I find this to be akin to homeowners who bought a home near an airport and then complaining about the noise of the airplanes flying above them. Hello? You bought your home near an airport! Only difference here is that the council will cowtow to the homeowners over the teenagers who park their cars to attend school.

You owe royalties to Peter Kluget for his copyright.

Of all the building projects that SRVHS should ever have got involved in, they should have provided completely sufficient on-campus parking for all students and all uses of the school grounds, while maintaining completely unencumbered parking and streets for all surrounding areas (including the strip of SRV Blvd roadway across from the school. And they should have provided this parking FIRST, before any other building projects (that obviously rely on this parking)!
Getting to and from school and traffic control and flow has always been the very first step in education--the start and finish of every day.

They should never have impinged on anybody else's space. They should not offer one class without having adequate parking and traffic flow control to go along with it.
They should have well-planned pickup and drop off locations that do not impact at all on the normal traffic flow of their bordering streets.
They should have parking for ANY AND ALL students (teachers, parents, sports audiences, etc) that desire to park on-campus--100% parking.

In evaluating past years of parking and traffic history, I would GRADE SRVHS (and probably most other MDUSD schools) with a grade of "F" (and that's not Pass/Fail).

And they should NOT be trying to FORCE alternative parking concepts or transportation concepts upon students (parents, etc).
In other words, no "compact" sizing of parking spots (which is discriminatory to those owning or desiring non-compact cars).
No forcing of bussing (unless students/parents desire it), carpooling, lottery for in-adequate parking spots, provision of parking on a paid basis (such that some students can't obtain it)--it should be part of district's obligations to provide.

Adequate parking should be a duty and requirement of the School District, along with adequate traffic flow designs.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment and offensive language]

But, yes, it would cost more money.
The money for this basic system infrastructure should have come FIRST and been highest priority. Instead these needs have always been treat as a deferred wish list.

Parking has been and issue for decades. In the 80s there was unpaved land where Starbucks now stands. That undeveloped land was used without complaint for overflow parking 30 years ago. Also, the old community center was torn down in 1984 and a gravel parking lot was created for the students. Now those parking alternatives have been built upon, creating less parking options for a student body that continues to grow. Kids no longer ride bikes to school which ads to parents driving to pick them up throughout the area, making traffic tough to navigate at times. The town needs to create a parking lot feasible for the students.

Whoa, SRHS Grad! Slow down, big fella. Logic, reason, facts, history, a balanced perspective? A reasonable assessment of shared responsibility?

That sort of thing will get you nowhere. You need to demand that your preference be exalted over everything else, without any concern for cost or consequences. Shout and scream and pound the table and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue like FanD. That's how you make your point here.

Who thinks students can readily ride bikes or walk to school? They can typically have far more going on then their own parents as it relates to getting places on a schedule: Sports, arts, volunteering, jobs, food, social life. However, that said, encouraging more alternative commute options seems like an idea to explore given the parking situation.
FanDanville: Have you ever heard the phrase "Don't S$#T on me!" The corollary is "Don't Should on me." There is some good literature on the psychology and perception of the use of "Should."

JT,

Actually, I did realize that I was using (and overusing) the "should" word and its negative psychological connotations.
But I thought/felt that this problem--the lack of preemptive consideration for adequate parking and good traffic flow at SRVHS for the past 20 years--was deserving of an obnoxious tone-of-voice. I simply didn't care!
The comment isn't trying to be nice, persuasive, proper, conciliatory, or PC. It's more exasperate and fed-up!

It's not like I'm really trying to change anything at MDUSD. They been impervious to common sense for years.

But thanks for picking up on it!

Ok people before you write a comment you should at least pause and think about what you're writing. And getting your facts right might bolster your case a little also.

FanDanville - Number 1 - San Ramon Valley High School is part of the SRVUSD not the MDUSD so if you have hate in your heart for MDUSD that's fine but don't let that spill over onto SRVUSD. And number 2 - SRVHS has grown in size since it was established over 100 years ago. And while planners can try to anticipate how much parking will be required they can't build for 100 year plan. Our high school site is very constricted because of its location unlike Monte Vista which has acres of open space which they can use for parking. We don't have that luxury in our current location. I agree with the previous comment -- the people you bought houses near the high school should have been well aware students parked along those streets. For them to complain now is ridiculous.