat and roosts have been recently mapped and identified as ESHA by the City. All suitable habitat in the BSA have been surveyed according to City and current Xerces protocol.

CE 4.4: Protection of Monarch Butterfly ESHAs, CE 4.5 Buffers Adjacent to Monarch Butterfly ESHAs.

Consistent. The project is an allowed use in monarch butterfly ESHA and has been sited to avoid impacts to aggregation sites and potential habitat. The only monarch butterfly ESHA vegetation removal proposed includes the removal of an individual eucalyptus tree located in the eucalyptus stand along the western boundary of the park. Removed trees would be replaced with the objective of monarch butterfly habitat restoration and enhancement.

CE 4.6: Standards Applicable to New Development Adjacent to Monarch ESHAs.

Consistent. Mitigation Measure 1 requires construction to outside the overwintering period (April 1 to Septembe r 30) , and avoidance measures if construction must occur during the overwintering season. Impacts to habitat as a result of tree removal would be addressed through BIO-1 and BIO-2 Policy CE 8 Protection of Special-Status Species
Consistent. As discussed under Section 4.3.1.b in the context of General Plan Policy 8.4 . Direct and indirect impacts to nesting raptors (if present) in the BSA would be avoided though adherence to Bio- 1, BIO-2, and BIO-4.

Policy CE 9 Protection of Native Woodlands
CE 9.1, 9.2, and 9.4: Tree Protection Plan and Standards Consistent. Based on Policy CE 9.1, 9.2, and 9.4, impacts (including removal, fragmentation of habitat, removal of understory, disruption of canopy, alteration of drainage patterns , siting of structures/roads/driveways) to mature native trees will be avoided or minimized to the extent feasible through project design and implementation of Bio-2 and BIO-5. Policy CE 9 does not include specific tree protection standards; as such, the tree protection measures include industry protection standards (measures to be implemented prior to, during, and after construction including methods of avoiding injury, damage treatment and inspections, activities permitted/prohibited within TPZs, and monitoring requirements for work within TPZs). Under BIO-2 mitigation at a 3:1 ratio is required for the removal of trees.

CE 9.3: Native Oak Woodlands or Savannas
Consistent. Native oak woodlands are mapped as ESHA within the BSA and tree trimming, weed abatement, and brush clearance under the project description will be the same as is currently being conducted, which is the minimum required to achieve public safety and habitat restoration. There are no major impacts to native oak woodlands anticipated.
217
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
36 CE 9.5: Mitigation of Impacts to Native Trees
Consistent. Based on Policy CE 9.5, mitigation for the removal of native trees shall include, at a minimum, the planting of replacement trees on site, if suitable area exists on the subject site, or off site (within the same watershed) if suitable onsite area is unavailable. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for a period of 5 years. The project is not anticipated to threaten the continued viability of any native trees. Encroachment into the TPZ will be minimized through project design and BIO-2 and BIO-5.

5.5 Impacts Related to Habitat Conservation Plans
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The project is not within the coverage area of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

There would be no impacts relative to this criterion.

5.6 Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Monarch Butterfly Roost Protection
The City will implement measures to avoid and minimize indirect impacts on monarch butterfly overwintering roo sts consistent with Policy CE 4. C onstruction (including tree removal and infrastructure improvement activities) within 200 feet of monarch butterfly ESHA shall be scheduled to occur between April 1 and September 30 where feasible, to avoid overwintering monarch butterflies.

If construction and infrastructure improvement activities within 200 feet of monarch butterfly ESHA is necessary during the overwintering season, p rior to construction (including infrastructure improvement activities, or tree/vegetation removal), the following measures shall be implemented:
 A monarch specialist or qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for roosting monarchs prior to the start of work and confirm the absence of roosting monarchs before the work can commence.

Roosting monarch surveys must follow the Xerces Society Protocol (2022). Surveys shall be conducted in th e early morning while temperatures are low enough that monarch butterflies remain clustered from the evening before (usually when temperatures are below 13 °C or 55 °F).  During the overwintering season and during construction and infrastructure improvement activities that occur, roosting monarch surveys shall be conducted weekly to confirm continued absence or to identify, map, and describe roost locations if presence of roosting monarchs is confirmed. Mapped roosting locations may be adjusted as needed und er the guidance of a monarch specialist or qualified biologist.
 Any construction, infrastructure improvement activities, or tree/vegetation removal within 200 ft of roosting monarchs within the monarch butterfly ESHA shall be prohibited (consistent with CE 4.5 and CE 4.6d).
 A monarch specialist or qualified biologist shall be present to document monarch butterfly protection. The monarch monitor shall document that roosting monarchs are not disturbed by 218
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 37
work activities. The monarch monitor shall have authority to stop work if monarchs show signs of unnatural disturbance.
 Trees removed from the monarch butterfly ESHA and trees heavily impacted by construction, grading, and trenching of the project improvement elements within the monarch butterfly ESHA shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio within the ESHA and as close to the removed tree as is reasonably feasible.

Plan Requirements and Timing: This condition shall be noted on any project plans. For construction during the overwintering season, prior to construction. The biological monitor shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits.

Monitoring. If construction occurs during the overwintering season , surveys will be conducted to determine presence or absence of roosting monarchs. If monarchs are not present, no buffer or monitoring are required. If monarchs are present, th e requirements apply during the overwintering season, prior to any grading or construction and throughout all development activities until occupancy clearance issued.

BIO-2 Tree Removal and Monarch Roost Protection Plan
A Tree Removal and Monarch Protection Plan is required prior to any Monarch ESHA tree removal consistent with Policy CE 4. The plan shall include the following.  Removal of trees of any diameter possessing living foliage is prohibited within the monarch butterfly ESHA unless a tree is identified as an imminent hazard to property or life , is dead, or is otherwise approved by the City Arborist consistent Policy CE 4 . Trees being considered for removal shall be evaluated and approved by both a certified arborist and a monarch specialist or qualified biologist for critical habitat protection before project work commences (consistent with CE 4.4).
 Trees removed from the monarch butterfly ESHA and trees heavily impacted by construction, grading, and trenching of the project improvement elements within the monarch butterfly ESHA shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio within the ESHA and as close to the removed tree as is reasonably feasible.

Plan Requirements: The Tree Removal and Monarch Protection Plan shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to construction.

Monitoring and Reporting: Trees planted as mitigation for this project will be mitigated through replacement plantings as described in Bio-1 and Bio-5. The trees and tree health will be monitored at a minimum of twice annually. Annual monitoring reports, prepared by an arborist shall be submitted to the City for three consecutive years.

BIO-3 Pollinator Garden Landscaping
Prior to construction of the pollinator garden, a landscape plan with the proposed pollinator species shall be approved by the City. The Plan shall also limit the use of insecticides, herbicides, or other toxic substances by City employees and contractors in construction and maintenance. Invasive species shall be prohibited. A list of pollinator species is included in the Stow Grove Park Monarch Butterfly ESHA- Impact Analysis and Minimization Measures (Althouse and Meade 2023).

Plan Requirements and Timing: The landscape plan shall be approved by the City prior to construction. This condition shall be noted on any plans. 219
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan

38 Monitoring: City staff will spot check plants to confirm consistency with the approved plan.

BIO-4 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys
 To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, including raptor species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, project activities including vegetation removal, ground disturbance, construction, and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), if feasible.
 If work must begin during the breeding season, a pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of project activities. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted inside the project footprint plus a 500 -foot buffer for raptors and special- status species and a 300-foot buffer for all other birds. Inaccessible parts of the survey area shall be scanned using binoculars. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of bird species known to occur in southern California communities.  If active nests (those containing eggs, nestlings, or associated with dependent fledglings) are found on-site, an avoidance buffer shall be implemented around each nest and demarcated with fencing or flagging. The size of the buffers shall be determined by the biologist based upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. No project activity shall occur inside a nest buffer until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active.
 If no nesting birds are observed during pre -construction surveys, no further actions would be necessary.

Plan Requirements and Timing: This condition shall be noted on any plans. The name and contact information for the avian biologist shall be submitted to the City prior to commencement of construction.

Monitoring: If a nesting bird survey is required (construction occurs during the nesting bird season), the s urvey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiatio n of project activities . A summary memo shall be submitted to the City within 14 days of the survey.

BIO-5 Tree Protection
The following tree protection measures will be implemented to ensure that impacts to mature native (protected) trees are minimized to the extent feasible or avoided, consistent with Policy CE 9 prior to the start of project activities. All measures below will be conducted by or under the direct supervision of an ISA certified arborist:
 A certified arborist or qualified biologist will m onitor any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that have a potential to impact protected trees.  A minimum 3-foot-tall snow fence will be placed around the TPZ in areas where project activities have the potential to impact protected trees . F encing should be maintained and in place throughout the duration of these activities.
 Any grading, cut-and fill, trenching, or other ground disturbance should be done slowly using hand tools as feasible to avoid ripping or tearing roots. Roots two inches or greater in diameter should be avoided to the extent feasible.
 Any root pruning should be done at a 90 -degree angle with a clean sharp blade, and new cuts should be wetted and covered with absorbent tarp or heavy cloth fabric until backfill is completed.
220
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 39
 No equipment or materials should be stored within TPZs as feasible. In areas where vehicles or equipment may impact tree roots, steel plates should be installed to protect the root zones as needed.
 Pruning should be limited to only what is necessary for project activities. Inadvertent damage to limbs and branches from equipment should be immediately trimmed with clean blades. All pruning should rely on best practices as determined by the arborist.  If any protected trees are damaged to the point where continued viability is threatened, as determined by a certified arborist, the tree will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with like species grown from locally obtained seed . Replacement shall occur on site as feasible, or off site (within the same watershed) if on site replacement is not feasible. Replacement trees shall be monitored for a period of 5 years.

Plan Set Requirements and Timing: This condition shall be noted on any plans. The name and contact information for the arborist shall be submitted to the City prior to commencement of construction.

Monitoring: For construction with the potential to impact protected trees, the arborist or qualified biological monitor shall be approved prior to the start of construction . Monitoring shall occur throughout all development activities with the potential to impact protected trees until occupancy clearance issued.
221
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
40 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use
Reliance
This Biological Resources Assessment has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The biological investigation is limited by the scope of work performed. Reconnaissance biological surveys for certain taxa may have been conducted as part of this assessment but were not performed during a particular blooming period, nesting period, or particular portion of the season when positive identification would be expected if present, and therefore, cannot be considered definitive. The biological surveys are limit ed also by the environmental conditions present at the time of the surveys. In addition, general biological (or protocol) surveys do not guarantee that the organisms are not present and will not be discovered in the future within the site. In particular, mobile wildlife species could occupy the site on a transient basis, or re -establish populations in the future. Our field studies were based on current industry practices, which change over time and may not be applicable in the future. No other guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, are provided. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from site reconnaissance, jurisdictional areas, review of CNDDB RareFind5, and specified historical and literature sources. Standard data sources relied upon during the completion of this report, such as the CNDDB, may vary with regard to accuracy and completeness. In particular, the CNDDB is compiled from research and observations reported to CDFW that may or may not have been the result of comprehensive or site- specific field surveys.

Although Rincon believes the data sources are reasonably reliable, Rincon cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the data sources it has used. Additionally, pursuant to our contract, the data sources reviewed included only those that are practically reviewable without the need for extraordinary research and analysis.
222
References
Biological Resources Assessment 41
7 References
Althouse and Meade. 2023. Stow Grove Park Butterfly ESHA – Impact Analysis and avoidance and Minimization Measures. July 14, 2023.

Baldwin, B.G. (Ed.), D.H. Goldman (Ed.), D. J. Keil (Ed.), R. Patterson (Ed.), T. J. Rosatti (Ed.), D. H.

Wilken (Ed.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Birds of the World. 2022. Edited by S.M. BIllerman, B.K. Keeney, P.G. Rodewald, and T.S.

Schulenberg. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/bow/home. Accessed July 2023.

Calvert, William H. 1991. Monarch butterfly overwintering site locations in Santa Barbara County, California. Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. Accessed June 2023.
_____. 2022. California Sensitive Natural Communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/ FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline (accessed June 2023). _____. 2023b. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. July 2023.
_____. 2023c. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved June 21, 2023 from www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS
_____. 2023d. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. June 2023.

California Native Plant Society. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.7-08c-Interim 8- 22-02. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.

California Nature. 2023. Watersheds HUC12 (CDFW). Accessed at https://www.californianature.ca.gov/datasets/2ef0a47b259f467e86061ebc667604f4_0/exp lore?location=34.464957%2C-119.817964%2C12.97 (accessed July 2023).

City of Goleta (City). 2003. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. Published May 1992, Revised January 1995, October 2001, and October 2002. Available online at:
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1318/ 635689476246700000.
_____. 2006. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. September 2006. Available online at:
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/city-hall/planning-and-environmental-review/general-plan _____. 2021. Creek and Watershed Management Plan.

Dunk,
J.R. 1995. White-tailed K
ite (Elanus leucurus). In Birds of North American Online, A. Poole, ed.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Accessed at bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/178 in October, 2015. 223
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
42 eBird. 2023. 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 May 2023).

Google Earth. 2023. Stow Grove Park. Accessed at:
https://www.google.com/maps?q=stow+grove+park&source=lmns&entry=mc&bih=880&bi w=1920&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS959US959&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8uunrzJaAAxU8BTQIHf iTAQcQ0pQJKAF6BAgBEAQ
National Audubon Society. 2015. Christmas Bird Count Historical Results. Accessed at http://birds.audubon.org/historical‐results in October 2015 Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Santa Barabara Audubon Society (Audobon). 2023a. Santa Barbara County Breeding Bird Study. https://santabarbaraaudubon.org/santa-barbara-county-breeding-bird-study/ _____.2023b. White tailed Kite Watch 2020 (website). https://santabarbaraaudubon.org/white- tailed-kite-watch-2020-summary/
Sibley, David. 2016. Sibley Guide to Birds. Second Edition.

Spencer, et al. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California.

United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2023. Web Soil Survey. Accessed June 21, 2023. Soil Survey Area: Santa Barbara County, California. Soil Survey Data: Version 8, June 21, 2023. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. _____. 2000. National Water and Climate Center. WETS Station: Santa Barbara Muni AP, CA. Available online at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/wcc/home/climateSupport/agAcisClimateData/ (accessed July 2023).
_____. 2022. Lists of Hydric Soils. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Accessed via: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html _____. 2023b. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
United States Forest Service (USFS). 2014. CALVEG Dataset, Zone 7, South Coast, June 2014 .

Available online at:
https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?xmlKeyword=calveg (accessed July 2023).

USGS. 2023. US Topo: Maps for America. Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview. Acc essed:

June 2023.

Univ
ersity of California, Santa Barbara Library (UCSB Library). 2023. Frame Finder. Flight HA_AN, Frame 1-166, 1956. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed April 2023.
224
References
Biological Resources Assessment 43
_____. 2023. Frame Finder. Flight HB_JW, Frame 274, 1967 https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed July 2023.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Climate of California. Available at:
www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/narrative_ca.php.

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 July 2023.
225
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
44 8 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Primary Author
 Kaitlyn Weaver, Biologist
Secondary Author
 Holly Harris, Biologist
Technical Review
 Chris Julian, Principal Biologist
Biological Surveys
 Kaitlyn Weaver, Biologist
 Yuling Huo, Certified Arborist
 Carolyn Welch, Biologist
226
Appendix A
Regulatory Setting
227
Regulatory Setting
A-1
Regulatory Setting
The following is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which biological resources are managed at the federal, state, and local levels. A number of federal and state statutes provide a regulatory structure that guides the protection of biological resources. Agencies with the responsibility for protection of biological resources within the BSA include the following:
▪ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (wetlands and other waters of the United States) ▪ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (federally listed species and migratory birds) ▪ National Marine Fisheries Service (marine wildlife and anadromous fishes) ▪ Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (waters of the State) ▪ California Department Fish and Wildlife (riparian areas, streambeds, and lakes; state-listed species; nesting birds, marine resources)
▪ City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering several federal programs related to ensuring the quality and navigability of the nation’s waters.

Clean Water Act Section 404
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the USACE, to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the "navigable waters at specified disposal sites." Section 502 of the CWA further defines "navigable waters" as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” “Waters of the United States” are broadly defined at 33 CFR Part 328.3 to include navigable waters, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, as well as wetlands, marshes, and wet meadows. In recent years the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have undertaken several efforts to modernize their regulations defining “waters of the United States” (e.g., the 2015 Clean Water Rule, 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, and the most recent effort promulgated by the USACE and USEPA on January 18, 2023 (88 FR 3004- 3144)), but these efforts have been frustrated by legal challenges which have invalidated the updated regulations. Thus, the agencies’ longstanding definition of “waters of the United States,” which dates from 1986, remains in effect although it is currently being interpreted consistent with the recent Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency Supreme Court decision. In summary, this decision indicates that waters of the United States are limited to bodies of water that are navigable or flow at least seasonally, and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to these waters. The USACE and USEPA have announced their intent to issue revised regulations defining “waters of the United States” by September 1, 2023, which will provide additional clarification.

Biological Resources Assessment
228
A-2
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the USACE for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States. Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the United States require a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, re-channelization, or any other modification of a navigable water of the United States, and applies to all structures and work. It further includes, without limitation, any wharf, dolphin, weir, boom breakwater, jetty, groin, bank protection (e.g., riprap, revetment, bulkhead), mooring structures such as pilings, aerial or subaqueous power transmission lines, intake or outfall pipes, permanently moored floating vessel, tunnel, artificial canal, boat ramp, aids to navigation, and any other permanent, or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction. It is important to note that Section 10 applies only to navigable waters, and thus does not apply to work in non-navigable wetlands or tributaries. In some cases, Section 10 authorization is issued by the USACE concurrently with CWA Section 404 authorization, such as when certain Nationwide Permits are used.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code sec. 13050(e)). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering portions of the CWA.

Clean Water Act Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant requesting a federal license or permit for an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters (such as a Section 404 Permit) to provide state certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality standards. In California, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Section 401 Certification) is issued by the RWQCBs and by the SWRCB for multi-region projects. The process begins when an applicant submits an application to the RWQCB and informs the USACE (or the applicable agency from which a license or permit was requested) that an application has been submitted. The USACE will then determine a “reasonable period of time” for the RWQCB to act on the application; this is typically 60 days for routine projects and longer for complex projects but may not exceed one year.

When the period has elapsed, if the RWQCB has not either issued or denied the application for Section 401 Certification, the USACE may determine that Certification has been waived and issue the requested permit. If a Section 401 Certification is issued it may include binding conditions, imposed either through the Certification itself or through the requested federal license or permit.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter- Cologne Act (California Water Code section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows:

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
229
Regulatory Setting
A-3
▪ The quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected ▪ All activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason
▪ The State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine RWQCBs (based on watershed boundaries) and the SWRCB, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The SWRCB provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. In addition, the SWRCB allocates rights to the use of surface water. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have numerous nonpoint source related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management.

Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act requires any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the appropriate RWQCB. The RWQCB may then authorize the discharge, subject to conditions, by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). While this requirement was historically applied primarily to outfalls and similar point source discharges, the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, effective May 2020, make it clear that the agency will apply the Porter-Cologne Act’s requirements to discharges of dredge and fill material as well. The Procedures state that they are to be used in issuing CWA Section 401 Certifications and WDRs, and largely mirror the existing review requirements for CWA Section 404 Permits and Section 401 Certifications, incorporating most elements of the USEPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Following issuance of the Procedures, the SWRCB produced a consolidated application form for dredge/fill discharges that can be used to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, WDRs, or both.

Non-Wetland Waters of the State
The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state except for wetlands currently. In many cases the RWQCBs interpret the limits of waters of the State to be bounded by the OHWM unless isolated conditions or ephemeral waters are present.

However, in the absence of statewide guidance each RWQCB may interpret jurisdictional boundaries within their region and the SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by the RWQCB, waters of the State may include riparian areas or other locations outside the OHWM, leading to a larger jurisdictional area over a given water body compared to the USACE.

Wetland Waters of the State
Procedures for defining wetland waters of the State pursuant to the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect May 28, 2020. The SWRCB defines an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
(i) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both;
Biological Resources Assessment
230
A-4
(ii) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and
(iii) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The SWRCB’s Implementation Guidance for the Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to Waters of the State (2020), states that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State should be delineated using the standard USACE delineation procedures, taking into consideration that the methods shall be modified only to allow for the fact that a lack of vegetation does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implements several laws protecting the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 United States Code [USC] Sections 153 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668).

Endangered Species Act
The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibility for implementing the ESA. Generally, the USFWS implements the FESA for terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the FESA for marine and anadromous species. Projects that would result in “take” of any threatened or endangered wildlife species, or a threatened or endangered plant species if occurring on federal land, are required to obtain permits from the USFWS or NMFS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) of the ESA, depending on the involvement by the federal government in funding, authorizing, or carrying out the project. The permitting process is used to determine if a project would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and what measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm (which includes habitat modification), pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of the ESA; however, the USFWS and NMFS advise project applicants that they could be elevated to listed status at any time.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA of 1918 implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The law has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in 1976 and Canada in 1995. The MBTA prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS.

The list of migratory bird species protected by the law, in regulations at 50 CFR Part 10.13, is primarily based on bird families and species included in the four international treaties. A migratory bird species is included on the list if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
231
Regulatory Setting
A-5

1. It occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a family protected by one of the four international treaties or their amendments.

2. Revised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the list, and the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.

3. New evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories resulting from natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected family.

In 2004, the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act limited the scope of the MBTA by stating the MBTA applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or U.S. territories, and that a native migratory bird species is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. The MBTRA requires the USFWS to publish a list of all nonnative, human- introduced bird species to which the MBTA does not apply, and an updated list was published in 2020. The 2020 update identifies species belonging to biological families referred to in treaties the MBTA implements but are not protected because their presence in the United States or U.S. territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the USFWS, from "taking" bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." "Disturb" means “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior."
In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human- induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) derives its authority from the Fish and Game Code of California and administers several State laws protecting fish and wildlife resources and the habitats upon which they depend.

Biological Resources Assessment
232
A-6
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits take of state listed threatened or endangered. Take under CESA is defined as “Hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (Fish and Game Code sec. 86).

This definition does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification, except where such harm is the proximate cause of death of a listed species. Where incidental take would occur during construction or other lawful activities, CESA allows the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit upon finding, among other requirements, that impacts to the species have been minimized and fully mitigated. Unlike the federal ESA, CESA’s protections extend to candidate species during the period (typically one year) while the California Fish and Game Commission decides whether the species warrants CESA listing.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare, and prohibits the take of listed plant species. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA’s permitting procedures would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as "Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference for the regulated public between plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.

Fully Protected Species Laws
The CDFW enforces Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code, which prohibit take of species designated as Fully Protected. The CDFW is not allowed to issue an Incidental Take Permit for Fully Protected species; therefore, impacts to these species must be avoided. The exception is situations where a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is in place that authorizes take of the fully protected species.

Avian Protection Laws
California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the Code protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs. Section 3513 makes it a state-level offense to take any bird in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Protection of Lakes and Streambeds
California Fish and Game Code section 1602 states that it is unlawful for any person to "substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake" without first notifying the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) of that activity. Thereafter, if CDFW determines and informs the entity that the activity will not substantially adversely affect any existing fish or wildlife resources, the entity may commence the activity. If, however, CDFG determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource, the entity may be required to obtain from City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
233
Regulatory Setting
A-7
CDFW a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), which will include reasonable measures necessary to protect the affected resource(s), before the entity may conduct the activity described in the notification. Upon receiving a complete Notification of Lake/Streambed Alteration, CDFW has 60 days to present the entity with a Draft SAA. Upon review of the Draft SAA by the applicant, any problematic terms are negotiated with CDFW and a final SAA is executed.

The CDFW has not defined the term “stream” for the purposes of implementing its regulatory program under Section 1602, and the agency has not promulgated regulations directing how jurisdictional streambeds may be identified, or how their limits should be delineated. However, four relevant sources of information offer insight as to the appropriate limits of CDFW jurisdiction as discussed below.
▪ The plain language of Section 1602 of CFGC establishes the following general concepts:
 References “river,” “stream,” and “lake”
 References “natural flow”
 References “bed,” “bank,” and “channel”
▪ Applicable court decisions, in particular Rutherford v. State of California (188 Cal App. 3d 1276 (1987), which interpreted Section 1602’s use of “stream” to be as defined in common law. The Court indicated that a “stream” is commonly understood to:
 Have a source and a terminus
 Have banks and a channel
 Convey flow at least periodically, but need not flow continuously and may at times appear outwardly dry
 Represent the depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water
 Include the area between the opposing banks measured from the foot of the banks from the top of the water at its ordinary stage, including intervening sand bars  Include the land that is covered by the water in its ordinary low stage  Include lands below the OHWM
▪ CDFW regulations defining “stream” for other purposes, including sport fishing (14 CCR 1.72) and streambed alterations associated with cannabis production (14 CCR 722(c)(21)), which indicate that a stream:
 Flows at least periodically or intermittently
 Flows through a bed or channel having banks
 Supports fish or aquatic life
 Can be dry for a period of time
 Includes watercourses where surface or subsurface flow supports or has supported riparian vegetation
▪ Guidance documents, including A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (CDFG 1994) and Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility‐Scale Solar Power Plants (Brady and Vyverberg 2013), which suggest the following:
 A stream may flow perennially or episodically
Biological Resources Assessment
234
A-8
 A stream is defined by the course in which water currently flows, or has flowed during the historic hydrologic course regime (approximately the last 200 years)  Width of a stream course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators  A stream may have one or more channels (single thread vs. compound form)  Features such as braided channels, low-flow channels, active channels, banks associated with secondary channels, floodplains, islands, and stream-associated vegetation, are interconnected parts of the watercourse
 Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife
 Biologic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic wildlife including fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species which derive benefits from the stream system
 The lateral extent of a stream can be measured in different ways depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife resource at risk The tenets listed above, among others, are applied to establish the boundaries of streambeds in various environments. Importance of each factor may be weighted based on site-specific considerations and the applicability of the indicators to the streambed at hand.

Local Jurisdiction
City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan
This plan governs land use and physical development within the geographic area of the incorporated City of Goleta limits. As of January 1, 2006, this area included 5,075 acres, or approximately 7.9 square miles. The Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, which is required by California law, is the most important policy document that guides future physical changes and public decision making within a community. California law places the general plan atop the hierarchy of land use planning regulations; by analogy, it has been described as a “constitution” for decision making by a city for its future physical development and change. General plans are required to be comprehensive, long- range, and internally consistent. Every general plan must address seven specific topics, or elements:
land use, housing, conservation, open space, transportation, safety, and noise. While state law establishes specific requirements for the contents of the plan, within that legal framework each community has latitude to design its own future. State law allows flexibility in how elements are organized and the additional topics that may be included. All elements have the same legal status, and no element, goal, or policy can supersede any other. The Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan is the primary means for guiding future change in Goleta as it faces difficult choices on a daily basis about growth, housing, environmental protection, neighborhood compatibility and preservation, and transportation. The plan provides a guide for making these choices by relating day-to-day decisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of this document. The plan has four major purposes:
▪ To provide a unified and coherent framework and vision for the future of the community. ▪ To provide a basis for future decisions by the City on implementing ordinances such as zoning and subdivision codes, individual development project applications, and public investments in infrastructure and services, so as to achieve consistency with the framework.

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
235
Regulatory Setting
A-9
▪ To inform the public of the City’s policies and provide a means to invite public participation in the City’s decision-making processes.
▪ To guide private landowners, developers, and other public agencies in formulating projects and designs that will be consistent with Goleta’s policies.

Specifically, the General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1 ESHA as follows:

ESHAs shall include, but are not limited to, any areas that through professional biological evaluation are determined to meet the following criteria under a. 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;
b. any area that includes habitat for species and plant communities recognized as threatened or endangered by the state or federal governments; plant communities recognized by the State of California (in the Terrestrial Natural Communities Inventory) as restricted in distribution and very threatened; 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; and c. any area that has been previously designated as an ESHA by a by the California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Fish and Game, City of Goleta, or other agency with jurisdiction over the designated area.

Policy CE 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10 defines ESHA uses, development standards, and mitigation as follows:

CE 1.6 Protection of ESHAs. [GP/CLUP] ESHAs shall be protected against significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses or development dependent on and compatible with maintaining such resources shall be allowed within ESHAs or their buffers. The following shall apply:
a. No development, except as otherwise allowed by this element, shall be allowed within ESHAs and/or ESHA buffers.
b. A setback 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. […]
CE 1.7 Mitigation of Impacts to ESHAs. [GP/CLUP] 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. If impacts to onsite ESHAs occur in the Coastal Zone, any offsite mitigation area shall also be located within the Coastal Zone. All mitigation sites shall be monitored for a minimum period of 5 years […].

Biological Resources Assessment
236
A-10
CE 1.9 Standards Applicable to Development Projects. [GP/CLUP] The following standards shall apply to consideration of developments within or adjacent to ESHAs:
a. Site designs shall preserve wildlife corridors or habitat networks. Corridors shall be of sufficient width to protect habitat and dispersal zones for small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
b. [..]
c. Site plans and landscaping shall be designed to protect ESHAs. Landscaping, screening, or vegetated buffers shall retain, salvage, and/or reestablish vegetation that supports wildlife habitat whenever feasible. Development within or adjacent to wildlife habitat networks shall incorporate design techniques that protect, support, and enhance wildlife habitat values.

Planting of nonnative, invasive species shall not be allowed in ESHAs and buffer areas adjacent to ESHAs.
d. All new development shall be sited and designed so as to minimize grading, alteration of natural landforms and physical features, and vegetation clearance in order to reduce or avoid soil erosion, creek siltation, increased runoff, and reduced infiltration of stormwater and to prevent net increases in baseline flows for any receiving water body. e. Light and glare from new development shall be controlled and directed away from wildlife habitats. Exterior night lighting shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity fixtures, shielded, and directed away from ESHAs.
f. All new development should minimize potentially significant noise impacts on special-status species in adjacent ESHAs.
g. All new development shall be sited and designed to minimize the need for fuel modification, or weed abatement, for fire safety in order to preserve native and/or nonnative supporting habitats. Development shall use fire resistant materials and incorporate alternative measures, such as firewalls and landscaping techniques, that will reduce or avoid fuel modification activities.
h. The timing of grading and construction activities shall be controlled to minimize potential disruption of wildlife during critical time periods such as nesting or breeding seasons. i. Grading, earthmoving, and vegetation clearance adjacent to an ESHA shall be prohibited during the rainy season, generally from November 1 to March 31, except as follows: 1) where erosion control measures such as sediment basins, silt fencing, sandbagging, or installation of geofabrics have been incorporated into the project and approved in advance by the City; […]
CE 1.10 Management of ESHAs. [GP/CLUP] The following standards shall apply to the ongoing management of ESHAs:
a. The use of insecticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers, or other toxic chemical substances that have the potential to degrade ESHAs shall be prohibited within and adjacent to such areas, except where necessary to protect or enhance the ESHA itself. b. The use of insecticides, herbicides, or other toxic substances by City employees and contractors in construction and maintenance of City facilities and open space lands shall be minimized.
c. […]
d. Weed abatement and brush-clearing activities for fire safety purposes shall be the minimum that is necessary to accomplish the intended purpose. Techniques shall be limited to mowing City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
237
Regulatory Setting
A-11
and other low-impact methods such as hand crews for brushing, tarping, and hot water/foam for weed control. Disking shall be prohibited. e. […]
f. Removal of nonnative invasive plant species within ESHAs may be allowed and encouraged, unless the nonnatives contribute to habitat values
[…]
Policy CE 3 protects wetlands/vernal pools in the coastal zone as follows:

CE 3.4: Protection of Wetlands in the Coastal Zone. [CP] The biological productivity and the quality of wetlands shall be protected and, where feasible, restored in accordance with the federal and state regulations and policies that apply to wetlands within the Coastal Zone.

Only uses permitted by the regulating agencies shall be allowed within wetlands. The filling, diking, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes is prohibited unless it can be demonstrated that: a. There is no feasible, environmentally less damaging alternative to wetland fill. b. The extent of the fill is the least amount necessary to allow development of the permitted use. c. Mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. d. The purposes of the fill are limited to: incidental public services, such as burying cables or pipes; restoration of wetlands; and nature study, education, or similar resource-dependent activities. A wetland buffer of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland shall be required. Generally the required buffer shall be 100 feet, but in no case shall wetland buffers be less than 50 feet. The buffer size should take into consideration the type and size of the development, the sensitivity of the wetland resources to detrimental edge effects of the development to the resources, natural features such as topography, the functions and values of the wetland, and the need for upland transitional habitat. A 100-foot minimum buffer area shall not be reduced when it serves the functions and values of slowing and absorbing flood waters for flood and erosion control, sediment filtration, water purification, and ground water recharge. The buffer area shall serve as transitional habitat with native vegetation and shall provide physical barriers to human intrusion
CE.3.8 Vernal Pool Protection. [GP/CLUP] Vernal pools, an especially rare wetland habitat on the south coast of Santa Barbara County, shall be preserved and protected. Vernal pools in Goleta, which are generally small in area and only a few inches deep, are found at scattered locations on the City owned Ellwood Mesa and Santa Barbara Shores Park. These appear to be naturally formed and exhibit little or no evidence of altered hydrology. Trails on these two properties shall be sited and constructed in a manner that avoids impacts to vernal pool hydrology and that will allow restoration by removing several informal trail segments that bisect vernal pool habitats. […]
Policy CE 5 protects native grasslands, coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage-scrub, and chaparral as follows:

CE 5.2: Protection of Native Grasslands. In addition to the provisions of Policy CE 1, the following standards shall apply:
a. For purposes of this policy, existing native grasslands are defined as an area where native grassland species comprise 10 percent or more of the total relative plant cover. Native grasslands that are dominated by perennial bunch grasses tend to be patchy. Where a high density of separate small patches occurs in an area, the whole area shall be delineated as native grasslands.

Biological Resources Assessment
238
A-12
b. To the maximum extent feasible, development shall avoid impacts to native grasslands that would destroy, isolate, interrupt, or cause a break in continuous habitat that would (1) disrupt associated animal movement patterns and seed dispersal, or (2) increase vulnerability to weed invasions.
c. Removal or disturbance to a patch of native grasses less than 0.25 acre that is clearly isolated and is not part of a significant native grassland or an integral component of a larger ecosystem may be allowed. Removal or disturbance to restoration areas shall not be allowed.
d. Impacts to protected native grasslands shall be minimized by providing at least a 10-foot buffer that is restored with native species around the perimeter of the delineated native grassland area.
e. Removal of nonnative and invasive exotic species shall be allowed; revegetation shall be with plants or seeds collected within the same watershed whenever feasible.

CE 5.3: Protection of Costal Bluff Scrub, Coastal Sage Scrub, and Chaparral ESHA. [GP/CLUP] In addition to the provisions of Policy CE 1, the following standards shall apply:
a. For purposes of this policy, coastal bluff scrub is defined as scrub habitat occurring on exposed coastal bluffs. Example species in bluff scrub habitat include Brewer’s saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), seashore blight (Suaeda californica), seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and coyote bush [brush] (Baccharis pilularis).

Coastal sage scrub is defined as a drought-tolerant, Mediterranean habitat characterized by soft-leaved, shallow-rooted subshrubs such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote bush [brush] (Baccharis pilularis), and California encelia (Encelia californica). It is found at lower elevations in both coastal and interior areas where moist maritime air penetrates inland. […]The area must have both the compositional and structural characteristics of coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, or chaparral habitat as described in Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986) or other classification system recognized by the [CDFW].
b. To the maximum extent feasible, development shall avoid impacts to coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, or chaparral habitat that is part of a wildlife movement corridor and the impact would preclude animal movement or isolate ESHAs previously connected by the corridor such as (1) disrupting associated bird and animal movement patterns and seed dispersal, and/or (2) increasing erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks or drainages.
c. Impacts to coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral ESHAs shall be minimized by providing at least a 25-foot buffer restored with native species around the perimeter of the ESHA, unless the activity is allowed under other CE subpolicies and mitigation is applied per CE 1.7. d. Removal of nonnative and invasive exotic species shall be allowed; revegetation shall be with plants or seeds collected within the same watershed whenever feasible.

Policy CE 8 protects special-status species, including their habitats, as follows:

CE 8.1 ESHA Designation. [GP/CLUP] Requisite habitats for individual occurrences of special- status plants and animals, including candidate species for listing under the state and federal endangered species acts, California [SSC], [CNPS] List 1B plants, and other species protected City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
239
Regulatory Setting
A-13
under provisions of the [CFGC] shall be preserved and protected, and their occurrences, including habitat requirements, shall be designated as ESHAs. […] CE 8.2 Protection of Habitat Areas. [GP/CLUP] All development shall be located, designed, constructed, and managed to avoid disturbance of adverse impacts to special-status species and their habitats, including spawning, nesting, rearing, roosting, foraging, and other elements of the required habitats.

CE 8.4 Buffer Areas for Raptor Species. [GP/CLUP] Development shall be designed to provide a 100-foot buffer around 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 […] 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.

City Wetlands
Pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element sub policy CE 3.1, Definition of Wetlands, the City defines wetland boundaries by a single parameter (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydrology) and directly cites the Coastal Act definitions contained in 14 CCR 13577(b).

Biological Resources Assessment
240
Appendix B
Site Photographs
241
Site Photographs
B-1
Photograph 1. View of the Landscaped California Sycamore - Coast Live Oak Riparian Woodland at the northwestern portion of Stow Grove Park (aspect: north, April 13th, 2022).

Photograph 2. View of the Landscaped Canary Island Pine Stand bordering the parking lot of Stow Grove Park (aspect: south, April 13th, 2022).

Biological Resources Assessment
242
B-2
Photograph 3. View of the Landscaped Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest in the central portion of Stow Grove Park (aspect: northwest, April 13th, 2022).

Photograph 4. View of Landscaped Eucalyptus Grove on the western border of Stow Grove Park (aspect:
southwest, April 13th, 2022).

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
243
Photograph 1. View of the . Landscaped Island Live Oak Woodland at the southern portion of Stow Grove Park (aspect: south, April 13th, 2022).

Photograph 6. View of Landscaped Myoporum Grove at the central portion of the BSA, bordering the parking lot (aspect: south, April 13th, 2022).

B-3Biological Resources Assessment
Site Photographs
244
B-4
Photograph 7. View of the Landscaped Non-native Woodland at the southern portion of the BSA (aspect:
southeast, April 13th, 2022).

Photograph 8. View of Landscaped Redwood Forest and Woodland at the central portion of the BSA (aspect: northwest, April 13th, 2022).

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
245
Photograph 9. View of the Landscaped Tree of Heaven Groves at the southern portion of Stow Grove Park (aspect: southeast, April 13th, 2022).

Photograph 10. View of developed park area in the northern portion of the BSA (aspect: northeast, April 13th, 2022).

B-5Biological Resources Assessment
Site Photographs
246
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Ma
ster Plan

B-6

Photogra
ph 11. View of the road side culvert/ agriculture drainage ditch at the north of the BSA, outside of Stow Grove Park boundary (aspect: southwest, July 9, 2023). 247
Appendix C
Floral and Faunal Compendium
248
Floral and Faunal Compendium
C-1
Plant Species Observed Within the BSA
Scientific Name Common Name Status Native or Introduced Shrubs
Agapanthus sp lily of the Nile Introduced
Echium candicans pride of Madeira Introduced
Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Native
Plantago major common plantain Introduced
Solanum sp nightshade Introduced
Vinca major greater periwinkle Introduced
Herbs
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed mallow Introduced
Medicago polymorpha burr clover Introduced
Raphanus raphanistrum wild radish Introduced
Tropaeolum majus nasturtium Introduced
Trees
Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven Introduced
Brachychiton discolor lacebark trees Introduced
Callistemon sp bottlebrush Introduced
Cedrus sp. Cedar sp. Introduced
Cupressus sp cypress sp. Introduced
Erythrina sp coral tree Introduced
Eucalyptus camaldulensis red gum eucalyptus Introduced
Fraxinus sp Ash sp. Introduced
Koelreuteria paniculata golden rain tree Introduced
Melaleuca quinquenervia paper bark tree Introduced
Myoporum laetum Myoporum sp. Introduced
Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Introduced
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Native
Pyrus calleryana Callery pear Introduced
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Native
Quercus tomentella Island live oak Native
Sequoia sempervierens Coast redwood Native
Sources:
1 CDFW 2023d, Jepson Flora Project 2022, and Cal-IPC 2022 Biological Resources Assessment
249
C-2
Wildlife Species Observed Within the BSA on May 16, 2023 Scientific Name Common Name Status Native or Introduced Birds
Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay - Native
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk - Native
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow - Native
Haemorhous mexicanus house finch - Native
Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole - Native
Junco hyemalis dark eyed junco - Native
Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker - Native
Melospiza melodia song sparrow - Native
Melozone crissalis California towhee - Native
Quiscalus mexicanus great tailed grackle - Native
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe - Native
Sialia mexicana Western bluebird - Native
Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove - Introduced Mammals
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel - Native Birds of the World. 2022. Edited by S.M. BIllerman, B.K. Keeney, P.G. Rodewald, and T.S. Schulenberg. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/bow/home. Accessed July 2023.

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
250
Appendix D
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
251
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
D-1
Special Status Plant Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Anomobryum julaceum
slender silver moss
None/None
G5?/S2

4.2 Moss. Broadleafed upland
forest, lower montane
coniferous forest, north coast
coniferous forest. Moss
which grows on damp rocks
and soil; acidic substrates.

Usually seen on roadcuts.

Elevations: 330-3280ft. (100-
1000m.)
None
Suitable elevations
not present in study
area.

Arctostaphylos
refugioensis
Refugio manzanita
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub.

Chaparral. On sandstone.

Elevations: 900-2690ft. (274-
820m.) Blooms (May)Dec-
Mar.

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Arenaria paludicola
Marsh Sandwort
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Marshes and swamps.

Growing up through dense
mats of Typha, Juncus,
Scirpus, etc. in freshwater
marsh. Sandy soil. 3-170 m.

Blooms May-Aug.

None
Project site
predominantly
developed/ disturbed.

Suitable aquatic
habitat not present
on-site.

Astragalus
didymocarpus var.
milesianus
Miles' milk-vetch
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal scrub.

Clay soils. Elevations: 65-
295ft. (20-90m.) Blooms
Mar-Jun.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
coastal scrub and clay
soil habitat not
present in BSA.

Atriplex coulteri
Coulter's saltbush
None/None
G3/S1S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Coastal bluff
scrub, coastal dunes, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Alkaline
(sometimes), clay
(sometimes). Elevations: 10-
1510ft. (3-460m.) Blooms
Mar-Oct.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
coastal bluff scrub,
coastal sand dune,
coastal scrub, or
grassland habitat not
present in BSA.

Atriplex serenana var.
davidsonii
Davidson's saltscale
None/None
G5T1/S1
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal bluff
scrub, coastal scrub. Alkaline.

Elevations: 35-655ft. (10-
200m.) Blooms Apr-Oct.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
coastal scrub habitat
not present in BSA.

Calochortus fimbriatus
late-flowered mariposa-
lily
None/None
G3/S3
1B.3
Perennial bulbiferous herb.

Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, riparian
woodland. Serpentinite
(sometimes). Elevations: 900-
6250ft. (275-1905m.) Blooms
Jun-Aug.

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
252
D-2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Calystegia sepium ssp.
binghamiae
Santa Barbara morning-
glory
None/None
G5TXQ/SX
1A
Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Marshes and swamps.

Elevations: 15-15ft. (5-5m.)
Blooms Aug.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
marsh and swamp
habitat not present in
BSA.

Centromadia parryi ssp.
australis
southern tarplant
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Marshes and
swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.

Often in disturbed sites near
the coast at marsh edges;
also in alkaline soils
sometimes with saltgrass.

Sometimes on vernal pool
margins. Elevations: 0-
1575ft. (0-480m.) Blooms
May-Nov.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
grassland or aquatic
habitat not present
on-site.

Chloropyron maritimum
ssp. Maritimum
Salt Marsh bird beack
FE/ SE
G4?T1/S1
1B.2
Marshes and swamps,
coastal dunes. Limited to the
higher zones of salt marsh
habitat. 0-10 m. Elevation: 0-
100 ft. (0-30m). Blooms May-
Nov.

None
Project site is
predominantly
developed/ disturbed.

Suitable aquatic
habitat not present
on-site.

Delphinium
umbraculorum
umbrella larkspur
None/None
G3/S3
1B.3
Perennial herb. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland. Mesic
sites. Elevations: 1310-
5250ft. (400-1600m.) Blooms
Apr-Jun.

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Fritillaria ojaiensis
Ojai fritillary
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb.

Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest. Rocky
sites. Sometimes on
serpentine; sometimes along
roadsides. Elevations: 740-
3275ft. (225-998m.) Blooms
Feb-May.

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia
None/None
G4T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Sandy or
gravelly sites. Elevations:
230-2660ft. (70-810m.)
Blooms Feb-Jul(Sep).

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
253
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
D-3
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Juncus luciensis
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, great
basin scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows
and seeps, vernal pools.

Vernal pools, ephemeral
drainages, wet meadow
habitats and streamsides.

Elevations: 985-6695ft. (300-
2040m.) Blooms Apr-Jul.

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
FE/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane
woodland, playas, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Vernal pools, swales,
low depressions, in open
grassy areas. Elevations: 0-
1540ft. (0-470m.) Blooms
Mar-Jun.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
woodland, grassland,
or aquatic habitat not
present on-site.

Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's goldfields
None/None
G4T2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Marshes and
swamps, playas, vernal pools.

Usually found on alkaline
soils in playas, sinks, and
grasslands. 1-. Elevations: 5-
4005ft. (1-1220m.) Blooms
Feb-Jun.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
marsh, swamp,
playas, or vernal pool
habitat not found in
BSA.

Layia heterotricha
pale-yellow layia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
pinyon and juniper
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Alkaline or clay
soils; open areas. Elevations:
985-5595ft. (300-1705m.)
Blooms Mar-Jun.

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Lonicera subspicata var.
subspicata
Santa Barbara
honeysuckle
None/None
G5T2?/S2?
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub.

Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub.

Elevations: 35-3280ft. (10-
1000m.) Blooms (Feb)May-
Aug(Dec).

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
chaparral or
woodland habitat not
present on-site.

Malacothrix saxatilis
var. arachnoidea
Carmel Valley
malacothrix
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Chaparral, coastal scrub.

Rock outcrops or steep rocky
roadcuts. Elevations: 80-
3400ft. (25-1036m.) Blooms
(Mar)Jun-Dec.

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Monardella hypoleuca
ssp. hypoleuca
white-veined
monardella
None/None
G4T3/S3
1B.3
Perennial herb. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland. Dry
slopes. Elevations: 165-
5005ft. (50-1525m.) Blooms
(Apr)May-Aug(Sep-Dec).

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
254
D-4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
Nasturtium gambelii
Gambel's water cress
FE/ST
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Marshes and swamps.

Freshwater and brackish
marshes at the margins of
lakes and along streams, in
or just above the water level.

Elevations: 15-1085ft. (5-
330m.) Blooms Apr-Oct.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
aquatic habitat not
present on-site.

Pelazoneuron
puberulum var.
sonorense
Sonoran maiden fern
None/None
G5T3/S2
2B.2
Meadows and seeps. Along
streams, seepage areas. 50-
610m. Blooms Jan-Sep.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
meadow or seep
habitat not present
on-site.

Pleuridium mexicanum
Mexican earthmoss
None/None
G5/S1
2B.1
Moss. Chaparral. Sandstone.

Elevations: 1445-1445ft.
(440-440m.)
None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Quercus dumosa
Nuttall's scrub oak
None/None
G3/S3
1B.1
Perennial evergreen shrub.

Chaparral, closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal
scrub. Generally on sandy
soils near the coast;
sometimes on clay loam.

Elevations: 50-1310ft. (15-
400m.) Blooms Feb-Apr(May-
Aug).

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
chaparral, forest, or
scrub habitat not
present on-site.

Scrophularia atrata
black-flowered figwort
None/None
G2?/S2?
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral,
closed-cone coniferous
forest, coastal dunes, coastal
scrub, riparian scrub. Sand,
diatomaceous shales, and
soils derived from other
parent material; around
swales and in sand dunes.

Elevations: 35-1640ft. (10-
500m.) Blooms Mar-Jul.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
chaparral, forest,
dune, or scrub habitat
not present on-site.

Suaeda esteroa
estuary seablite
None/None
G3/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Marshes and
swamps. Coastal salt
marshes in clay, silt, and sand
substrates. Elevations: 0-
15ft. (0-5m.) Blooms (Jan-
May)Jul-Oct.

None
Project site is
predominantly
disturbed. Suitable
aquatic habitat not
present in BSA.

Thermopsis
macrophylla
Santa Ynez false lupine
None/SR
G1/S1
1B.3
Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Chaparral. In open areas such
as fuel breaks, after burns;
on sandstone. Elevations:
1395-4595ft. (425-1400m.)
Blooms Apr-Jun.

None Suitable elevations
not present in BSA.

Regional Vicinity refers to within a 9-quad search radius of site.

Status (Federal/State)
FE = Federal Endangered
CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank)
1A = Presumed extirpated in California, and rare or extinct elsewhere City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
255
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
D-5
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur Rationale
FT = Federal Threatened
FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered
FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened
FD = Federal Delisted
FC = Federal Candidate
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCE = State Candidate Endangered
SCT = State Candidate Threatened
SR = State Rare
SD = State Delisted
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
FP = CDFW Fully Protected
WL = CDFW Watch List
1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere 2B= Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = Need more information (Review List)
4 = Limited Distribution (Watch List)
CRPR Threat Code Extension
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat)
Other Statuses
G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant
GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank
Biological Resources Assessment
256
D-6
Special Status Wildlife Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Project Site (5-Mile CNDDB) Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Invertebrates
Bombus
caliginosus
obscure bumble
bee
None/None
G2G3/S1S2
Coastal areas from Santa
Barbara County north to
Washington state. Food plant
genera include Baccharis,
Cirsium, Lupinus, Lotus,
Grindelia and Phacelia.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

No suitable habitat is
present on-site.

Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble
bee
None/SCE
G2/S2
Coastal California east to the
Sierra-Cascade crest and south
into Mexico. Food plant genera
include Antirrhinum, Phacelia,
Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

No suitable habitat is
present on-site.

Cicindela
hirticollis gravida
sandy beach tiger
beetle
None/None
G5T2/S2
Inhabits areas adjacent to non-
brackish water along the coast
of California from San Francisco
Bay to northern Mexico. Clean,
dry, light-colored sand in the
upper zone. Subterranean
larvae prefer moist sand not
affected by wave action.

None No suitable aquatic habitat
is present on-site.

Coelus globosus
globose dune
beetle
None/None
G1G2/S1S2
Inhabitant of coastal sand dune
habitat; erratically distributed
from Ten Mile Creek in
Mendocino County south to
Ensenada, Mexico. Inhabits
foredunes and sand hummocks;
it burrows beneath the sand
surface and is most common
beneath dune vegetation.

None Suitable coastal sand dune
habitat not present on-site.

Danaus plexippus
plexippus pop. 1
monarch -
California
overwintering
population
FC/None
G4T1T2Q/S2
Winter roost sites extend along
the coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico. Roosts located in wind-
protected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water
sources nearby.

Moderate
Transitory roosting habitat
present on-site. No
overwintering monarchs
observed by Xerces since
2018.

Eugnosta
busckana
Busck's gallmoth
None/None
G1G3/S2S3
Coastal southern California. Tiny
micro-moth (1 cm) with larva
forming galls on host plant
Encelia californica (California
brittlebush). Adult flight period
is during winter, generally from
November to February, and
have been reported at UV lights
and porch lights.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed/
developed. No suitable
habitat is present.

Linderiella
occidentalis
California
linderiella
None/None
G2G3/S2S3
Seasonal pools in unplowed
grasslands with old alluvial soils
underlain by hardpan or in
sandstone depressions. Water in
None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable seasonal
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
257
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
D-7
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
the pools has very low alkalinity,
conductivity, and total dissolved
solids.
pool habitat not present on-
site.

Tryonia imitator
mimic tryonia
(=California
brackishwater
snail)
None/None
G2/S2
Inhabits coastal lagoons,
estuaries and salt marshes, from
Sonoma County south to San
Diego County. Found only in
permanently submerged areas
in a variety of sediment types;
able to withstand a wide range
of salinities.

None
No suitable aquatic habitat
is present at the project
site.

Fish
Eucyclogobius
newberryi
tidewater goby
FE/None
G3/S3
Brackish water habitats along
the California coast from Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego
County to the mouth of the
Smith River. Found in shallow
lagoons and lower stream
reaches, they need fairly still but
not stagnant water and high
oxygen levels.

None No aquatic habitat is
present at the project site.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 10
steelhead -
southern
California DPS
FE/SCE
G5T1Q/S1
Federal listing refers to
populations from Santa Maria
River south to southern extent
of range (San Mateo Creek in
San Diego County). Southern
steelhead likely have greater
physiological tolerances to
warmer water and more
variable conditions.

None No aquatic habitat is
present at the project site.

Reptiles
Anniella pulchra
Northern
California legless
lizard
None/None
G3/S2S3
SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation. Soil moisture
is essential. They prefer soils
with a high moisture content.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable loose,
moist soils are not present.

Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal whiptail
None/None
G5T5/S3
SSC
Found in deserts and semi-arid
areas with sparse vegetation
and open areas. Also found in
woodland and riparian areas.

Ground may be firm soil, sandy,
or rocky.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

Suitable desert and semi-
arid habitat not present in
BSA.

Emys marmorata
western pond
turtle
None/None
G3G4/S3
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of
ponds, marshes, rivers, streams
and irrigation ditches, usually
with aquatic vegetation, below
6000 ft elevation. Needs basking
sites and suitable (sandy banks
or grassy open fields) upland
habitat up to 0.5 km from water
for egg-laying.

None
Project site is
predominantly
developed/disturbed.

Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
258
D-8
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard
None/None
G4/S4
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of
habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered low bushes.

Open areas for sunning, bushes
for cover, patches of loose soil
for burial, and abundant supply
of ants and other insects.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

Suitable sandy wash habitat
not present in BSA.

Salvadora
hexalepis
virgultea
coast patch-
nosed snake
None/None
G5T4/S3
SSC
Brushy or shrubby vegetation in
coastal Southern California.

Require small mammal burrows
for refuge and overwintering
sites.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

Suitable habitat not present
in BSA.

Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake
None/None
G4/S3S4
SSC
Coastal California from vicinity
of Salinas to northwest Baja
California. From sea to about
7,000 ft elevation. Highly
aquatic, found in or near
permanent fresh water. Often
along streams with rocky beds
and riparian growth.

None
Project site is
predominantly
developed/disturbed.

Suitable aquatic habitat not
present in BSA.

Amphibians
Anaxyrus
californicus
arroyo toad
FE/None
G2G3/S2
SSC
Semi-arid regions near washes
or intermittent streams,
including valley-foothill and
desert riparian, desert wash,
etc. Rivers with sandy banks,
willows, cottonwoods, and
sycamores; loose, gravelly areas
of streams in drier parts of
range.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

No suitable aquatic habitat
is present at the project
site.

Rana boylii pop. 6
foothill yellow-
legged frog -
south coast DPS
Proposed
Endangered !/SE
G3T1/S1
Southern Coast Ranges from
Monterey Bay south through
San Gabriel Mountains; west of
the Salinas River in Monterey
Co, south through Transverse
Ranges, and east through San
Gabriel Mountains. Historically
may have ranged to Baja
California. Partly shaded shallow
streams and riffles with a rocky
substrate in a variety of
habitats. Needs at least some
cobble-sized substrate for egg-
laying and at least 15 weeks to
attain metamorphosis.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

Suitable shallow stream
with rocky substrate not
present in BSA.

Rana draytonii
California red-
legged frog
FT/None
G2G3/S2S3
SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near
permanent sources of deep
water with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation.

Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval
None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

Suitable shallow stream
with rocky substrate not
present in BSA.

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
259
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
D-9
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
development. Must have access
to estivation habitat.

Taricha torosa
Coast Range
newt
None/None
G4/S4
SSC
Coastal drainages from
Mendocino County to San Diego
County. Lives in terrestrial
habitats and will migrate over 1
km to breed in ponds, reservoirs
and slow moving streams.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

Suitable drainage habitat
not present in BSA.

Anaxyrus
californicus
arroyo toad
FE/None
G2G3/S2
SSC
Semi-arid regions near washes
or intermittent streams,
including valley-foothill and
desert riparian, desert wash,
etc. Rivers with sandy banks,
willows, cottonwoods, and
sycamores; loose, gravelly areas
of streams in drier parts of
range.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

No suitable aquatic habitat
is present at the project
site.

Birds
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Woodland, chiefly of open,
interrupted or marginal type.

Nest sites mainly in riparian
growths of deciduous trees, as
in canyon bottoms on river
flood-plains; also, live oaks.

Moderate Nesting habitat is present
on-site.

Agelaius tricolor
tricolored
blackbird
None/ST
G1G2/S2
SSC
Highly colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley and
vicinity. Largely endemic to
California. Requires open water,
protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey
within a few km of the colony.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable open
water habitat present on-
site.

Aimophila
ruficeps
canescens
southern
California rufous-
crowned sparrow
None/None
G5T3/S3
WL
Resident in Southern California
coastal sage scrub and sparse
mixed chaparral. Frequents
relatively steep, often rocky
hillsides with grass and forb
patches.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable rocky
hillside, sage scrub, or
chaparral habitat present
on-site.

Ammodramus
savannarum
grasshopper
sparrow
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Dense grasslands on rolling hills,
lowland plains, in valleys and on
hillsides on lower mountain
slopes. Favors native grasslands
with a mix of grasses, forbs and
scattered shrubs. Loosely
colonial when nesting.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
grassland habitat present
on-site.

Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
None/None
G5/S3
FP
WL
Rolling foothills, mountain
areas, sage-juniper flats, and
desert. Cliff-walled canyons
provide nesting habitat in most
parts of range; also, large trees
in open areas.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable rolling
hill, mountain area, flat, or
desert habitat present on-
site.

Biological Resources Assessment
260
D-10
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Ardea alba
great egret
None/None
G5/S4
Colonial nester in large trees.

Rookery sites located near
marshes, tide-flats, irrigated
pastures, and margins of rivers
and lakes.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
aquatic habitat for nesting
present on-site.

Ardea herodias
great blue heron
None/None
G5/S4
Colonial nester in tall trees,
cliffsides, and sequestered spots
on marshes. Rookery sites in
close proximity to foraging
areas: marshes, lake margins,
tide-flats, rivers and streams,
wet meadows.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
aquatic rookery or nesting
habitat present on-site.

Artemisiospiza
belli belli
Bell's sparrow
None/None
G5T2T3/S3
WL
Nests in chaparral dominated by
fairly dense stands of chamise.

Found in coastal sage scrub in
south of range. Nest located on
the ground beneath a shrub or
in a shrub 6-18 inches above
ground. Territories about 50 yds
apart.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable
chaparral habitat not
present on-site.

Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low-
growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent
upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground
squirrel.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable
grassland, desert, or
scrubland habitat is not
present on-site.

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
None/None
G4/S3S4
WL
Open grasslands, sagebrush
flats, desert scrub, low foothills
and fringes of pinyon and
juniper habitats. Eats mostly
lagomorphs, ground squirrels,
and mice. Population trends
may follow lagomorph
population cycles.

None
Project site is
predominantly disturbed.

Suitable grassland, scrub, or
foothill habitat not present
on-site.

Charadrius
nivosus nivosus
western snowy
plover
FT/None
G3T3/S3
SSC
Sandy beaches, salt pond levees
and shores of large alkali lakes.

Needs sandy, gravelly or friable
soils for nesting.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable sandy
beach habitat not present
at the project site.

Egretta thula
snowy egret
None/None
G5/S4
Colonial nester, with nest sites
situated in protected beds of
dense tules. Rookery sites
situated close to foraging areas:
marshes, tidal-flats, streams,
wet meadows, and borders of
lakes.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
aquatic habitat for foraging
or nesting present at the
project site.

Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
None/None
G5/S3S4
FP
Rolling foothills and valley
margins with scattered oaks and
river bottomlands or marshes
next to deciduous woodland.

Moderate
Foraging habitat is present
on-site. Low potential for
nesting habitat due to
developed site.

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
261
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
D-11
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging close to
isolated, dense-topped trees for
nesting and perching.

Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern
willow flycatcher
FE/SE
G5T2/S3
Riparian woodlands in Southern
California. . None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
riparian woodland habitat
present at the project site.

No CNDDB records within
five miles
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California horned
lark
None/None
G5T4Q/S4
WL
Coastal regions, chiefly from
Sonoma County to San Diego
County. Also main part of San
Joaquin Valley and east to
foothills. Short-grass prairie,
"bald" hills, mountain meadows,
open coastal plains, fallow grain
fields, alkali flats.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable prairie,
bald hill, meadow, or
coastal plain habitat not
present on-site.

Falco mexicanus
prairie falcon
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Inhabits dry, open terrain, either
level or hilly. Breeding sites
located on cliffs. Forages far
afield, even to marshlands and
ocean shores.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable dry and
open terrain not present
on-site.

Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
None/ST
G3T1/S2
FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes,
wet meadows and shallow
margins of saltwater marshes
bordering larger bays. Needs
water depths of about 1 inch
that do not fluctuate during the
year and dense vegetation for
nesting habitat.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
aquatic habitat present at
the project site.

Nannopterum
auritum
double-crested
cormorant
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Colonial nester on coastal cliffs,
offshore islands, and along lake
margins in the interior of the
state. Nests along coast on
sequestered islets, usually on
ground with sloping surface, or
in tall trees along lake margins.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable coastal
cliff, offshore island, or lake
margin habitat not present
at the project site.

Nycticorax
nycticorax
black-crowned
night heron
None/None
G5/S4
Colonial nester, usually in trees,
occasionally in tule patches.

Rookery sites located adjacent
to foraging areas: lake margins,
mud-bordered bays, marshy
spots.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable lake
margin, bay, or marshy
habitat not present at the
project site.

Passerculus
sandwichensis
beldingi
Belding's
savannah
sparrow
None/SE
G5T3/S3
Inhabits coastal salt marshes,
from Santa Barbara south
through San Diego County.

Nests in Salicornia on and about
margins of tidal flats.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable salt
marsh habitat not present
at the project site.

Biological Resources Assessment
262
D-12
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Pelecanus
occidentalis
californicus
California brown
pelican
FD/SD
G4T3T4/S3
FP
Colonial nester on coastal
islands just outside the surf line.

Nests on coastal islands of small
to moderate size which afford
immunity from attack by
ground-dwelling predators.

Roosts communally.

None No aquatic habitat is
present at the project site.

Rallus obsoletus
levipes
light-footed
Ridgway's rail
FE/SE
G3T1T2/S1
FP
Found in salt marshes traversed
by tidal sloughs, where
cordgrass and pickleweed are
the dominant vegetation.

Requires dense growth of either
pickleweed or cordgrass for
nesting or escape cover; feeds
on molluscs and crustaceans.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable salt
marsh habitat not present
at the project site.

Riparia riparia
bank swallow
None/ST
G5/S3
Colonial nester; nests primarily
in riparian and other lowland
habitats west of the desert.

Requires vertical banks/cliffs
with fine-textured/sandy soils
near streams, rivers, lakes,
ocean to dig nesting hole.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable vertical
bank/ cliff near aquatic
habitat not found at the
project site.

Sternula
antillarum browni
California least
tern
FE/SE
G4T2T3Q/S2
FP
Nests along the coast from San
Francisco Bay south to northern
Baja California. Colonial breeder
on bare or sparsely vegetated,
flat substrates: sand beaches,
alkali flats, land fills, or paved
areas.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Coastal habitat is
not present at the project
site.

Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell's vireo
FE/SE
G5T2/S3
Summer resident of Southern
California in low riparian in
vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests
placed along margins of bushes
or on twigs projecting into
pathways, usually willow,
Baccharis, mesquite.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. Suitable riparian
habitat not present at the
project site.No CNDDB
records within five miles.

Mammals
Antrozous
pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Found in a variety of habitats
including deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and
forests. Most common in open,
dry habitats with rocky areas for
roosting. Roosts in crevices of
rock outcrops, caves, mine
tunnels, buildings, bridges, and
hollows of live and dead trees
which must protect bats from
high temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of
roosting sites.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
habitat is present on-site.

City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
263
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
D-13
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend's big-
eared bat
None/None
G4/S2
SSC
Occurs throughout California in
a wide variety of habitats. Most
common in mesic sites, typically
coniferous or deciduous forests.

Roosts in the open, hanging
from walls &amp; ceilings in
caves, lava tubes, bridges, and
buildings. This species is
extremely sensitive to human
disturbance.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
habitat is present on-site.

Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat
None/None
G4G5T4/S3S4
SSC
Occurs in open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including
coniferiferous and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, and chaparral.

Roosts in crevices in cliff faces
and caves, and buildings. Roosts
typically occur high above
ground.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
habitat is present on-site.

Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
None/None
G3G4/S4
Typically roosts in trees in
deciduous and coniferous
forests and woodlands but
occassionally roosts in rocks
crevices. Forages in open areas,
typically along riparian corridors
or over water. Diet primarily
consists of moths.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
habitat is present on-site.

Lasiurus frantzii
western red bat
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Roosts primarily in trees, 2-40 ft
above ground, from sea level up
through mixed conifer forests.

Prefers habitat edges and
mosaics with trees that are
protected from above and open
below with open areas for
foraging.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
habitat is present on-site.

Myotis
yumanensis
Yuma myotis
None/None
G5/S4
Occurs in a variety of lowland
and upland habitats including
desert scrub, riparian, and
woodlands and forests.

Distribution is closely tied to
bodies of water. Roosts in a
variety of areas including caves,
cliffs, mines, crevices in live
trees, and buildings and other
man-made structures.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
habitat is present on-site.

Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert
woodrat
None/None
G5T3T4/S3S4
SSC
Occurs in scrub habitats of
southern California from San
Luis Obispo County to San Diego
County.

None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
habitat is present on-site.

Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed bat
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Low-lying arid areas in Southern
California. Need high cliffs or
rocky outcrops for roosting
None Project site is
predominantly developed/
Biological Resources Assessment
264
D-14
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
sites. Feeds principally on large
moths.
disturbed. No suitable
habitat is present on-site.

Sensitive Natural Communities
Southern Coastal
Salt Marsh
None/None
G2/S2.1 None
Project site is
predominantly developed/
disturbed. No suitable
habitat is present on-site.

Regional Vicinity refers to within a 9-quad search radius of site.

Status (Federal/State)
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered
FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened
FD = Federal Delisted
FC = Federal Candidate
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCE = State Candidate Endangered
SCT = State Candidate Threatened
SR = State Rare
SD = State Delisted
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
FP = CDFW Fully Protected
WL = CDFW Watch List
CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank)
1A = Presumed extirpated in California, and rare or extinct elsewhere 1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere 2B= Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR Threat Code Extension
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat)
Other Statuses
G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant
GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
265
Appendix E
Native Tree Inventory
266
Native Tree Matrix
Biological Resources Assessment E-1
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
301 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 35 22 B previously pruned, retains
natural leaf litter
canopy competition with silk floss trees
302 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 30 13, 13 C previously pruned, retains natural leaf litter
codominant stems leaning southwest, hollow at
base but has compartmentalized and does not
appear decayed, cracks on north and south side
near hollow base, some termite frass at base
303 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 15 10 B previously pruned, retains
natural leaf litter
sparse lower canopy, competition with adjacent
oaks
304 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 30 16 B previously pruned, retains
natural leaf litter
ornamental tree competing in understory
305 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 15 15 8 B Rincon point, not tagged,
retains natural leaf litter
306 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 25 25 7, 8 A retains natural leaf litter competition from adjacent pittosporum 307 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 60 35 B in residential yard, not tagged, Rincon point
308 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 60 27 B park bench under canopy compacted bare soil, trail on west side 309 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 50 25 C compacted bare soil, large dead branches, moderate epicormic growth, sparse canopy
310 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 50 24 B compacted bare soil, light epicormic growth 311 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 45 18 C compacted bare soil, sparse branches, moderate epicormic growth on branches
312 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 60 30 B park bench under canopy somewhat sparse interior, compacted bare soil 267
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
E-2
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
313 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 50 22 C park bench under canopy somewhat patchy canopy, sparse Interior 314 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 50 26 B growing in grass
315 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 40 28 C park bench under canopy,
growing in grass
15% dead branches, compartmentalized wounds
on trunk, light epicormic growth
316 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 60 35, 21 B park benches and BBQ under canopy
bare compacted soil, sapsucker holes, frass on
trunk from termites or Sycamore borer
317 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 60 30 B benches under canopy somewhat sparse Interior, overextended limbs, sapsucker holes, termite or Sycamore borer frass
318 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 60 29 B bare compacted soil
319 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 55 40 22, 10 B retains natural leaf litter ornamental plants at base 320 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 25 30 8.5, 4, 3 D retains natural leaf litter very sparse canopy, dead branches, overextended limb
321 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 50 25 B retains natural leaf litter,
previously pruned
ornamental plants at base
322 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 40 14 C retains natural leaf litter,
previously pruned
ornamental plants at base, sparse lower canopy
323 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 30 15 11 D retains natural leaf litter very sparse canopy, leaning southeast 324 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 50 28 B retains natural leaf litter,
previously pruned
somewhat sparse Interior
325 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 50 22 B retains natural leaf litter,
previously pruned
somewhat sparse Interior
268
Native Tree Matrix
Biological Resources Assessment E-3
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
326 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 50 21, 25 B retains natural leaf litter, previously pruned
somewhat sparse Interior, light epicormic growth,
codominant stems
327 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 45 23 B retains natural leaf litter,
previously pruned
328 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 35 15 C retains natural leaf litter,
previously pruned
sparse lower canopy, one main stem removed
329 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 40 19 C retains natural leaf litter,
previously pruned
sparse lower canopy, light epicormic growth
330 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 40 18, 11 B retains natural leaf litter, previously pruned
moderately leaning south
331 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 30 17 C retains natural leaf litter,
previously heavily pruned
sparse lower canopy
332 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 55 30 17 C retains natural leaf litter,
previously heavily pruned
sparse lower canopy
333 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 35 15 B benches and BBQ under
canopy
bare compacted soil
334 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 50 28 B playground on east side,
bench under canopy
bare compacted sandy soil, 15% deadwood
335 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 50 16, 15, 10 B inside fenced maintenance yard
competition with ornamental Cook Island pine
336 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 45 24, 13 B Rincon point, growing in grass, pavement on west side
minor Sycamore borer, 15% deadwood
337 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 35 28 B retains some natural leaf litter, growing in grass, pavement on
west side, Rincon point
heavy lean West but trunk is curved with
reactionary growth, one trunk removed
338 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 40 22 B retains natural leaf
litter,pavement on west side,
Rincon point
moderate lean West with good reactionary growth
269
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
E-4
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
339 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 70 80 43 C retains natural leaf litter,
previously pruned
sparse Interior and lower canopy, light epicormic
growth, 15% deadwood and dead branches,some
dieback
340 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 25 30 11 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
slight lean east, competition with redwoods
341 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 25 25 16 C mulched, Rincon point leaning west, uneven canopy, sparse upper canopy, large branches removes
342 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 25 9, 3 B growing in grass, Rincon point leaning south, competition with redwood, minor dieback
343 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 35 12 B growing in grass, Rincon point slight lean West, some dead branches 344 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 35 13, 12 B growing in grass, Rincon point competition with redwood, leaning east 345 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 40 24, 13 B growing in grass codominant trunks, compartmentalized wounds, leaning east
346 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 65 50 29 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
slightly sparse lower canopy
347 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 65 45 18 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
narrow tall form
348 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 40 25, 16 B somewhat sparse lower
canopy
leaning northeast
349 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 65 55 25 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
somewhat sparse lower canopy, narrow form
350 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 35 17 B growing in grass, Rincon point somewhat sparse on west side 351 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 50 35 B growing in grass, Rincon point moderate lean east but good reactionary growth, slight raised soil opposite lean but not loose or
upheaved
270
Native Tree Matrix
Biological Resources Assessment E-5
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
352 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 45 20 B growing in grass, Rincon point leaning west 353 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 45 13 C growing in grass, Rincon point leaning west, sparse canopy due to competition growth adjacent oak
354 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 25 8 C retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
sparse canopy, Ivy on trunk, dead branches
355 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 25 8 C growing in grass, Rincon point sparse lower canopy, narrow form, numerous woodpecker holes on trunk
356 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 45 14 B retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
ivy on trunk
357 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 35 17 C retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
leaning west, sparse canopy, 20% deadwood
358 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 30 30 8, 7, 7, 5,
3 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
20% deadwood
359 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 40 22 B growing in grass, Rincon point leaning east but good reactionary growth, large trunk previously removed
360 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 30 9, 9, 6, 2 B retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
codominant trunks, competition with redwood
361 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 36 11 B retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
competition with redwood
362 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 55 26 B retains some natural leaf litter, previously pruned, Rincon
point
canopy concentrated on southeast side
363 Pinus
radiata
Monterey Pine 70 50 35 C retains some natural leaf litter, previously pruned, Rincon
point
sparse lower canopy
364 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 30 15 D retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
very sparse canopy, previously heavily pruned
271
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
E-6
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
365 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 65 50 22 B growing in grass, Rincon point sparse lower canopy, previously pruned 366 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 60 60 21, 19 B growing in grass, Rincon point somewhat sparse lower canopy, codominant trunks, previously heavily pruned
367 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 30 20 C Rincon point ivy on trunk, slightly unbalanced canopy, sparse on west side,, competition from pine
368 Pinus
radiata
Monterey Pine 70 50 36 D retains natural leaf litter,
previously pruned, Rincon
point
top 10' dead, uneven canopy, very sparse on south,
east, north sides
369 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 40 12, 12, 7 B growing in grass, Rincon point 370 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 35 15 C Rincon point leaning west, ivy on trunk, ornamental vines growing through canopy, sparse lower canopy
371 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 30 9 C Rincon point sparse lower canopy, ivy on trunk and ground cover, leading northeast
372 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 30 2, 9 C not tagged, in residential yard sparse lower canopy, ivy ground cover 373 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 60 29 B growing in grass, previously
pruned, Rincon point
ivy groundcover
374 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 15 15 9 C retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
30% dead branches interior
375 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 65 80 48, 30, 20 B retains natural leaf litter overextended limbs, 15% deadwood 376 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 25 30 25 C retains some natural leaf litter large branches previously pruned, topped 377 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 40 23, 17, 13 B retains some natural leaf litter, previously pruned
codominant trunks, competition with silk floss tree
272
Native Tree Matrix
Biological Resources Assessment E-7
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
378 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 55 35 19 B growing in grass
379 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 35 15 B retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
leaning southwest
380 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 50 25, 15 C retains some natural leaf litter one trunk is prostrate, sparse canopy, moderate epicormic growth on branches, deadwood
381 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 69 60 39 B bare compacted soil, leaning east, overextended limbs on east side
382 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 35 12 B bare compacted soil, 5% flagging, dead branches 383 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
80 50 35 B bare compacted soil
384 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
70 40 55 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
adjacent to compacted grass field, overextended
limbs on north side
385 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 60 29 C retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
branches crossing adjacent oak, sparse canopy,
overextended limbs on north side side, compacted
soil on north side
386 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 50 22 C retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
sparse canopy, crossing branches with adjacent
oak, leaning east, overextended limbs on north
side
387 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 30 30 11 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
leaning south but good reactionary growth
388 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 35 19 B retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
leaning heavily west but good reactionary growth,
trail on west side
389 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 30 15 B retains some natural leaf litter, adjacent to sandy playground
area, previously pruned,
Rincon point
273
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
E-8
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
390 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 30 10 B retains natural leaf litter, BBQ under canopy, Rincon point
391 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
45 20 8 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
somewhat sparse lower canopy
392 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
45 20 9, 5, 3 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
somewhat sparse lower canopy
393 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 30 55 25 B retains natural leaf litter,
paved road on west side,
tagged, Rincon point
394 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
75 35 25 C growing in grass 10% dieback, sparse lower canopy 395 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
50 30 11 B growing in grass
396 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 55 50 25 B growing in tree well
surrounded by grass, retains
some natural leaf litter
slight lean northeast
397 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 40 15 C growing in tree well
surrounded by grass,
previously pruned
heavy lean southwest, rubbing Sycamore
398 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
70 40 24 C growing in grass sparse lower lower canopy, 10% dieback 399 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
40 35 21 D growing in grass adjacent to
sandy playground area
top is dead likely due to previous trunk failure,
woodpecker cavities
400 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
25 15 9 D compacted bare soil adjacent to sandy playground area, very sparse canopy
401 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 25 25 9, 7 C retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
large branch topped, 15% dieback
274
Native Tree Matrix
Biological Resources Assessment E-9
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
402 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
40 40 15 C compacted bare soil adjacent to sandy playground area, leaning moderately west, sparse lower
canopy, minor dieback
403 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
70 50 24 C growing in grass 15% dieback, sparse lower canopy 404 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 45 16 B retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
405 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
65 50 25 B bench under canopy, growing
in grass
bare compacted soil, slight lean south, 5% dead
branches
406 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 50 19 B retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
10% epicormic growth
407 Quercus
garryana
Oregon oak 35 35 19 C retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
leaning west, sparse canopy, 15% dieback
408 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 35 9, 8 C retains natural leaf litter, Rincon point
sparse canopy, competition with pine
409 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 25 25 11 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
410 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 25 25 11, 8 B retains natural leaf litter, pavement on west side
slightly sparse lower canopy
411 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 50 40 21 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
moderate lean West with good reactionary growth
412 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 45 40 14 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
moderate lean West with good reactionary growth
413 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 30 35 13 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
slight lean West with good reactionary growth
414 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 20 20 8 D retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
heavy lean West, very sparse canopy
275
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
E-10
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
415 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 40 13 B retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
5% dieback
416 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 55 60 26 C pavement on north and west
sides, retains some natural leaf
litter, Rincon point
sparse lower canopy, 10% epicormic growth, 5%
dieback
417 Platanus
racemosa
Western
Sycamore
75 50 31 B growing in grass, Rincon point slightly uneven canopy due to redwood competition
418 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 40 14 B retains some natural leaf litter, Rincon point
bare compacted soil to east
419 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 35 25 8 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
420 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 40 35 10 B retains natural leaf litter,
Rincon point
421 Quercus
agrifolia
Coast Live Oak 30 30 9, 7 B underneath eucalyptus

0.5" 0.5 " Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point

0.5" 0.5" 0.5"
Coast Live Oak
Rincon point

0.5" 0.5" Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point

0.5" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point

0.5" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point

0.5" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
276
Native Tree Matrix
Biological Resources Assessment E-11
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues

0.5" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point

0.5" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point

0.5" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
1" 1" 1" Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point
1" 1" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
1" 1" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
1" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
1" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
1" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
1" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
1" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
2" 0.5" Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point
2" 1" 1" Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point
2" 1"" Coast Live
Oak
2" 2" 1" Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point
2" 2" 1" Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point
277
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
E-12
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
2" 2" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
2" 2" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
2" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
2" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
2" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
2" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
2" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
2" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
2" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
2" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
3" 1" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
3" 2" 1" Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point
3" 2" Coast Live
Oak
3" 2" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
3" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
3" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
3" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
3" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
3" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
278
Native Tree Matrix
Biological Resources Assessment E-13
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
3" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
3" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
3" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
3" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
4" 1" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
4" 2" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
4" 2" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
4" Coast Live Oak
4" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
4" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
4" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
4" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
5" 2" Coast Live
Oak
5" 3" 2" Coast
Live Oak
5" 4" 3" Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point
5" Coast Live Oak
5" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
5" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
5" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
279
City of Goleta
Stow Grove Park Master Plan
E-14
Tree
ID
Scientific
Name Common Name1
Crown
Height
(feet)
Crown
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches) 2
Health
Grade3 Notes Physical Condition/Issues
5" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
6" 5" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
6" Coast Live Oak Rincon Point
6" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
6" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
6" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
6" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
7" 1" 1" Coast
Live Oak
Rincon point
7" 1" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
7" 7" Coast Live
Oak
Rincon point
7" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
7" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
7" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
7" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
7" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
7" Coast Live Oak Rincon point
7" Western
Sycamore
Rincon point