Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Parking Strategy Public Review Draft

Provide your input on the public review draft of the Parking Strategy through Monday, December 2nd, 2024!

This report presents a comprehensive Parking Strategy Update for the City of Sacramento to advance the City’s climate and housing goals, as well as goals related to vehicle and bicycle parking. The report proposes changes to:

Parking Districts
Parking Maximums
Bicycle Parking Regulations
Parking Management

Want to review the strategy, but don't have a lot of time? Tour the document first! Click the 'guided tour' button at the bottom of the screen to get an overview of the document. Leave your comments and suggestions on the sections that are most important to you.

If you would prefer to submit your comments via letter, the City is also accepting comments submitted by email to ParkingRevisions@cityofsacramento.org. To sign up for the project listserv or view additional project background, please visit the project website at https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/housing/parking-revisions

Guided Tour Full Document

Guided Tour

Hide

Step through this tour to learn more about the most important sections of the strategy. Do the tour all at once, or exit the tour as you find sections of interest. You can review and comment on the strategy and pick up where you left off!

Comments

Commenting is closed for this document.

in reply to Elise Hellwig's comment

Lamaia Coleman Dec 2 2024 at 9:23PM on page 13

Other

As both a driver and cyclist, I expect to be able to park whatever my form of transportation within a block. Pooling bike parking within a block would be fine, but more than one is not. That would functionally prioritize car parking over bike parking despite it requiring much more space.

Lamaia Coleman Dec 2 2024 at 8:53PM on page 11

Question

I may not fully understand, but if you have to pay separately for parking and you don't have an assigned spot, how does enforcement work? I'd be mad if I'd paid for a spot but one wasn't available.

Lamaia Coleman Dec 2 2024 at 8:21PM on page 7

Suggestion

Do I understand correctly that EV owners can get discounted parking in city owned garages? If so, that is problematic. It encourages VMT and would primarily benefit those who can afford to buy EVs. Those are both negative outcomes.

in reply to Jason MacCannell's comment

Cynthia Dec 2 2024 at 10:23AM on page 28

Excellent point. We need more public transit options. The city could also incentivize public transit usage by making shopping chores easier. There are little wheeled fold up carts that can be used to shlep groceries or any bulky type items on public transit. Give these out for free or at reduced cost.

Bikes can also have baskets and panniers to carry bulky items like groceries efficiently. I still remember carrying two bags of groceries on my handle bars when I was young, athletic, and not so smart. The bags shifted and I couldn't reach my brake so had to crash land into a handy bush. Fortunately no groceries were harmed.

in reply to John's comment

Cynthia Dec 2 2024 at 10:09AM on page 11

When I lived in the Bay Area (and particularly in San Francisco) I got rid of my car. I could walk, bike, take a bus, cable car, BART, MUNI, CalTrain, ferrys, etc. to get almost anywhere I wanted to go at almost anytime. Because of the monthly pass discount it literally cost me pennies per ride. I loved it, even when the transit was crowded. It does work, with robust public transit.

And remember that there's an opportunity cost to everything, including parking. We could use parking (and the costs to create parking) for other uses - parks, bike lanes, transit, tax refunds, etc.

in reply to Harrison Linder's comment

Cynthia Dec 2 2024 at 10:04AM on page 9

We definitely need more public transit to make limited parking feasible. In cities where public transit runs "everywhere and frequently" there's limited need for cars.

in reply to Francesca Reitano's comment

Cynthia Dec 2 2024 at 10:00AM on page 8

Excellent point. Maybe Sacramento needs to look at statistics for Sacramento only.

in reply to Elise Hellwig's comment

Cynthia Dec 2 2024 at 9:56AM on page 6

Indeed. How about transit to recreational areas like the American River Parkway or Effie Yeaw, or Lake Natoma, or the fancy swimming pool in North Natomas, or grocery stores, or the public libraries, or to downtown in the evening for late nights?

Megan Elsea Dec 1 2024 at 12:41PM on page 33

Suggestion

I live in a condo complex. It's hard to charge our EVs. We share a few chargers with our friendly neighbors and text each other to ask if we can charge. Can the City work with SMUD and maybe CARB to get chargers for existing multi family? EVs save $ in the long run and thus ameliorate income disparity

Coco Cocozzella Nov 30 2024 at 8:28AM on page 11

Flag

PAGE 11 - 'Allowances to Exceed Maximum Requirements'

This basically states that there will be several ways for developers to exceed the maximum. And, the writing has the gall to say, "while offering a public benefit".

It's good to be reminded that developers and oil/gas own Sacramento (and, every other CA city).

Jason MacCannell Nov 29 2024 at 5:17PM on page 35

Flag

A person well enough to use a bike for transportation is well enough to carry it into their house. This is just anti-car and does not promote biking at all.

Jason MacCannell Nov 29 2024 at 4:44PM on page 34

Flag

Having the cars parked in the middle of the street is the biggest barrier to walking. The second is constant construction of lofts that no one is ever going to move into. Sacramento is much less walkable since the "mobility plan." A city vehicle nearly ran me down crossing 10th a few weeks ago.

Jason MacCannell Nov 29 2024 at 4:42PM on page 34

Flag

Since the catastrophic changes to our street (10th) last year, which has made crossing the street extremely dangerous for pedestrians as well as damaging small businesses, there has been no increase in the use of the bike lane. I predict the bike parking you put in will be "underutilized." No one is biking in Sacramento weather, get over it.

Jason MacCannell Nov 29 2024 at 4:40PM on page 32

Flag

This is ableist. A lot of people can't walk half a mile with a week's worth of groceries. Even if state law allows it, Sacramento should do better by our seniors and disabled people.

Jason MacCannell Nov 29 2024 at 9:53AM on page 29

It's a good thing no one is moving into those hideous overpriced lofts, because then we'd have a real parking problem.

Jason MacCannell Nov 29 2024 at 9:52AM on page 28

Flag

When parking spaces are "underutilized," people like me are willing to live in the CBD with no off-street parking. When they are "utilized," people like me move somewhere outside the city limits and drive to work.

Jason MacCannell Nov 29 2024 at 9:50AM on page 28

Question

What transit? Someone explain to me how I'm supposed to shop for groceries without a car. I live at 10th and U.

Rosie Yacoub Nov 28 2024 at 7:01AM on page 5

Suggestion

While it is good to recognize that better transit and reduction of VMT are important goals for GHG reduction, there are missing pieces in this document that relate to GHGs and transportation electrification: 1. while the City has plans that relate to charging requirements for new multifamily housing, there is nothing here that relates to existing multifamily housing. Without a strategy for how to support increased charging access in existing multifamily, the City is part of the problem of adoption of EVs by low to middle income households who can benefit from not having to pay 4-5$/ gal of gas. Supportive actions are necessary, and even reduced impediments are helpful 2. There are parts of the City that have no off-street parking that will require a strategy for how to get charging available. Even if that is simply allowing cables to go beneath sidewalks, or cords with ADA compliant covers to go over sidewalks. A robust strategy could include 'bring-your-cord' methods that could involve transformers and streetlights, but could also provide charging to residents in existing multifamily housing that live near neighborhoods that have this possibility. With only access to public charging, the full benefits of EVs are not realized, because those costs are higher.

in reply to DC's comment

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 8:27PM on page 63

Suggestion

This is a great suggestion and also brings a sense of fairness.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 8:25PM on page 63

Suggestion

When considering setting rates for parking citations, consider whether the price of a ticket is cheaper than paying for nearby employee parking, for example. There are UC employees that will risk a ticket rather than pay for parking. The same was true when I worked for the State of California.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 8:23PM on page 63

Maintain

This is a great idea. "Complaint driven" enforcement is like a band-aid and is not comprehensive.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 8:15PM on page 55

Flag

This provision should be evaluated and tied to the residential area and the nearby business. For example, I live near UC Davis Health complex and UCD has paid parking for employees; I would not be in favor of employees being able to pay to park in our neighborhood. This is UCD's issue, not our neighborhood's. Where the business has a responsibility to provide parking for its employees, the responsibility should stay with the business and not impact the neighborhood.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 8:04PM on page 43

Question

Does adaptive bicycles include tricycles, which also require more space? Some persons with disabilities are able to ride tricycles, but not two-wheeled bikes.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 7:57PM on page 31

Maintain

This is an interesting concept. I'd like to see how it plays out, and if it is workable.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 7:55PM on page 31

Suggestion

I generally walk 2 miles a day, but I can't believe how many times the word "walkability" appears in this document. It really sounds like pie in the sky. For a certain percentage of people in my age group, walkability is meaningless, as they can't rely on being able to walk where they need to go on a daily or even weekly basis. I understand that the city wants to get people moving that can move, but there is an over-reliance on walking.
There is also an over-reliance on biking. I was able to bike many places until 10 years ago; due to vision issues, I can no longer bike. There are many people that, for various reasons, cannot bike to where they want to go. Again, I understand the city encouraging biking.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 7:48PM on page 30

Question

Why do the proposed maximums differ from developers' desired parking ratios? Aren't developers the best judge of how many spaces they need for a successful project?

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 7:42PM on page 29

Other

This is a reasonable goal as long as the maximums are not overly restrictive.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 7:41PM on page 28

Other

This is a reasonable goal. It will be a lifestyle change for some, but not unreasonable.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 7:39PM on page 28

Suggestion

"With time." Right now, there are high frequency bus lines and light rail stations in traditional residential neighborhoods that do not have the density or amenities of the Central City. Even if someone is 1/2 mile from a light rail station or bus line, it might not take them where they need to go. (And as discussed elsewhere, seniors and persons with disabilities cannot walk 1/2 mile to a light rail station in the first place, and rely on vehicles.) I am physically mobile but cannot drive and have lived in cities (such as Los Angeles) where it was extremely time-consuming, sometimes infeasible, to get where I needed to go on public transit. Time of day and safety considerations are also an issue with public transit. Sacramento is a sprawled out area and people need to get to places outside the city limits, where transit options are poor.
Another point about TOD districts is that public transit may be a reasonable way to commute to work, but other activities require the use of a vehicle, such as buying groceries for a family, picking up children at daycare, etc.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 7:24PM on page 27

Flag

The disabled and elderly are not considered in these central city and TOD formulas. I live 1/2 mile from a light rail station and some seniors in my neighborhood with mobility issues are not able to walk to light rail but they can drive. This is not unique. They need cars to get around and are certainly capable of driving them. At present, most are fortunate to live in or rent single-family homes.
However, in the future, as multi-unit apartment buildings are brought into the neighborhood by Missing Middle Housing, senior and disabled parking and vehicle use needs will become an issue. These same TOD neighborhoods are targeted for higher density (FAR 2 as opposed to FAR 1 for the rest of the city except the Central City). The city will need to be mindful of these needs when imposing parking maximums.
There is also the issue of safety for seniors and persons with disabilities riding light rail. Although I am mobile, for safety consideration I can only use certain stations at certain hours of the day; the safety issues are heightened for the elderly and disabled.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 7:05PM on page 22

Flag

Just saying "lower income" doesn't cut it. It's location, location and location. Closer to the Central City households that are lower income may need less vehicles. The farther a low-income household is from high amenity areas and job centers, the more vehicles are needed to commute to work and take care of the necessities of daily family living.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 7:02PM on page 21

Suggestion

It would be good to explain the state law requirements to the general public in publicly-disseminated informational materials. It would save the city constantly having to explain what it can and can't do. I have told people I know about AB 2097, for example, because when the city follows these requirements some people have no idea that they can't be changed at the local level.

Francesca Reitano Nov 27 2024 at 6:52PM on page 20

Question

There is no guarantee that on-street parking spaces next to properties can be used by the occupants of that property. Even with an RPP in place, anyone with the requisite RPP permit or visitor permit can park several blocks from the property where the permit is issued.

Francesca Reitano Nov 26 2024 at 9:20PM on page 15

Other

I believe one problem with the Gig carshare is that the map was drawn too large and the cars could be "dumped" in a residential neighborhood where the residents had no use for them. Nor did the non-residents who commuted to their jobs each day.

in reply to Jojo's comment

Francesca Reitano Nov 26 2024 at 9:09PM on page 12

Suggestion

Agree. This must be an option or the use of bicycles will be discouraged. The financial loss to the rider will be prohibitive.

in reply to Patty Wait's comment

Francesca Reitano Nov 26 2024 at 9:07PM on page 12

Question

Totally agree. And disabled parking use may also vary depending upon the area of the city. Seniors and disabled need access.

Francesca Reitano Nov 26 2024 at 9:04PM on page 11

Suggestion

Flexibility and options are a necessary idea - the conceptual needs to become reality.

Francesca Reitano Nov 26 2024 at 9:02PM on page 11

Suggestion

Being able to walk or bike to businesses close by means less car trips and vehicle miles traveled. It doesn't mean that that residents can live without a car - it just means they will use it less. It has to be parked somewhere.
I am not sure what metrics will be used to determine the number of parking spaces needed, but size of families, buying groceries, going to necessary medical appointments that may not be walkable or accessible by public transit, percentage of residents in an area with disabilities, elderly, small children - all this and more need to be factored in to how many spaces are needed for parking in a given area.
I have relatives that live in denser areas in and around NYC and NJ, but they have access to a robust transit system. This plan sounds like we are forcing Sacramento residents into a New York City lifestyle without the benefit of transit.

Francesca Reitano Nov 26 2024 at 8:45PM on page 8

Suggestion

Low-income families often live farther from their places of employment, and with the current public transit options, need vehicles in order to get to their jobs. Generally rents are higher in the opportunity/work centers, and denser, more walkable neighborhoods and are out of reach for low-income families.

in reply to Austin W (she/her)'s comment

Jenny Nov 26 2024 at 7:17PM on page 2

Suggestion

Agreed. We need to disincentivise parking/personal vehicles and invest in public and active transit modes.

Melissa Harris Nov 25 2024 at 10:58PM on page 15

Flag

This strategy should be thought through more with an eye to the narrow lots near the Marconi Station. With full planned build out there will be very limited parking. Rideshares may be an hinderance not a help to community development as people may walk to our neighborhood (which is great!) to borrow a car (okay) that takes up a precious street spot all the time, even when they car is being used (bad). This would not be a best use of the resource.

Melissa Harris Nov 25 2024 at 10:53PM on page 13

Suggestion

Suggest the stipulation that this only applies to TODs properties with a sidewalk/bikelane to the transit station

Melissa Harris Nov 25 2024 at 10:51PM on page 13

Flag

As the owner of a two unit property considering adding a third, having to also create three long-term bike parking spots would be a strong disincentive to creating another dwelling.

Melissa Harris Nov 25 2024 at 10:48PM on page 12

Flag

Please add clarity that these rules only apply in areas with sidewalks and/or bike lanes that connect to the transit locations. There is currently no direct connection to TODs from the communities slated for development nor any mechanism to create safe and continuous routes. No sidewalks mean no crosswalks, per federal code. While these facilities would be very nice to have the city has not yet provided the infrastructure for safe active transit outside most of the central city. Law, codes and planning documents do not build safe routes.

Melissa Harris Nov 25 2024 at 10:44PM on page 11

Suggestion

Lots near Marconi Station do not have the same street to lot size ratio as the grid. These streets are very narrow and streets lack basic infrastructure such as curbs, drains, and sidewalks. I request that there be specific considerations for unique street and lot challenges outside of the central city.

Jonathan C Nov 25 2024 at 9:11PM on page 6

Suggestion

Downtown parking is getting very expensive which discourages visitors to go downtown unless absolutely necessary. This would reduced income for downtown businesses. It is monopolized by one company that dictates the high price. Suggest that cost of parking be reasonable to daily visitors.

in reply to John's comment

Austin W (she/her) Nov 25 2024 at 1:24PM on page 11

You are asking why the new house has had no long term tenants and assuming the lack of them means there could never be a long term tenant. There are plenty of examples that show increasing the ability to walk and bike causing less car trips in the US which over time can lead to people giving up their cars. But the US is vastly behind many countries in its city planning and change doesn't happen over night and this plan won't change things over night either. But if we look at places outside of the US like Amsterdam that was full of cars in the 70s you can see how changing polices like this can vastly decrease car ownership.

in reply to Francesca Reitano's comment

Austin W (she/her) Nov 25 2024 at 1:09PM on page 5

I think these are going hand in hand for the most part. This isn't going to have noticeable effects for awhile and the city and many activist groups do seam to be pushing the city in the direction away from car centrism. But I do think that the biggest issue is getting state funding for transportation to be focused on active transportation instead of incredibly costly and ineffective freeway widenings. So there is a world where the state keeps wasting money on freeways and the city is unable to achieve any of its transportation plans where this could become an issue but I think if the state even wants to pretend it cares about climate change it will have to change what projects it is funding.

in reply to Francesca Reitano's comment

Austin W (she/her) Nov 25 2024 at 12:56PM on page 5

I think it is important to note that many with disabilities also cannot drive and reducing parking allows for things to be in much closer walking/rolling distances to where people live. Think many ground level parking structures and garages could be resources for the community, instead of parking. And for those who need to drive because of disabilities the reduce in those who must drive over time allows for much easier access with reduced traffic and more opportunity for existing parking to be used as disabled parking instead of general parking.

Anne Nov 23 2024 at 5:37PM on page 1

"City government placed Sacramento residents in the horrible and unfair situation of paying HUNDREDS of MILLIONS for the DOCO Arena to subsidize the private billionaire owner. A vote was not even allowed. Since that huge amount had to be borrowed, a 30-year bond debt obligation resulted. Paying back the huge debt obligation is tied to City parking revenue, with the “backstop” revenue source being the City General Fund. This bad debt plan creates way too much need for City government officials to maximize parking revenue 24-7. That huge City government debt obligation and severe drive to increase parking revenues is one of the major factors driving this new proposed City Government parking strategy.

View all