Town Square

Post a New Topic

Guest opinion: Share your thoughts on a 10th school site

Original post made on Jun 8, 2018

In an op-ed, Los Altos School District Board of Trustees President Vladimir Ivanovic writes about an online forum residents can use to share perspectives on the district's planning for a 10th school site.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 8, 2018, 9:37 AM

Comments (14)

24 people like this
Posted by Crossings
a resident of The Crossings
on Jun 8, 2018 at 3:11 pm

Save the Redwoods from Greystar apartments by immediately reserving for a school whose type and social demographics will change over time and are best left to the school district. The ball is in the school district's court to act now as this funding and opportunity will never occur again.

2 people like this
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of another community
on Jun 8, 2018 at 9:05 pm

The cart is certainly before the horse on this one. Stopping this development project at this late date would really put LASD on the line for a lot of future compensation. They have delayed pulling the trigger on eminent domain. Meanwhile, the Greystar project is due for a final city council vote after 2 years of planning. That hearing is June 26th. The Greystar project has loads of grounds to contest the process by both Mountain View and LASD. For one thing, they arbitrarily set the value of these TDR's which is something a school district cannot do when selling surplus property. Meanwhile they have said they have a backup plan to the Safeway site.

So it's going to get interesting soon. Will LASD use eminent domain? What will happen next?

The thing is, they don't need new land now. Their only case is maybe when Kohl's/Walmart is developed and more apartments are added. Now that project hasn't had as much work done yet so there would still be time to mitigate the cost of eminent domain in using some of that land. But LASD's public statement of why that would not be good was that it would take more than one parcel to work. Yet the Greystar property is itself 3 parcels, with different owners. All the potential parcels at the FRT site are controlled by FRT.

So what the heck is LASD doing?

But anyway, that's not what the online forum is about.

20 people like this
Posted by @Hmmm
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 8, 2018 at 10:17 pm

Sounds like you are the developer and are misstating key facts such as the zoning and that they were contacted well over two years ago.

5 people like this
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2018 at 12:17 am

This is the ham handed nature of LASD. They did NOT contact the developer (Greystar) ever before. They had been in contact with the land owners of 201 San Antonio Circle, which is 1 of the 3 parcels of land involved. However, they dropped out of talks with that landowner completely. They did not resume their greedy attempts to purchase land here until well after the deal had been struck with Greystar by TWO landowners representing all 3 parcels. Meanwhile, there had been another smaller
development project independently conceived with Prometheus which feel through for various reasons. Not a peep from the school district during that.

From LASD's perspective it dragged on a long time, but really that's because they were inattentive to the process.

9 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 9, 2018 at 6:32 am

Gary is a registered user.

The LASD pretty obviously decided long ago to move Bullis Charter School to the targeted Mountain View site. The MV City Council should still condition the use of city money and the other concocted assets (transferable development rights) on establishing a neighborhood school in the San Antonio area. The Los Altos politicians in charge of the LASD would then need to convince the Mountain View City Council in the future to agree upon any change in use.

1 person likes this
Posted by Spectator
a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2018 at 8:57 am


Greystar is wracking up some hefty design fees, but those costs are all calculated risks. Nothing is guaranteed until the entitlements are approved. Just ask Elizabeth Wong about her Shady Lane project in downtown Palo Alto.

If the TDR sales are an issue, LASD could always just put them up for auction to mitigate any lawsuit threat. However, 2 other housing projects are already counting on those TDR's. Depending on the clauses in the letters of intent to sell those TDR's, LASD may be exposed to significant litigation from those other developers. I'd worry about that more than any fallout from eminent domain. The courts will process eminent domain cases quickly, because good government often depends on that extreme measure for the greater good.

19 people like this
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 9, 2018 at 12:39 pm

Steven Nelson is a registered user.

Ah, I don't live within the LASD boundaries - just a resident of the City of MV and the MVWSD.

So the LASD 'pulled a fast one' on the MVWSD also! Great! Now over 200 additional RESIDENTIAL UNITS will be built in MVWSD, in the Whisman/Slater school area, and LASD will avoid 800 residential units within their boundaries.

For LASD - win, win (and with BCS at this California Ave. site) win, and with the TDR $,$$$,$$$s WIN!

Vladimir - I have to hand it to you and your Superintendent, what a GREAT SCAM you have pulled !!!! Incredible.

6 people like this
Posted by Samples
a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2018 at 2:10 pm

Here's a sample of one of the thoughts on the Thought Exchange:
"We live in a district with very stark socio economic
populations. Kids living in $4-8 mil houses and kids in
rental apartments."
"Schools that serve lower income children alone lack the
same resources as schools that serve higher income
families. Look at PTA giving alone."

They're saying deny that area a local school because the PTA
couldn't raise as much money.

5 people like this
Posted by equityforallstudents
a resident of another community
on Jun 10, 2018 at 9:33 pm

equityforallstudents is a registered user.

"Now, in this next phase of planning, Los Altos School District Board of Trustees is seeking your perspective to make a decision regarding the school's design and student attendance." How odd, the LASD hasn't even purchased the site. How could we have a perspective on the design and attendance? Did I miss something? "We face an anticipated increase in thousands of homes in our area over the next 10 years." Oops, our enrollment is dropping (per LASD demographer) and those 'homes' aka apartments/condos in MV will be mostly 1-2BRs and not popular for families with children. Maybe someone else should write these things up.

9 people like this
Posted by Puzelled
a resident of The Crossings
on Jun 10, 2018 at 10:22 pm

Vlad this is the most dishonest way of controlling the conversation. We are not second graders , shame on you for wasting money that belongs to the kids all because of animosity you and rest of LASD have for BCS. Think about the kids not your egos. Ughhhh waste of time.

2 people like this
Posted by a concerned LASD parent
a resident of another community
on Jun 11, 2018 at 10:36 am

The latest enrollment projection which has taken all the proved projects into consideration. For any future projects, it will take years to get planned and approved.
With only 150M Measure N, LASD can not build a new school site without affecting the overdue maintenance and upgrades for other schools in LASD.

LASD don't have the need or the money to build a new school in the feasible future.

A prior example is Communication Hills project in San Jose. It planned 4500 residential units with a school. After 15 years of development and 2500 units completed, the school construction has not even started because the school enrollment has not shown any need for a new school.

7 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 12, 2018 at 11:52 am

Gary is a registered user.

The Mountain View property being sought has changed - but the planned use of the (bulk of) the property has not changed. The purpose pretty plainly is to house Bullis Charter School. But maybe Mountain View residents misrepresented by their own City Council majority can still BEG the Los Altos residents on the Los Altos School District board to consider an alternative. Here is one: Keep the existing buildings at the new site - including Kohl's - and offer courses in retail. Kids could get on-the-job training and the District could make money in the process. A win-win.

2 people like this
Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 12, 2018 at 6:16 pm

Build the school in Los Altos, and while your at it include a few 10 storey apartment buildings, sick of MV being dumping ground for all development projects while leafy Los Altos retains its ‘quality of life’.

Like this comment
Posted by Hey
a resident of another community
on Jun 12, 2018 at 7:50 pm

This idea of a brand sparkling new Middle School works even better at Kohls. With Hetch Hetch it's an 11 acre site.

Where are these 10 story apt buildings? All I see are 4 to 6. Los Altos has 3 of these in the pipeline. They are smaller lots but just as tall. Mountain View to collect millions more in Google taxes. Will that be shared with Los Altos?

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Barcelona tapas restaurant coming to Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 7,635 views

By Aldis Petriceks | 5 comments | 1,651 views

Couples: Reading List
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,192 views