The Santa Barbara Harbor Commission has voted to continue exploring a proposal to convert 127 waterfront parking spaces at Chase Palm Park into an overnight recreational vehicle (RV) camping area. This is a pilot project expected to generate up to $348,000 in annual revenue, while balancing visitor access, neighborhood impact, and regulatory requirements.
The measure passed with a 6-1 vote during the Harbor Commission’s meeting on March 19. Commissioner Spenser Jaimes casted the sole dissenting vote.
Santa Barbara’s Waterfront Department had proposed the pilot project and is part of a larger effort to address projected budget shortfalls. Waterfront officials call the pilot as a potential long-term revenue source for the city if it meets its financial goals.
What The Pilot Project Aims To Do
The eastern half of Chase Palm Park has been selected for the pilot, in part because it is surrounded by city property, reducing potential impacts on nearby residents and hotels.
The lot is also close to businesses along Cabrillo Boulevard and Stearns Wharf, making it convenient for visitors.
The lot’s current layout is another advantage. It is divided into two sections, allowing one half to be repurposed for RV camping while the other remains open for public parking.
Other sites, including Leadbetter, Garden Street, and East Beach, were considered but ultimately rejected due to potential impacts on residents and businesses.
The pilot project could provide between 16 and 26 RV spaces, depending on the final layout. It is designed as “dry camping,” meaning no utilities such as water, electricity, or sewer connections will be supplied.
Only self-contained RVs would be allowed, and the site will not include restrooms or other amenities. Daily rates for the RV spaces are expected to range from $100 to $110.
Officials have set an annual revenue goal of over $348,000, roughly matching the income currently generated by standard parking in that section of the lot, as the benchmark for success.
Officials are also considering dynamic pricing software to adjust rates during peak periods, such as major holidays.
Fewer Parking Spaces Could Affect Waterfront Access
While the project seeks to boost revenue, it also raises concerns over how it will affect daily visitors and waterfront access.
The project would eliminate 127 standard parking spaces and four oversized stalls in the eastern portion of the lot, prompting concerns about reduced waterfront access during peak tourist periods.
Officials reasoned that the impact could be mitigated by directing visitors to the remaining half of the lot. Parking permit holders would also have access to Santa Barbara City College lots from Memorial Day through Labor Day.
To implement the pilot project, the Waterfront Department will have to secure a conditional use permit, amend relevant municipal codes, and obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission.
Also Read
- Vegetation Fire Burns Nearly 2 Acres in Solvang
- Santa Barbara Beachgoers Warned of Dangerous Waves, Strong Rip Currents Through Thursday
- Lompoc Approves Massive 34,661-Square-Foot Toyota Dealership on Vacant Theater Site
- Vehicle and Motorcycle Collide on West Cabrillo Boulevard, Two Hospitalized
- Some California schools get three times more funding than others. Here’s why
This is the first really good idea I’ve heard in quite some time! A number of other beach cities in Orange Co. do this, and it’s understandably VERY popular.
The city wants to plop a trailer park into the middle of the waterfront? This is an April fools joke right?
You’re welcome to donate $348,000 annually to avoid it.
Also, an overnight RV camping park is not at all the same as a trailer park. Resorting to lying and mocking in order to support a position suggests that the position doesn’t stand on its own.
Just my opinion. But I’m surprised this has so much support here. If not a trailer park, then more like a NASCAR race track. A bunch of retirees from Bakersfield flying “Don’t Tread on Me Flags” like the nearby KOA. For what? 350K is barely a dent in the city’s 14M dollar deficit. No Thank You. It’s trashy and doesn’t fit on our waterfront.
> Just my opinion.
Just your dishonesty, ignorance, and lack of intelligence.
> If not a trailer park, then more like a NASCAR race track.
Why do you KEEP lying?
Have you ever been to a NASCAR race? People show up in their giant RVs. How is that a lie?
There is air, dogs, food, among other things at NASCAR race tracks and there is air, dogs, food, among other things at overnight RV camp sites, so yeah, they are “like” each other for ridiculous interpretations of “like”. But they are more unlike each other than like each other. Same with RVs present at both … that doesn’t make them alike–it’s a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent:
There are RVs at NASCAR race tracks.
There are RVs at overnight RV camps.
Therefore (erroneous conclusion) overnight RV camps are (like) NASCAR race tracks.
I appreciate your total commitment to pedantry.
A cowardly response.
LOL, you’re such a weirdo.
You have the same scruples as our mutual opponents on the right. I will go back to ignoring your existence.
I don’t think you understand the meaning of the words you are using.
Sorry, bozo, but I very much know what those words mean.
So much triggering going on :). I’m being called a liar and dishonest for stating an opinion? I’m not claiming a fact I’m stating an opinion… using snarky comments. Welcome to the internet. What is even happening here? You all have way too much time on your hands.
That said, my opinion stands. I live down by the waterfront and frequent it weekly. I believe RV parks are trashy and unsuitable for the SB waterfront. I’m clearly not the only one that holds that opinion.
> I’m being called a liar and dishonest for stating an opinion?
Lying again. And you’re the one triggered here.
> You all have way too much time on your hands.
Typical; right wing hypocrite.
I live down there too and spend anywhere between 2-4 hours a day there. I think it’s a great idea and would support it. You keep talking about a trailer park, something you’re imagining from Alabama or whatever, when in reality, we are in SB. The RV’s that I see around are high end, very nice, and alot of them are rentals. Not trashy broken down RVs, and even if they are, no one is forcing your eyes to stare at them, no one is forcing your head to turn and watch them.
A quote which stands the test of time and is possibly rightfully attributed to Mark Twain: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
bosco: There is an element here in the threads on Edhat that enjoys being snarky, snide and generally disagreeable. It is the same commenters, over and over again, name calling. I suggest you ignore them.
Remarkable projection.
hey bosco, actually everyone on this thread is saying that about your posts, “you don’t understand the meaning of the words you are using”.
I think MARCEL is saying the “lie” is that it will look “like a NASCAR race track.” not that RVs don’t camp at NASCAR races.
sac: yes, obviously
It’s simply comparing two places where there are a large numbers of RVs. I don’t know why that’s so complicated.
Oh, I know, Marcel, I know, “It’s only simplistic for a dishonest simpleton” blah blah blah.
It wasn’t comparing them, it was saying they are alike when they aren’t. I don’t know why you’re so dishonest.
“Alike” doesn’t mean “the same.”
My “trailer” or RV (think tour bus) actually cost $800,000 with options. That’s a tad more than your ebike, Krocs and North Face jacket cost. I am sorry you are afraid of nice things.
Those things are so dumb
I kept it after the second American tour.
The pedantry is exceptionally amusing.
this is a VERY good idea. 100%
I thought initially that this was a good idea but further thought: sending paid parking permittees to the SBCC lots would not be good for thoae who want to stroll, picnic or just enjoy East Beach and Chase Palm Park and also the summer concerts! It’s quite a hike back and forth. Also, having no toilets, and located next to the outflow or whatever it is, is asking for trouble. Seems a lot of money, $100/night?, to pay for a space in a parking lot, but undoubtedly there are those visitors who could easily pay that — but most would want some water and toilet … facilities – not all RVs are outfitted. Would make more sense to have it at the far end of the Leadbetter lot where there is at least some access to bathroom facilities and the miniMart for snacks.
It’s actually pretty common to have campsites for RVs that have no facilities. RV’s that aren’t outfitted would not be allowed.
Hiya Bird, I understand your concerns and also thought of those. Lower SBCC Parking lot below the great Meadows is honestly where this should be set up, right across from Ledbetter and the Shoreline Cafe. That is just my opinion, however the location that they chose is hardley used. Mostly by homeless. Summer concerts aren’t a financial draw and they really don’t make money on parking for that event either. Flipping that to an overnight RV/camp spot would generate a lot of $$$ for the city and waterfront as well. Parking. Parking is always an issue in this city. It always will be too. Even if you built three more large parking lots, those too would fill. That being said, it’s a never ending struggle, but not a struggle to where we should stop make changes. There really is a lot of parking around. If you look. Sure, you may not be able to park right across the road from the summer concerts, but there is plenty of other places to park nearby. Also, there was some discussion of moving those up to the city parks (Alameda) which i’m totally for happening. The restrictions at the current site are too much and it does keep a lot of people away. I have two dogs, one is a service dog and the other isnt’ I’ve been given a hard time for bringing both or one of them with me. No shade as well. If it got moved to Alameda park, we would have shade a lot of nearby parking lots to accomodate it. $100 a night is a drop in the bucket for the majority of RVers…if they can afford to fill the gas tank on those beasts, $100 for camping isn’t alot. Most RV’s have toilets, and I’m sure the city would contract with Marborg for portapoties. FYI, the harbor lot that you’re talking about, that is for boaters. Those spots are literally filled up the entire fishing season and that won’t change. The city and waterfront make HUGE money from the lot from spring through fall. Also, no RVer is driving to SB to park in a giant boat ramp lot. They would drive to park in a garden/park like setting or the beach. The boat launch and the ridiculously over priced hot dog place won’t work.
And there is an actual ban on people staying overnight or parking vehicles over a certain length. And, BTW, I can’t stand that hot dog place. It’s so crap. So insanely overpriced.
Alex, i actually found a reddit post about 6 months ago from someone that found it while in town. They claimed it’s the place that celebrities seek out, a place that locals flock to….LOL even got a laugh from my daughter. We know the owners. Nice people, but they are there to price gouge the tourists, 100%. $7.50 for a hot dog with toppings. Basic stuff. The place sucks. I don’t even buy bait in there. Even the Landing is cheaper than that market. But that post had me in laughing hard. The user responses from locals were as you would expect, “no one seeks this place out, ever, for any reason” 😉
I’m in that area every week, my slip is in Marina 3 and I walk past that ramp all the time. It would be so awesome if that concession would go to people who actually cared about running a good business and providing decent food and services.
The owners are a mom and a pop, nice people – always friendly. I appreciate them. No way they’re making a killing. I go there pretty often after fishing. Very convenient. Nothing’s cheap at the waterfront in case you haven’t noticed.
So what. They can sweet as pie, their business is still trash. And yeah, I’ve noticed. My family has had boats in the harbor since the late 70s.
especially in that shop! most expensive place on the waterfront. the landing shop and the market on the other side are way cheaper.
my daughter and I parrot the same thing, always. would love for someone else to run it. it has potential to be an outstanding market.
Poor City. They’re looking so desperately to find ways to fund their bloated expenses. How about trimming City Hall fat? Nah.
trimming city hall fat? please explain. i’m not starting an arguement, just asking what you actually mean by this. you do realize that the council and mayor receive very little pay for those jobs, right? they all have actual day jobs, you know this too right? you also can look up salaries and expenses. SB runs on a thin margin, you would think opposite, but it brings in a lot of money and spends a lot to keep the city in shape.
Stay in Goleta dude and mind your business. You’re not from here.
You are not from here?
Despite what GT says, I am a 56 year resident of Goleta, who now lives in SB.
Tone it down a bit there Aloha.
I wasn’t talking to you.
So KAPO, as a “56 year resident of Goleta” why do you appropriate Hawaiian lingo? Oh yeah, because you ARE a KAPOSER.
Phemister is from Norcal
Sounds good JOnathan
https://www.edhat.com/news/trump-has-promised-to-end-offshore-wind-what-will-that-mean-for-californias-big-bet/
I like this idea.
We don’t have the infrastructure for any more traffic/people. The Democrats want everyone nook and cranny filled.. sad
Sure Kevin – but you want those cruise ships sitting off the beach every weekend to buy Chinese made crap on State Street.
> We don’t have the infrastructure for any more traffic/people.
Ok, please leave.
> The Democrats want everyone nook and cranny filled.. sad
News from the IQ free zone.
kevin, go back to 1960 and stay there please. this has nothing to do with politics. the first half of your comment is literally spot on, but then you continue and just spew nonsense…completely erasing your progress. the democrats want everyone nook and cranny filled. that doesn’t even make sense even if you’re attempting some political joke or swipe at the other party.
Not a fan. Bunch of people sitting around running generators and clogging up the area.
Had to check today’s date when I read this – still March. Very surprised SB is allowing this. The same town that requires buildings to “look Spanish” and has all these other aesthetic-based policies is now going to allow RVs to camp right in one of our most beautiful areas? I have no problem with people camping in RVs, they’ve been doing it for years (illegally I guess) at the waterfront, but just baffled that this City is allowing it now. Will there be some sort of standards on the conditions of the RVs? In such a wannabe HOA-loving town, I would be amazed if they allow dilapidated campers.
Overall though, I’m not sure. It’s a cool idea to be able to roll up, park and camp for cheap in this otherwise cost-prohibitive (to many) town. On the other hand, not sure how I feel about that lot being full of RVs with fake grass and lawn chairs littered about. DEFINITELY no stupid flags (you know who I mean) and a lot of those RV folks are obsessed with their obnoxious flags.
They have said that RV’s must be self-contained (no services) and the fee is likely to be at least $100/night.
Yeah, so only the “higher end” RVs will be able to meet that criteria. Still though, amazed SB is allowing this.
I mean heck, you can’t even park your RV in your own driveway in some parts of town and even have to put up a fence so your neighbors can’t see it, but it’s OK to have them parking near fancy restaurants and the most populated beach area around? Just weird.
This article has errors, starting with “Chase Palm Park” – it’s the Palm Park parking lot. Watch the Harbor Commission video of meeting to get the full context of this proposal – https://santabarbaraca.gov/harbor-commission. A few noteworthy blunders in the article – starting with the second sentence – “$348,000” – the Commission has no idea about the potential revenue from this proposal. Fourth sentence – this proposal originated from the City Council and not the Harbor Commission.
There are a lot of impediments to approving this proposal – municipal code and land use designation changes, CEQA issues, permitting. RV camping is not a coastal dependent usage, so with the loss of parking spaces, I would be shocked if the Coastal Commission approved it. And how would the loss of 127 parking spaces be mitigated by “directing visitors to the remaining half of the lot”??? I guess I missed that laugher in the video – that’s not a mitigation, it’s a statement of failure.
Seriously? The parking lot is technically called the “Palm Park” parking lot but locals call it the chase palm park parking lot. Why? Because it’s located right in front of Chase Palm Park. City staff said that section of the parking lot now generates 348K, so the pilot program will need to exceed that number.
Just what we need at the beach: More large vehicles, trash, outfall, noise, motor homes and an in and out transit of some motor homes with dubious owners. Makes our city safer, don’t it? Way to go!