Marshall Medical Center outlines plan to manage parking, says 772 spaces available

Marshall Medical Center told the Placerville City Council on April 8 that it has 772 parking spaces across its campus and that recent counts show vacant capacity the hospital says can be addressed through management and enforcement rather than building expensive new lots or parking structures.

The hospital presented a multi-year parking study and a short-term compliance plan during the council’s presentation period. Marshall facilities director Tak Saito said the facility and outside consultant Kimley‑Horn concluded the hospital does not presently need a new parking structure or permanent surface lot and instead should “right‑size” and better manage existing spaces.

Why it matters: Hospital parking affects patients’ access and the city’s circulation near the campus. Building new structured parking was estimated in the presentation to cost tens of millions of dollars, while Marshall’s counts indicate underused capacity that could be used more efficiently.

Tak Saito opened the presentation with background on earlier planning and a 2019 study that considered 50,000 to 100,000 square feet of future development and possible structured parking. Frederick Venter, a civil engineer with Kimley‑Horn, described parking counts taken in February 2025 and said peak occupancy was 607 in the morning and 590 in the afternoon, leaving roughly 65–82 vacant spaces at the two peaks. “The hospital has 772 parking spaces,” Venter told the council, and he recommended reallocating staff away from visitor lots to improve patient access.

Consultants showed a “heat map” of demand by lot. The furthest lot, Lot 12, was markedly underused; staff and security representatives said their management strategy will emphasize incentives and assignments that move employee vehicles to that lot and nearer peripheral lots. Marshall’s safety and security representative described a new vehicle database and a new, nontransferable permit that is affixed to vehicles. “We began to create a database, which gives the accountability back,” the security representative said, adding that the hospital aimed for a May 1 deadline to register vehicles with new permits.

Marshall also told the council it has two temporary use permits for lots (referred to as the contractor lot and the Dust Bowl lot) that the hospital used while implementing transitions; staff said their counts and the planned compliance program assume those lots are not available, and the hospital’s “intent would be to no longer need to use those.” Council members asked staff whether the loss of those temporary lots would require further ordinance or code action; Marshall staff said their analyses excluded those lots and indicated the hospital expected to manage without them but would keep the council informed if additional time were needed.

Enforcement and employee compliance are central to Marshall’s plan. New permits are vehicle‑specific and tied to a database so security can identify employee vehicles parked in patient lots. Marshall staff said they will use education, warnings and referrals to human resources for repeat noncompliance rather than municipal citations. The hospital characterized the next phase as a cultural change rather than a capital project.

The council did not take action on the presentation; staff said they would continue to monitor compliance and bring updates if needed.