×

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

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

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!

Next

Powered by Konveio

Comments

Close

Add comment

Most recent

Most replied

Most supported

By page

Replies

Marc Nov 18 2024 at 5:26PM on page 47

Suggestion

Yes! Please include language requiring a percentage of bike parking to not require lifting. My elderly mother's apartment building is 100% vertical, and she cannot lift her bike to get it into the rack - and is then chastised by the HOA. 30% is a great number!

replies

Marc Nov 18 2024 at 5:21PM on page 13

Suggestion

Given the increasing popularity of electric micromobility, this seems low - especially if we are considering that these buildings are going to last 50+ years. Consider 1 outlet for every 2.5 bicycle parking spots required. The relative cost of an outlet is small and the current ratio is very low.

replies

Jan Nov 18 2024 at 5:17PM on page 64

Other

Regardless of your proposed plan, driving in Sacramento has become a nightmare in the downtown, midtown, and east Sacramento areas. This is because these streets are not wide, yet cars are allowed to park on both sides of these streets. It's dangerous to be driving when there is literally four car- wide traffic on these streets. It's shameful that housing is being added without parking spaces. Why this City believes that people are going to get rid of their cars is beyond me. It will never happen and in fact, it's gotten worse. The average family has at least 2 cars these days. My friend from back east visited me a year ago. She said that she found Sacramento disgusting and would never consider moving to a place where it's a chore just to drive 15 blocks. The speed bumps were new to her also. I was embarrassed regarding the mess here. Oh well, it sounds like any comment like this will continue to fall on deaf ears. In your rush to build houses you will ruin the city. No one is going to give up their car. Especially young people.

replies

Lindsey Nov 18 2024 at 4:54PM on page 9

Suggestion

This seems wildly low for an office building. The building I am in now barely has enough parking spaces for the number of tenants, and many people telework at least part-time.

replies

in reply to Lindsey's comment

Lindsey Nov 18 2024 at 4:49PM on page 8

Other

Live*

replies

Lindsey Nov 18 2024 at 4:43PM on page 5

Flag

This is not possible for people who do not leave close to where they work.

replies

Lindsey Nov 18 2024 at 4:34PM on page 5

Suggestion

Making Public transportation safer would be the first place to start before eliminating any parking. Many of the parking spots are utilized by commuters who live outside of Sacramento and do not feel safe or do not have the option of public transportation where they live. I took public transportation in the prior two cities I lived (both in CA), but I do not feel safe taking it in Sacramento, especially during Autumn and Winter when it is dark at 4:30pm.
I would love to not pay several hundred a month on parking Downtown at my office building, but driving to the sketchy transit stations near my residence in Carmichael, parking my car at one of those stations, and being on the train with the characters that I often see at those stations is not an option. I know this is the case for MANY people who work Downtown and live right outside of the city of Sacramento.

replies

Annette Nov 18 2024 at 4:32PM on page 190

Question

my only concern is that we do not lose parking availability for cars with any updates in design. Downtown businesses are already troubled by homeless populations blocking access, disrupting possible shoppers, trash creating unappealing environments etc.

replies

Patty Wait Nov 17 2024 at 2:37PM on page 15

Suggestion

My thought about including community input, has little to do with money. Folks who have lived and aged in our neighborhoods may have limited mobility and need access to businesses, community events, and residences. This could be accomplished by a robust transit, transportation system, which we do not have yet. Increased bicycle parking would not meet this need. Until such a structure is in place to reduce parking and increase costs for remaining parking ignores these neighbors. At a minimum a community conversation is respectful and may produce obtions that have not been considered.

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 1:02PM on page 12

Suggestion

We need a map of all the bike parking in the city! It can be incredibly hard know where the closest bike parking is.

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 1:01PM on page 12

Maintain

Strongly support infrastructure for charging e-bikes and bike parking for larger bikes (ex. cargo bikes)

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 1:00PM on page 15

Maintain

I think this is a great idea.

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 12:59PM on page 15

Suggestion

Definitely think this should be combined into one program with the RPP program. It is hard enough to find city programs as it is.

replies

in reply to Troy Sankey's comment

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 12:53PM on page 8

Suggestion

I strongly support dynamic pricing. This would allow the city to maintain parking revenues while also closing down high pedestrian traffic areas to cars

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 12:38PM on page 11

Maintain

Strongly support unbundling parking from housing.

replies

in reply to Elise Hellwig's comment

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 12:36PM on page 6

Suggestion

I like this suggestion. This would give more flexibility for retail / restaurants to be in compliance with the bike parking requirement even if they can't or would have significant challenge to adding bike parking in front of their establishment.

replies

in reply to Alex Binck's comment

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 12:36PM on page 8

Suggestion

I agree, I think the cost for exceeding the maximums should be incredibly steep given how generous they are already.

replies

Troy Sankey Nov 17 2024 at 12:36PM on page 12

Suggestion

It would be nice to have some sort of written plan about a process for siting bicycle racks in currently metered parking spots. Currently this would be seen as a loss of meter revenue, so staff's gut reaction might be to avoid doing this at all costs. However, if there was a process that staff could follow which would protect them from liability around revenue loss, then we might see more on-street bike racks such as in front of Temple on K.

I only mention this because it seems the document authors did not hesitate to suggest expanding car-share spots in lieu of metered parking.

replies

in reply to Patty Wait's comment

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 12:35PM on page 3

By definition free parking is parking that is subsidized by the city. The rest of the city did not consent to subsidize your parking. By expanding the SacPark meter program the City is just asking for people to contribute to maintaining the resources (parking) that they use.

replies

in reply to JL's comment

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 12:31PM on page 9

Question

Definitely. Can we include an option in Sac311 under Parking Services to specifically request service on "vehicle blocking sidewalk or crosswalk"?

replies

in reply to Jeff's comment

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 12:26PM on page 2

Totally agree!

replies

in reply to Nancy Bougher's comment

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 12:23PM on page 6

Suggestion

Non-residents already contribute to via metered parking. Now to be fair they should contribute more via higher prices especially at peak times but I don't think that means that residents shouldn't have to pay anything.

replies

in reply to Chris's comment

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 12:17PM on page 8

People who have less money also have fewer cars (see Plate 2). If we charge more for people with multiple permits we can use that money to make it more affordable for low income people to park or for people to take alternative transit.

replies

Troy Sankey Nov 17 2024 at 12:09PM on page 15

Suggestion

I also wanted to highlight that the lack of a viable Parking Management Strategy has contributed to the loss of several Open Streets in Midtown. Without a strategy to more dynamically manage meter rates to match demand is what led to city staff identifying Open Streets as nothing more than a loss of potential revenue, without considering the possibility if increasing meter rates surrounding the Open Street.

I'd suggest elaborating more on this plan (#3) to expand the SacPark Meter Program to be more definitive and more than just 2 sentences in a 190 page document about parking.

replies

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 12:05PM on page 26

Other

I appreciate this information from the surveys and that supports our understanding that higher-income households tend to have more cars.

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 12:03PM on page 13

Suggestion

Since a lot of retail and restaurant areas have relatively little space. I would suggest allowing these places to buy into larger bike parking areas that are with a block or two of the retail or restaurant location, or pool money to create one of these larger bike areas.

replies

in reply to Louis Mirante's comment

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 11:56AM on page 9

Suggestion

I agree with Louis's concern.

But this depends on what is meant by "Long Term" storage. If this is referring to covered or indoor parking (as implied by the code examples given elsewhere in this document), then I think that bicycle parking minimums for 3+ units is too restrictive and would inhibit missing middle housing development, which is critically important for the City (especially now that the City has passed the interim Missing Middle Housing ordinance).

I think changing the threshold to require Long Term bicycle parking to 6+ units would be reasonable (if "Long Term" refers to indoor storage).

replies

Troy Sankey Nov 17 2024 at 11:55AM on page 14

Suggestion

In addition to just parking management, I'd like to suggest Parking Benefit Districts to help divert future parking revenues to fund alternatives to driving. Look to Pasadena and San Diego for examples where the city has successfully allocated parking revenues to enhance sidewalks and transit stops WITHOUT conflicting with state laws that dictate how parking revenues can be spent.

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 11:54AM on page 13

Suggestion

Increase to 6+ units from 3+ units.

replies

in reply to Ansel's comment

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 11:54AM on page 8

Suggestion

I think it would be reasonable to have exception for buildings with less than 6 units. I don't want to prevent people from doing tri and quadplex conversions but if you are putting in a completely new building or doing a rehab I think long term bike parking is important.

replies

in reply to Ansel's comment

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 11:52AM on page 8

Suggestion

I agree with increasing the threshold for this requirement of Long Term bicycle parking/storage. I would propose 6+ units rather than 20+.

replies

in reply to Elise Hellwig's comment

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 11:51AM on page 9

Question

I also have this question. Does "Long Term" bicycle parking refer to covered parking? The code examples shared elsewhere in this document seem to imply covered or indoor parking.

replies

Troy Sankey Nov 17 2024 at 11:49AM on page 15

Maintain

Great! This is going to be extremely important, especially to accommodate the needs for people who drive. Without an effective pricing structure to target turnover rates or utilization, drivers would be significantly inconvenienced by struggling to find available parking. Don't be LA! Price parking correctly.

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 11:48AM on page 13

Question

What is definition of long term bike parking? How much protection are people required provide? Because if it is a lot of protection that could be more expensive.

replies

Alex Binck Nov 17 2024 at 11:42AM on page 11

Give that the maximums are already so high, it's hard to imagine a scenario where even more parking would be necessary in these communities.

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 11:41AM on page 13

Strongly support E-Bike charging options. E-Bikes are a great way to commute longer distances without a car.

replies

in reply to Alyssa Lee's comment

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 11:38AM on page 6

Question

What would be the fees for the Administrative Permit process?

replies

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 11:37AM on page 11

Maintain

I think having these allowances is a good way to institute the parking maximums policy. It flips the incentive structure so that instead of developers having to prove why they don't need parking, they have to provide why they need additional parking.

replies

in reply to Harrison Linder's comment

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 11:35AM on page 2

Multi-unit developments have a range of unit sizes so you will get a reasonable number of bike spots for a multi-unit development as a whole.

replies

Troy Sankey Nov 17 2024 at 11:32AM on page 10

Suggestion

The general plan clearly lays out the planned green line extension along Truxel as a TOD corridor, so I'd recommend declaring the 1/2 walksheds surrounding future green line stations as part of a parking maximum district.

replies

Troy Sankey Nov 17 2024 at 11:25AM on page 9

Suggestion

If only 13%-19% of residential developments would have been impacted in any way, it seems like a cap of 1-1.5 spaces/unit is kind of weak. I'd recommend tightening these caps.

replies

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 11:24AM on page 9

Maintain

I support the parking maximum of 1 space per unit for residential developments in the Central City.

replies

in reply to Ben Raderstorf's comment

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 11:20AM on page 7

Suggestion

I agree with tightening the maximum parking requirements further. There could be a process for developers and property owners to appeal and make the case for higher parking than the maximum. I understand that this is a new policy and we need to be thoughtful to not be too extreme in the beginning, but how we allocate parking in new developments is a long-term decision. I think the application of the parking maximums being just in the Central City and the TOD corridors is a great start and appropriately incremental. Within those areas, we should be more ambitious with limiting the parking maximum and make them below the average.

replies

Alex Binck Nov 17 2024 at 11:19AM on page 9

While this is a good start, this seems high relative to the numbers in table 1. Will these maximums actually have an impact when they only apply to a tiny minority of projects?

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 11:18AM on page 9

This seems quite a bit above the average mentioned in table 1. It seems like this could be tightened quite a bit. Especially for the central city.

replies

in reply to Harrison Linder's comment

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 11:13AM on page 5

Suggestion

Great point. The need for transparency + awareness campaigns extends across multiple Departments and master plans in the city. Every city department should have social media and well-updated websites, and more of our city budget should be allocated to providing the staffing for this.

I strongly hope and suggest to the City that they build and improve relationships with community organizations and groups for awareness campaigns. The City can't do this kind of public education on their own - they must rely on the support of nonprofits, community groups, neighborhood associations, etc. to get the word out. This can include social media but also can include community groups leading events, holding bike rides, holding walking tours, etc. I know these kind of collaborations between City staff/government and community groups already happen, but I would like to see WAY more of it.

replies

Elise Hellwig Nov 17 2024 at 11:11AM on page 11

I would argue that we should go farther and charge more for second and third parking spots to subsidize mass transit.

replies

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 10:54AM on page 15

Maintain

#3 is key to maintain for a managed parking strategy.

replies

in reply to DC's comment

Alyssa Lee Nov 17 2024 at 10:50AM on page 4

Suggestion

I agree with this suggestion to create parking benefit districts (I don't believe these currently exist in the City) so that parking revenue can go toward improvements in that district (such as bike lanes, benches, trees) that are visible and create public support for parking pricing.

replies

in reply to pat's comment

Troy Sankey Nov 17 2024 at 10:50AM on page 2

Maintain

It's important that we consider many small businesses depend on customers who arrive on foot, bicycle, or transit, especially going into the future where transit-oriented development becomes more incentivized and more people live within walking distance of these parking maximum zones. When planning for parking, it's important to consider the impact it will have on the pedestrian experience and make all provisions to deal with any negative aspects of an excessively sprawled shopping district.

replies

Leave this field blank