Town Square

City will help foot the bill for new LASD school site

Original post made on Jul 7, 2015

Could San Antonio-area residents have new park space in their future? The Mountain View City Council approved plans to help the Los Altos School District acquire land for a new elementary school on the west side of town, aiming to share its playground and field space. Council members gave tentative approval to the partnership in a unanimous 6-0 vote on July 2.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, July 7, 2015, 2:35 PM


Posted by Nancy
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 7, 2015 at 6:38 pm

Will this school be for the 600 kids who have to cross El Camino Real or for the Bullis Charter school? Too bad if Mountain View helps Los Altos School District acquire park land and then only neighbourhood kids can attend if they are admitted only through a lottery. This is crazy to commit to unless Los Altos School District promises and follows through that this school will be built to serve all neighborhood children who live east of El Camino and NOT the charter school.

Posted by MVWSD v. LASD
a resident of another community
on Jul 8, 2015 at 1:01 am

The long and the short of it is that the city is getting access to loads of MVWSD land without having to pay for it. This is happening at every elementary school. So, why is LASD different?

Point two: MVWSD owns land which it is not using even as a school, at Slater and Whisman schools. Here again, the city gets free park land from the school district.

Point three: MVWSD owns most of the land at Cooper Park, and once again, Mountain View pays no rent, and the school district gets no benefit from the city's use. No public school there at all.

So, essentially, the largess of the wealthy MVWSD district is subsidizing the city which then turns around and uses its resources to fund a new school site for poor little LASD, which has so few resources.

Touching, really. It's lucky MVWSD doesn't need the extra revenue from the park land it provides gratis to the city. They shouldn't ask for any parcel taxes, that's for sure.

Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 8, 2015 at 8:20 am

@MVWSD v LASD not really. Granted, there is a bit of an issue if the MVWSD has gotten the highest Return On Assets for all the property it owns. Note that the District has renegotiated one site's contract (Whisman's 3 AC building site), and is in the process of renegotiating at Cooper and Slater. We may buy new lands next to Castro and maybe we can also get the City to cooperate on this (although we have not ask Council formally)

IMO, the half century of cooperative recreational land ownership and maintenance between the Mountain View City and schools - is just another way government operates well here. By not having to pay for water, mowing, afternoon and weekend sports oversight, and many play structures - the MVWSD get an awful lot of value ar our operating schools. But, more to the point, the residents of Mountain View get the benefit of our governmental cooperation.

SN is a Trustee of the MVWSD, these are his own opinions

Posted by Most excellent
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jul 8, 2015 at 9:00 am

This is great news, though it's sure to send the extremists on both sides of this issue into apoplexy. Love the spirit of partnership between the LASD and the City of Mountain View and sincerely hope this can be made to work. Though there will be naysayers (LOUD naysayers), I see no major reason why this can't work. I do agree with the comment above that this proposal should be clearly focused on a neighborhood school for students in the NEC area of LASD rather than as a site for the Charter school. LASD will still have that challenge on their hands, but this would go a long way to address both the growth issue and the lack of a neighborhood school for students in the NEC area of LASD. Bravo MV City Council!

Posted by Old Steve
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jul 8, 2015 at 9:09 am

@Steven Nelson, Thanks for succinctly setting the record straight.

Posted by Wondering
a resident of The Crossings
on Jul 8, 2015 at 11:11 am

To Steve Nelson, does the City Council have any plans to confirm with LASD that this potential school would indeed serve the neighborhood children and not Bullis Charter School? I think it is partly Mountain Views responsibility in this situation to have an input on who this school will be serving and to make sure the residents in the San Antonio area have a neighborhood school with this plan. It would be frustrating to have to apply to a lottery to attend the school in our neighborhood or continue commuting across El Camino to school.

Posted by Sara
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 8, 2015 at 11:23 am

I look forward to having new park space in our area. I just urge the responsible parties to take pedestrian and bike safety into account. The students who will be using this campus and the pedestrians wanting to use the park need safe access.

Having been nearly mowed down by an SUV crossing this intersection recently, I think this needs a well thought out plan and dedicated funding. I'd love to see a pedestrian bridge here, and lighted crossings.

Posted by MV to the rescue!!!
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 8, 2015 at 1:48 pm

Never fear Los Altos, MV will help you fix your problems.

I'm proud that MV is a "Can do" city who gets things done and helps it's neighbors who might struggle in that skill set.

Posted by Jumbo
a resident of another community
on Jul 8, 2015 at 1:50 pm

Great idea, Sara. Let's spend millions of dollars on a pedestrian bridge so that people like yourself won't have to contend with traffic while crossing the street. Any other expensive projects you would like the city to undertake on your behalf?

Posted by MV Kids
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jul 8, 2015 at 2:11 pm

There are currently about 800-1000 MV kids attending LASD schools at Springer, Almond, and Oak (as well as Blach & Egan). Those schools (other than Springer) are in Los Altos. To my knowledge, the City of MV doesn't support the Springer site.

Though it would be preferable for a potential NEC Site (don't think LASD has finalized any purchase) to serve NEC kids, it wouldn't be completely unreasonable for the City of MV to throw some support to LASD regardless, since Los Altos has been supporting MV kids to date throughout the district.

Posted by Kate F
a resident of The Crossings
on Jul 8, 2015 at 2:27 pm

So, say, all 600+ MV kids who are currently at Covington & Almond move into this new school, then these two schools will have fewer than 400 in enrollment?

Also, what happen to all the online forums that LASD is supposedly hosting as they gather community input? It seems to me that they are already set in their ways to purchase land for a new school in the San Antonio area, and not really looking into the listed suggestions such as converting Covington or moving 6th grade into middle schools...if that's the case, then what's the point of "gathering community input"?

Posted by Observer
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 8, 2015 at 2:33 pm

@MV Kids: I don't know that I would say that Los Altos has been "supporting" MV kids -- the MV kids who attend LASD are, for the most part, residents of the LASD district and not MVWSD, which means when their property taxes are collected and reallocated, they are collected for and going to LASD. And the MV parents in LASD pay the LASD parcel tax amount, not the lower MVWSD parcel tax amount. So the MV parents aren't getting any more support from LASD than the Los Altos kids, as far as I know. The district boundaries and the city boundaries have nothing to do with each other.

Also, the article did state that the City of Mountain View helped pay the costs for a one-time upgrade to the school yard at Springer in return for access to the fields.

Posted by Article Omissions
a resident of another community
on Jul 8, 2015 at 3:03 pm

In the background piece prepared for the city council, city staff did explain some ongoing support of Springer School. It seems the city pays for irrigation costs and also for applying fertilizer to the school grounds twice a year. So, MV does support the LASD schools already more than does Los Altos.

Los Altos residents get access to the LASD schools as their parks, with the irrigation costs and other costs covered by the city, including by Mountain View residents living within the LASD boundaries. It would be fitting to an extent for LASD to provide similar park services to Mountain View residents using this new school as a park.

But the Los Altos sites are quite large. Covington ELementary is a 16 acre park campus. Santa Rita is an 11.5 acre campus with a small forested area of an acre or so included. The Los Altos neighbors of the LASD schools get a much better deal than is being proposed for this school at 201 San Antonio Circle.

Posted by Article Omissions
a resident of another community
on Jul 8, 2015 at 3:07 pm

Correction to the above. The park space at the LASD schools is complete maintained under school district funding, with nothing coming from the city of Los Altos. I didn't mean to say the cost comes from the city. Not so.

The point is that LASD funds park maintenance out of its own budget, not any city's except for a small help at Springer. So with 25% of the taxpayers of LASD living in Mountain View, Mountain View residents are funding park maintenance for Los Altos at the LASD schools (which is where they are located, in Los Altos).

So maybe this will put it right, but I sure wouldn't expect to see Mountain View needing to pay for irrigation on much grass at this new tiny school.

Posted by Editing Police
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jul 8, 2015 at 3:26 pm

Does anyone proof read/edit your articles???

"With those negotiations are still ongoing, district officials reached out to the city last month to propose partnering up to acquire the land for both parties' mutual benefit. A successful new school would potentially bring more parkland allow to the most open space-deprived area of Mountain View."

But the question was raised whether the Mountain View was stepping out of line by helping another agency acquire land.

Posted by Jim Cochran
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jul 8, 2015 at 3:43 pm

I think it would be a mistake for the city of Mountain View to provide money for the purchase of a school site. That has not been done for Mountain View schools, so why for Los Altos? We are not purchasing park property.
Mountain View city government has been providing for all maintenance of school site green areas in exchange for the use of the property by residents during non-school hours. That should be satisfactory for a new school site by LASD in Mountain View. It is a fine example of cooperation between the city and schools for the benefit of residents.
We should be extremely cautious on any arrangements with the LA School District to assure that any arrangements benefit Mountain View residents and is not a dumping ground for the benefit of someone in Los Altos.

Former school board member.

Posted by MVWSD Parent
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 8, 2015 at 3:49 pm

Los Altos School District had 16 schools, at one point.

Web Link

As their enrollment numbers decreased, they closed their schools and sold off the lands. Did Mountain View receive any portion of the proceeds? So now that the enrollment numbers rose again and they need to buy back lands for a school, they ask MV to help?! Ridiculous.

Posted by Article Omissions
a resident of another community
on Jul 8, 2015 at 4:11 pm

Yes, the sale of the many LASD school sites is another notable omission from the story. The kids who live in the LASD portion north of El Camino Real (mostly in Mountain View, a bit in Palo Alto) currently attend Santa Rita, Covington and Almond Elementary Schools in Los Altos. Those are part of all the LASD existing real property holdings, which are state property subject to controls on future sales as surplus. LASD can't just sell them off. To do that it needs a process to find them surplus.

Back in 1980, LASD sold off a school which was very close to this area. This was Portola Elementary School, which was located in the area of Portola Court and Delphi Circle. This school site was deemed surplus and was sold off, even though the Old Mill Condominiums had recently been built in the territory assigned to LASD and attending this school. Surprise Surprise, the number of kids in the Old Mill area continued to grow, but LASD had asserted that it could handle them with the existing schools, specifically at the time, Almond Elementary School. Well, the Portola Elementary was a straight shot less than 1/4 of a mile up Jordan Avenue from El Camino Real, the dividing line between Los Altos and Mountain View. At the time, the 1/4 mile walk from ECR to Portola was replaced by a 1.5 mile walk criss crossing through Los Altos to reach Almond. The MV kids already had to walk a bit to reach ECR, but now the walk was over a mile longer, but LASD closed the school.

So, this isn't just a matter of a number of sites having been sold off. The PARTICULAR site which served the Old Mill/Crossings area was sold off in 1980, and it clearly should not have been closed. That closure was where LASD's large land holdings diminished.

Posted by a park amidst the cauldron of congestion
a resident of another community
on Jul 8, 2015 at 4:15 pm

Great decision by MV council to add a park in that neighborhood, adjoining
the newly planned LASD school.

It is high time Mountain View added a substantial park in the San Antonio area. Have you even imagined the concrete jungle that the San Antonio
Shopping center Phase 2 will bring?

Mountain View keeps building business offices, retail shops and apartment
complexes like there is no tomorrow. Los Altos residents shop there a lot
and contribute immensely to those businesses in the form of sales. Los Altos
residents are also putting up with the traffic congestion especially at the
intersection of El Camino and San Antonio Rd.

So, you give some and get some. MV must balance all the concrete jungle
it is creating at the border with Los Altos. MV is doing the right
thing finally by planning to add a park on California Avenue. The existing
Target store space will be an alternative for the school & park space.
MV hopefully will move forward in the right direction.

Thanks to MV for the park... a great relief from the Cauldron of

Posted by MV Kids
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jul 8, 2015 at 6:29 pm


I largely agree with your point. The school district taxes of MV residents in LASD flow to LASD. Let me try to do better in describing the nuance I was trying to get at.

I believe the city residency taxes of MV City residents (including those in LASD) flow to the city of Mountain View. I also believe that the Mountain View CITY budget includes a number of items that benefit students and programs in MVWSD. Examples might include the Tween Time afterschool program, and an allocation of Police funding that's directed towards officers spending time on MVWSD campuses. There are probably other schools-oriented items in the City budget, but I'm not able to comb through it right now.

So, does the Mountain View CITY budget have a (somewhat) proportional amount of schools-oriented funding that supports the MV Residents (who pay into the MV general fund) who are in LASD? I recognize not everything is equal in life, but my sense is that MV students who attend LASD schools are largely out-of-site out-of-mind, and that perhaps the City of MV isn't supporting that segment to the same level it supports those City residents attending MVWSD.

I live in MV and certainly am not looking for the city to give away its funding...just trying to make a possible "fairness" point.

In the grander scheme, MV (the City) has not appeared to be as mindful of the ancillary impacts of all of its approved growth (education, traffic, etc) as many would like to see.

PS - I also strongly echo comments about the need for parkland in this section of town.

Posted by @park amidst caldron
a resident of another community
on Jul 8, 2015 at 8:22 pm

Just a point of detail: The city of MV did not word this as them buying a park adjacent to an LASD school. No. They are working on a deal to contribute actual funding to LASD's capital purchase of land, in return for which they will negotiate the right of their public to use the school at off hours (evening, weekend, maybe summer and holidays).

The thing is, LASD already does this for all their schools. They don't lock the grounds up when school is closed. This is not some kind of ghetto area with high crime and vandalism keeping schools off limits to the public.

But, the difference in MVWSD is that at each school a part of the land in the park is actually owned separately by the city and is available even while school is in session. There is Zero likelihood that this new San Antonio Elementary School will permit public access while school is in session. None of the LASD schools operate like that with their land.

This is Mountain View's choice. When Los ALtos bought a park next to the 16 Acre (500 student) Covington Elementary school, they kept control of that park (Rosita). It's another 6 acres beyond the Covington 16 acres. In fact, Los Altos did a usage swap with the school district so they get a 1/2 acre chunk of the 16 acre Covington to use alongside the 6 acres in Rosita. This 1/2 acre has tennis courts which are open even while school is in session. The school district gets 1/2 acre split off from the city maintenance yard, to use as the LASD maintenance yard.

So just keep things straight. This park will only operate when school is closed. It won't be like the other Mountain View schools (except Springer, the other LASD school).

Posted by Bill Braske
a resident of another community
on Jul 9, 2015 at 8:45 am

I'm glad to see that the long suffering families of the North of El Camino (NEC) area will finally be getting their own neighborhood school! No more dangerous crossing of El Camino! Surely, the good folks on the LASD Board of Trustees would never use this location as a dumping ground for the Bullis Charter School, would they?

Posted by MV Mom
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jul 9, 2015 at 12:20 pm

I think MV should put the money into our schools and fix our issues before anything else.

Posted by Cindy
a resident of The Crossings
on Jul 9, 2015 at 12:20 pm

Why do people think NEC families are "suffering" without a neighborhood school and that it's unfathomable that they "have" to cross ECR to get to school everyday? Very few students who attend Covington, Almond and Santa Rita cross ECR on foot/bike, most are happily driven to school by parents. The only downside, I suppose, is that they can't walk to school like their friends who live blocks away, and that they have to factor in parking time at drop-off and pick-up...

Posted by Seriously, Seriously
a resident of another community
on Jul 9, 2015 at 4:31 pm

I hope Cindy is just kidding. How can she defend all those cars making all that pollution and traffic? The drop off around Almond is a nightmare, and it's better than 50% due to the cars coming from 2 miles away in Mountain View. Surely it would make more sense for these kids to attend school closer to home.

And consider the alternatives. LASD opens a school at 201 San Antonio Circle. They assign the school as home to 900 charter school students coming from all over the district to the one extreme end of the district. All 900 kids travel by car, mostly farther from home than the MV kids now at Almond. Some come from South Los Altos along Foothill Expressway and then down El Monte past Covington to El Camino Real and then on up to San Antonio. Or they come from Los Altos Hills and come down El Monte or San Antonio all the way past El Camino Real. Many many needless miles of travel. Assigning the charter school to Covington is only logical, traffic-wise. It's two halves of the same coin.

Yeah you could set things up to Maximize car distance traveled. You could do that. But you really want to?


Posted by MV Parent
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jul 10, 2015 at 3:28 pm

My kid lives in Mountain View and has to cross ECR to get to school as my area of MV has NO neighborhood school. We have the awesome choice to pay 700.00 bucks for the bus or we drive him to school ourselves and deal with a DEAD END street which is where his school is located. We drive him ourselves How about MV takes care of their OWN before helping others.

Posted by so wrong
a resident of another community
on Jul 10, 2015 at 5:33 pm

Well blame Steve Nelson for the dead end at Huff, I guess

But seriously, this is about parks. Does your area have 6 story office buildings being built and no parks? The city really can make a park without any aid from LASD.

Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 10, 2015 at 5:57 pm

Details on MVWSD, City ownership of parklands and school shared recreational lands. I base my points on the contract between the school district and the city (recreational use) and the County Assessor's parcel maps of the school district lands: The City owns no land at Castro, Huff, Landels, Monta Loma or Slater. The City owns a small strip at Theuerkauf. The City owns the small strip park at the front of Whisman. The City owns the substantial parks next to Bubb and Cooper. The City owns (apparently from land swaps) the land under the sports centers w/ parking at both Graham and Crittenden.

Posted by MVer
a resident of The Crossings
on Jul 12, 2015 at 3:15 pm

Dear MV City Council:
Please do not be decieved. They have no intention of establishing a neighborhood school in the NEC. They plan is to try and shove BCS in there. Not so good for the NEC. We'll get lots of extra traffic from Los Altos and will still need to get in our cars to drive our kids school. Don't fall for it. Insist that sign a legal agreement that states that an LASD run neighborhood school serving thte NEC will be established at that site.

You can build a park with out the school.

Posted by DavidR
a resident of another community
on Jul 12, 2015 at 7:53 pm

Dear MV City Council,

Thank you for having the vision to see the utility in a joint use agreement between the city council and the Los Altos School District. This could have gone so many different ways but already you have shown far more willingness to support LASD than the Los Altos City Council. In all likelihood a school & park site within North El Camino will best serve a local school and not the charter, which can remain where they are currently located. This can be a great win for everyone with needed park space and a local school for the neighborhood community. Kudos to the LASD and Mountain View council staff for getting this far!

Posted by Sarah
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 12, 2015 at 9:04 pm

@ DavidR
Noticed that you don't live in Mountain View David. I would like to see mountian view help LASD schools that are in Mountian View - Springer is a good example. Fund stuff there. Don't assist the LASD in wasting the bond money. We need improvements at all of our schools. Purchasing property is going to leave us with nothing. Don't buy real estate. Use what you have.

Move Bullis Charter to Covington, build a school for the NEC at Egan. Move the six graders to middles. Stop trying to protect Covington. It damages everyone else. Sorry Cov, that's the truth.

Mountain don't agree to funding unless it is for a neighborhood school, at a site large enough to be an actual site. Or even better, build a park anyway.

Posted by Consult the map
a resident of another community
on Jul 12, 2015 at 9:40 pm

Not to nitpick but "a resident of another community" doesn't necessarily mean "don't live in Mountain View". Not everyone that lives in Mountain View lives in the border of one of the defined neighborhoods.

Maybe they are from somewhere else (David *could* be from LA) or maybe they are an MV resident. Best to ask or wait for them to state.

Posted by Bond money waste
a resident of another community
on Jul 13, 2015 at 12:39 am

LASD plans to hire a real estate broker for $7500 a month to help them secure a 2-6 acre site. This is how the bond money will be spent. It's too bad when useful land at Covington is begging to be used to it's fullest capacity. Too bad that the other LASD schools won't get their wish list met after useless land is purchased that's not big enough to house a school. Anything to let Covington stay as it is.
Web Link

Posted by DavidR
a resident of another community
on Jul 13, 2015 at 12:57 pm

Another nitpick, but I'm a different DavidR. I think Mountain View should do the park on its own, and not depend on LASD to spend what will be a lot more to create school buildings and blacktop outdoor space. That's not what the forthcoming office towers at San Antonio center need. A park is a good idea, and the city really doesn't need LASD help. The park is much cheaper than a school, and such a small school won't be the same situation as the park even at Castro School a mile away. At Castro, they have 9 acres owned by the Mountain View Whisman school district, and there is a half acre or so of parkland that is available to the neighborhood even while school is in session. Will the same daytime access apply to a deal with LASD? If not, why should it be different?

Posted by Leeroy
a resident of another community
on Jul 13, 2015 at 7:58 pm

Is the DavidR above the David Roode that campaigned with John Inks against the school bond? Unlike them, most everyone else realizes the value of having a public school in the San Antonio area to serve the growing hundreds of families in that area of LASD. We need this more than big office towers. It benefits both the region and Mountain View to have more publicly accessible space, both school buildings and green park space. It's not relevant that the school grounds are off limits during school hours since like all the other schools the land (buildings, blacktop, and fields) will definitely get used by the general community after hours.

Any school within the San Antonio area will be limited in size and unfortunately enrollment. Covington is not a "protected" school and will be essential to address the growing enrollment of the rest of LASD. I see the reality being BCS remaining on the two Jr Highs with some of the bond funds going toward permanent buildings. With BCS on the Jr Highs and a growing LASD Jr High enrollment, there is no room to move the 6th graders over. Unless Covington becomes a 3rd Jr High, Covington will be essential to the local neighborhood families and, possibly further down, take in the growing enrollment of the surrounding schools with a reboundary draw. It's ludicrous to hand over a thriving school to the charter when BCS is doing well where they are now.

Posted by San Antonio area needs more park space and less office towers
a resident of another community
on Jul 13, 2015 at 10:47 pm

San Antonio shopping center phase 1 and phase 2 are over-the-top
developments. They are out of place. That did not stop MV from
going ahead because MV wants all the revenue from these developments.

After approving over-the-top development of offices, MV then argues
that it needs to develop apartment buildings under the guise of
office-housing balance. MV knows the fallacy and the fantasy behind
this balance argument.

The fact that MV is causing all the unbearable traffic congestion
doesn't seem to bother MV at all.

MV must do the following in San Antonio area and El Camino:
1. Stop developing office buildings.
2. Stop building apartment complexes everywhere.
3. Start adding more parks to improve livability.

There is far more space in Cupertino, San Jose, etc.
These cities can handle more office space developments
and balance these with apartment developments. Let
those cities grow because they have the room to grow.

MV is becoming the most congested city and it is taking
down the neighboring cities along with it. MV is a
concrete jungle. Time to stop the frenzy and do some
introspection and change course.

Posted by Observer
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 14, 2015 at 5:17 pm

@Steven Nelson - thanks for clarifying about the city not actually owning land at all of the schools. That was my understanding also, And, I also believe that at Cooper, the school district actually owns about half of that big soccer field but the city has been using it since Cooper closed, and maintains it. (That's what I heard, anyway -- where the boundary of the old Dutch Haven houses on Villa Nueva meets the Waverly Park houses is where the line is, since Cooper was built when Dutch Haven was built).

Also, @park amidst cauldron - you say "But, the difference in MVWSD is that at each school a part of the land in the park is actually owned separately by the city and is available even while school is in session. " but I don't think this is correct. At least, when my kids were at Huff, you were not allowed to use, or even cut through, the school grounds when school was in session. Can anyone confirm this? The city certainly does not schedule any sort of event on the grounds when school is in session, only after school. Perhaps you meant session as in school year and not school day and I misunderstood. During the school year, the school grounds can be used by the public after the kids are gone for the day.

Posted by Observer
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jul 14, 2015 at 5:24 pm

@Article Omissions -- "So with 25% of the taxpayers of LASD living in Mountain View, Mountain View residents are funding park maintenance for Los Altos at the LASD schools (which is where they are located, in Los Altos)." -- still not too sure, the city is only providing some funding for "park maintenance" for Springer, not for every school that a Mountain View kid attends; and Los Altos people use other MVWSD school ground (soccer, little league, etc), so I don't see why they would not extend the same maintenance to Springer that they do to other Mountain View schools.

Anyway, I guess my point it I think the city should maintain the fields at Springer if they do other schools within the MV boundaries. I think the city schedules the youth teams that use the fields, not the school district - anyone know if that is correct? - and the city wants all of the fields to be similarly maintained, so they do the maintenance. Seems really separate from anything to do with the schools and funding, IMO.

Posted by Park Hours
a resident of another community
on Jul 14, 2015 at 7:51 pm

It appears that Huff Park and Springer Park are the only two Elementary school parks in the city of Mountain View that are not open to the public during school hours. Castro Park, Whisman Park, Bubb Park, Slater--these are all listed as open to the public during the school day. See Web Link

All the residents of LASD through their school taxes pay for the maintenance of the parks, which are mostly in Los Altos. These park areas too are not open during the school day.

Posted by Spangler
a resident of another community
on Jul 15, 2015 at 9:11 am

Ah, good old Measure N. LASD voters were told it was needed to address growing enrollment. They should have been told what it really is... a $150M "Covington stays Covington" tax!

Posted by Voted No on N
a resident of another community
on Jul 15, 2015 at 2:25 pm

You could indeed argue that Covington figures in many forms of plans to use existing land.

Perhaps that is because Covington is 16 acres of district-owned landed situated next to a 6 acre city park that was formerly a 2nd school (a Catholic Parochial School operated by St William Church).

What idiots people are to keep in mind this 22 acres of land currently dedicated to a little used park (except for the tennis courts) and a single elementary school for 500 kids.

Why do people insist on dwelling on these FACTS?

Why do people resist the idea of spending $50 Million plus on additional LAND which still requires buildings and/or expensive retrofitting anyway? Why do people object to the $50 Million plus only buying a LEASE of land, which will revert to the current owner at the end of the lease? Why do people laugh at the idea of a 2 to 6 acre new (leased?) school site when the district has access to so much existing land?

It sure helps a lot if Mountain View will kick on $10 Million toward purchasing a 1 acre portion of the school site to use as a park. NOT.

Use your imagination.

Posted by Emma
a resident of The Crossings
on Dec 13, 2015 at 5:27 pm

Why not just enlarge the size of Covington? Instead of spend so much money on buying a land?

Posted by Emerill
a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2015 at 6:52 pm

Why not just create a purpose built school on the 7-8 acres of Egan school that has been a camp ("temporary") school for 15 years. That location would be good to serve students residing near El Camino Real in both Los Altos and Mountain View. This is the big area for new residential construction.

Why is there this idea that Egan Jr High must expand its footprint from 12 acres to occupy the full 20 acre site? The school there has NEVER used the entire 20 acres, which is quite a waste of valuable land (if limited to just that one middle/junior high school.

Note that in Menlo Park, they have fairly recently completed construction of a state of the art new school on 10 acres of land in a similar area with a similar population. This Hillview Middle School is designed to serve over 1000 students on that 10 acre site.