This issue was before the Council on September 8, 1997. At that meeting, the Council heard public testimony from people who suggested that there is not adequate parking on Ash Avenue to serve the beach area. They also acknowledged that the street improvements which are scheduled to be performed on the westerly side of Ash Avenue in conjunction with the Carpinteria Salt Marsh Project will actually reduce the number of parking spaces which are currently available. The request from some members of the public was for the Council to look into the feasibility of re-designing the street improvement plans to include diagonal parking on the westerly side of Ash instead of parallel as currently designed. After deliberating the item, Council directed staff to return in two weeks with an analysis of all possible options for increasing parking on Ash Avenue and in the beach area in general.

The current design plans include four parking spaces on Ash Avenue between the beach and Sandyland Road and 32 spaces on the westerly side of Ash Avenue between Sandyland Road and Third Street.

There are currently 35 spaces on the easterly side of Ash made up of 25 parallel spaces and 10 pull-in spaces. Although the pull-in spaces are predominantly used by residents of Tropic Shores and are marked as private spaces, they are in the Ash Avenue right-of-way and can be used by the general public. Although there is no formal count of how many vehicles could park along the westerly side Ash before the restoration work began, the Negative Declaration for the Project estimated that 53 vehicles could park there if they parked diagonally. The ND acknowledged, however, that the City does not consider these spaces to be legal parking spaces.

The first issue which should be addressed before analyzing any of the available options for additional parking is whether or not there is a shortage of parking spaces in the beach area in the first place. A request for additional parking by a few beach users does not necessarily imply there is a shortage. Over the course of a year, parking spaces in the area only become unusually full on weekends and some weekdays during the three summer months. Therefore, at most, there is a perceived shortage of parking maybe 30 days a year.

More importantly, the number of necessary parking spaces should not be determined by the demand for parking. The number of spaces should be limited by the carrying capacity of the beach, the marsh park, and the residential units in the area--to the extent they require off-site parking. The beach and the marsh park as recreational resources are only large enough to accommodate a certain number of people. It is this number which should dictate the number of parking spaces which are made available to beach and park users. If it is agreed that the beach is at its carrying capacity during those 30 days of the year when parking is at a premium, then there is no shortage parking and the unavailability of parking should be a signal to potential users that that particular section of the beach is crowded.

The difficulty in this analysis, of course, is accurately determining the carry capacity of the area. This determination is somewhat subjective in that the density of people which is acceptable at a recreational facility like a beach or park is dependent on variety of qualitative criteria. However, there may some quantitative criteria that could be used to determine the capacity such as the number of disturbances, complaints, safety tips and/or rescues which are reported to, or required of, the lifeguards. If the number of these "service requests" is unusually high during the 30 days of the year when the parking areas are full, and the lifeguards are overly burdened by their duties, then it could be assumed that the beach is at capacity.

This report does not attempt to quantify the carrying capacity of the area, or suggest that the current parking supply is sufficient. The purpose of this discussion is simply to point out that additional parking may not really be an issue. If the Council agrees that providing additional parking may only serve to over burden the area with users during the peak season than a logical reasoning has been provided which supports the final option below which is "to do nothing".

If the Council does feel that there is a shortage of parking in the beach area, and that the Marsh Project will contributed to that shortage by eliminating available spaces and increasing the use of the area, then the second critical issue is to evaluate and compare the various options which are described below.

Option 1 Diagonal parking on the westerly side of Ash. This option would increase available parking from 32 to 57 spaces. The sidewalk as currently designed would need to be moved to the west approximately ten feet. This change would require a re-design and change order to the contract with Union engineering. The relocation of the sidewalk would affect landscaping which is planned in a ten-foot wide area between the back of the sidewalk and a proposed 3’ high split rail fence. The fence would not technically need to be relocated, however, it would run directly adjacent to the back of the relocated sidewalk. If it is determined that the fence should also be relocated ten feet to the west to save the landscaping which is planned between the sidewalk and the fence, then numerous other elements within the marsh park would also be affected including upland landscaping, the interpretive trail, and an overlook area.

Option 2 Diagonal parking on the easterly side of ash. This option would increase available parking from 35 to 55 spaces. The existing sidewalk would need to be moved ten feet to the east. This area is public right-of-way. Nine trees would need to be removed. The pull-in parking spaces in front of Tropic Shores would be converted to diagonal and sidewalk would be installed at the back of these spaces to bridge and existing gap.

Option 3 Mix of Option 1 and 2. This option combines the first two options in that the street would be widened five wide on each side and then diagonal parking could be installed on one of the two sides. This option would increase available parking by 20-25 spaces depending on which side of the street received the diagonal parking.

Option 4 Diagonal parking in proposed bus zone. Seven spaces could be striped in the proposed bus loading zone. The sidewalk in this area would need to be moved 2’ to the west.

Option 5 Parking lots at the northerly ends of Ash and Holly near the railroad tracks. The Ash and Holly right-of-ways between Fourth Street and the railroad tracks are 80’ wide and approximately 150’ long. They are currently vacant and covered with weeds. Parking lots could be established at either site, or both. Approximately 26 spaces could be made available at either location.

Option 6 Diagonal parking on the westerly side of Linden. Linden Avenue is potentially wide enough to add diagonal parking on the westerly side between Sandyland road and Dorrance Way. In addition, diagonal parking could be added on the easterly side across from the intersection of Linden and Sandyland. Available parking could be increased by 25 spaces. Although this option does not involve Ash Avenue, it does provide additional parking in the area which could release some pressure from Ash.

Option 7 Do nothing. As indicated above, if the Council decides that there is enough parking in the area, they can direct staff to proceed with the current plan.

Besides the "do nothing" alternative, the remaining options are not mutually exclusive and any combination could be employed.

None.

Staff has no recommendation but awaits Council direction in this matter.