The road is already very narrow. If we add diagonal parking, the road will become even narrower, causing congestion. Instead, if there is really need of additional parking, try to get permission to use the United Methodist parking, which is always empty.
I appreciate our government are constantly thinking of ways to improve our residential environment. HOWEVER, as the number of oppositions show, our current residents in multiple nearby community are happy as is. I personally think this is an unnecessary move, as we could use the budget to target more urgent issues in our community, education, child safety, and water quality, just to name a few. I am strongly oppose spend money on this proposal.
Bad idea--dangerous to back out into street from diagonal parking. Our building (1700 Civic Center) also needs to keep its loading zone -- another bad idea to eliminate that when we have so many deliveries each day!
I've lived here 34 years and watched a lot of development -bshort-sighted plans are ruining quality of life for everyone already living here and no good standard for those moving in because they can never find parking. Builders can put in underground parking same as our building!
pskliza, 1 of 4
1. How & why is it we are currently impacted in the evening and nighttime hours?
- Was this due to poor planning in the past?
- Did City Planners underestimate and therefore require of builders, less onsite parking than was required?
- Is the City planning to rectify their requirements for on-site parking for future builders? If so, what are those new requirements?
- Why is this proposal being made now?
- What other proposals are being considered to address this parking shortage?
This comment comes post-action, but for the record, this area requires a long-term planning vision to improve the status quo and maintain a quality-standard of living for the important details such as parking availability. The present philosophy that people are disincentivized from owning personal vehicles if parking is scarce is pure folly. We need to do better trading policy for practicality. Aspirations to disincentivize automobiles should not come at the expense of the status quo, ever.
Diagonal parking is not going to solve this parking issue. Whoever came up with this short-term stunt is not looking at how many spaces they are going to save. This I turn will cause hindrance for delivery vehicles and narrow the streets not to mention more accidents. There is already a huge surge in present housing in this area that will surpass the few spaces this proposal claims to get. The new constructions under way now will deteriorate the parking issue 3 fold.
This is a fundamentally bad idea. Narrowing these already busy streets, eliminating the ability for delivery and service vehicles to park out of the traffic stream, etc, all for a measly addition of a few parking spaces to be completely overwhelmed by new development projects the moment they open ... It's not a solution to the problem and will cause more issues than already exist. New developments should be required to provide adequate parking for all vehicles within their allotted properties.
I strongly oppose this proposal. The gain in number of parking spots is minimal and far outweighed by the increased risks of narrowing an already busy street -- specifically vandalism and potential car accidents/personal injury as cars back out into the street. Please listen to the voices of the residents of this neighborhood -- the solution to the problems associated with oversaturation of housing in our neighborhood is not diagonal parking but by not allowing Charities Housing to move forward.
I am an owner in the Executive House. Diagonal parking will eliminate our loading zone. More importantly, drivers need to back their vehicle into the road in order to exit from diagonal parking. This creates a more risky situation to on-coming traffic and persons who are behind the vehicle. Kids can be difficult to spot if they are behind because they are shorter than adults, and this is a residential area.
As Civic Center home owners, we have come to a 100% unanimous conclusion that we are not in favor of this new development. We have made our voices loud and clear in multiple meetings where we have had very limited time to speak, if at all. We...are the City of Santa Clara. Not you...you are paid employees...we pay you. Your job is to listen to us. We are a very diverse and inclusive community. If this development somehow get pushed forward it would expose a severe dereliction of duty.
This is not the solution to the problem…This proposal
gains only about 25 parking spaces @ the expense of a narrower civic center drive .
It’s not just a matter of trying to solve the problem to be able to fix it with this diagonal parking proposal .
Make our community a better place to live and work…Preserve the city’s quality of life.
We want to move forward, to be progressive, to a peaceful living ,safe, & orderly community and not
regressive .
I strongly oppose this proposal that will make a negative impact on the parking problem that we have at the cost of the safety of the residents and drivers. Having diagonal parking on the street makes the road more narrow, resulting in more traffic and higher chances of accidents especially to the nearby residents who need to drive through the street every day.
I strongly oppose the proposal of building diagonal parking. Narrowing a road is not a long-term solution to the parking problem, just a band-aid fix to rush a proposal that has a lot of other problems. Not to mention that the delivery drivers will have to park in the middle of a narrower road to finish delivery -- I have seen this happened tons of times in San Francisco that caused a lot of traffic and even accidents sometimes, which is super dangerous to both the drivers and pedestrians.
I strongly oppose the proposal, you want to create more parking that the street allows. More vandalism to our neighborhood. We were a safe and peaceful neighborhood now is going to pots since 13 month ago. It’s not fair what the homeowners are going through because of this. Please think of what this ordeal is doing to the peaceful neighborhood and the homeowners.
This is not an adequate solution. Parking should be taken more serious while approving new developments and they should be made to provide adequate parking for proposed new residents. .7 is not enough especially in an already over populated area.
I strongly oppose the proposal. This proposal gains only about 25 parking spaces at the expense of a narrower Civic Center Drive with diagonally parked cars at risk of being vandalized more easily (thieves hiding between the cars). We believe Council should consider a comprehensive neighborhood wide proposal that applies to new projects as well and not just apply band-aids to the problem.
The road is already very narrow. If we add diagonal parking, the road will become even narrower, causing congestion. Instead, if there is really need of additional parking, try to get permission to use the United Methodist parking, which is always empty.
I appreciate our government are constantly thinking of ways to improve our residential environment. HOWEVER, as the number of oppositions show, our current residents in multiple nearby community are happy as is. I personally think this is an unnecessary move, as we could use the budget to target more urgent issues in our community, education, child safety, and water quality, just to name a few. I am strongly oppose spend money on this proposal.
Bad idea--dangerous to back out into street from diagonal parking. Our building (1700 Civic Center) also needs to keep its loading zone -- another bad idea to eliminate that when we have so many deliveries each day!
I've lived here 34 years and watched a lot of development -bshort-sighted plans are ruining quality of life for everyone already living here and no good standard for those moving in because they can never find parking. Builders can put in underground parking same as our building!
pskliza, 1 of 4
1. How & why is it we are currently impacted in the evening and nighttime hours?
- Was this due to poor planning in the past?
- Did City Planners underestimate and therefore require of builders, less onsite parking than was required?
- Is the City planning to rectify their requirements for on-site parking for future builders? If so, what are those new requirements?
- Why is this proposal being made now?
- What other proposals are being considered to address this parking shortage?
This comment comes post-action, but for the record, this area requires a long-term planning vision to improve the status quo and maintain a quality-standard of living for the important details such as parking availability. The present philosophy that people are disincentivized from owning personal vehicles if parking is scarce is pure folly. We need to do better trading policy for practicality. Aspirations to disincentivize automobiles should not come at the expense of the status quo, ever.
Diagonal parking is not going to solve this parking issue. Whoever came up with this short-term stunt is not looking at how many spaces they are going to save. This I turn will cause hindrance for delivery vehicles and narrow the streets not to mention more accidents. There is already a huge surge in present housing in this area that will surpass the few spaces this proposal claims to get. The new constructions under way now will deteriorate the parking issue 3 fold.
This is a fundamentally bad idea. Narrowing these already busy streets, eliminating the ability for delivery and service vehicles to park out of the traffic stream, etc, all for a measly addition of a few parking spaces to be completely overwhelmed by new development projects the moment they open ... It's not a solution to the problem and will cause more issues than already exist. New developments should be required to provide adequate parking for all vehicles within their allotted properties.
I would like to ask that the parking options are reconsidered. The diagonal parking is not enough. We need a more sustainable safe long term solution.
I strongly oppose this proposal, too…
This will create unwanted problems for the dozens of deliveries made to 1700 building 7 days/week.
I strongly oppose this proposal. The gain in number of parking spots is minimal and far outweighed by the increased risks of narrowing an already busy street -- specifically vandalism and potential car accidents/personal injury as cars back out into the street. Please listen to the voices of the residents of this neighborhood -- the solution to the problems associated with oversaturation of housing in our neighborhood is not diagonal parking but by not allowing Charities Housing to move forward.
I am an owner in the Executive House. Diagonal parking will eliminate our loading zone. More importantly, drivers need to back their vehicle into the road in order to exit from diagonal parking. This creates a more risky situation to on-coming traffic and persons who are behind the vehicle. Kids can be difficult to spot if they are behind because they are shorter than adults, and this is a residential area.
As Civic Center home owners, we have come to a 100% unanimous conclusion that we are not in favor of this new development. We have made our voices loud and clear in multiple meetings where we have had very limited time to speak, if at all. We...are the City of Santa Clara. Not you...you are paid employees...we pay you. Your job is to listen to us. We are a very diverse and inclusive community. If this development somehow get pushed forward it would expose a severe dereliction of duty.
This is not the solution to the problem…This proposal
gains only about 25 parking spaces @ the expense of a narrower civic center drive .
It’s not just a matter of trying to solve the problem to be able to fix it with this diagonal parking proposal .
Make our community a better place to live and work…Preserve the city’s quality of life.
We want to move forward, to be progressive, to a peaceful living ,safe, & orderly community and not
regressive .
I strongly oppose this proposal that will make a negative impact on the parking problem that we have at the cost of the safety of the residents and drivers. Having diagonal parking on the street makes the road more narrow, resulting in more traffic and higher chances of accidents especially to the nearby residents who need to drive through the street every day.
I strongly oppose the proposal of building diagonal parking. Narrowing a road is not a long-term solution to the parking problem, just a band-aid fix to rush a proposal that has a lot of other problems. Not to mention that the delivery drivers will have to park in the middle of a narrower road to finish delivery -- I have seen this happened tons of times in San Francisco that caused a lot of traffic and even accidents sometimes, which is super dangerous to both the drivers and pedestrians.
I strongly oppose the proposal, you want to create more parking that the street allows. More vandalism to our neighborhood. We were a safe and peaceful neighborhood now is going to pots since 13 month ago. It’s not fair what the homeowners are going through because of this. Please think of what this ordeal is doing to the peaceful neighborhood and the homeowners.
This is not an adequate solution. Parking should be taken more serious while approving new developments and they should be made to provide adequate parking for proposed new residents. .7 is not enough especially in an already over populated area.
I strongly oppose this proposal
I strongly oppose the proposal. This proposal gains only about 25 parking spaces at the expense of a narrower Civic Center Drive with diagonally parked cars at risk of being vandalized more easily (thieves hiding between the cars). We believe Council should consider a comprehensive neighborhood wide proposal that applies to new projects as well and not just apply band-aids to the problem.