Interesting that this opinion has LIES or at least incorrect information. The Superintendent's Enrollment Growth Task Force in 2013 recommended two new schools, not just a 10th site. They recommended one to serve the El Camino area of Mountain View, and one separately to house the Charter School. Facilities Master Plan Committee in 2015 was given the REQUIREMENT that they consider ONLY adding a 10th site--it was not their CONCLUSION. Circular logic there. Nevertheless, they repeatedly came back to wanting to consider better use of existing sites.

Now as for this idea of HIGH DENSITY on existing sites. This is misleading in the extreme. Now the people signing this opinion are talking about a 5 acre site in the El Camino Area which would serve 800-1000 students. Now that's high density.

On the other hand, if one too Covington's 16 acre site and put the same 1000 students on it (double the current usage) than this would NOT be high density. The farce in the statement is the idea that to use existing land is to make a high density site. On the contrary, using already owned land allows a more reasonable school site that meets existing state guidelines for school use. Not only this, but Covington is adjacent to a 6.5 acre Los Altos park. To get 5 acres in the El Camino Area, the district is asking the city of Mountain View to provide 1-2 acres of park land next to the school. Isn't it then logical to look at Covington as a 22 acre site by comparison to this El Camino area creation of 5 acres for 1000 students?

Consider the use of the 20 acres of land at Egan. For 15 years now there have been 2 separate schools on the site most years. It started off as a one year interim site for one elementary school undergoing construction alongside the 500 student Jr High. More recently it has been 600 students at BCS (K-8 school) and 600 students at the Jr High. But this is a 20 acre site and NEITHER school is "High Density".

The people who made the above statements should be ashamed of misleading the public about the alternatives.

Also, consider that the district also has a 10 acre site with 350 students (Gardner Bullis), a 10 acre site with 400 students (Oak Avenue) and an 11.4 site with 550 students (Santa Rita). These sites are all EXTREMELY LOW DENSITY, about 1/6 the density being proposed in the San Antonio area.

Shame shame shame on these people for perpetuating this deception! I'm sure some of them haven't even stopped to consider the inequity of their proposal for Mountain View. Furthermore, there will like by 1000 kids living right near the SINGLE new school in Mountain View with just 5 acres, and almost none of them will attend a school on that site. Instead, they are off spread around among 4 other schools in Los Altos.

The district could AT LEAST create a school to serve these Mountain View kids on existing land at Egan that has been used for Bullis Charter these past dozen years. That land could serve HALF of these students, if Bullis is crammed into a single site
in Mountain View on 5 acres of land.

And the other thing that the authors should be ashamed of is not even MENTIONING
any goal of providing a neighborhood school to the 600 kids who live in the
aforementioned area of Mountain View for which they are targeting a new
VERY DENSE school site. Projections have the population in this area increasing
to 900 or more kids in this area. It's really the ONLY neighborhood of the district
that is no where near a school. And yet no mention at all is made of this concern,
though it was clearly called out in the Superintendent's Enrollment Growth Task Force.

Yes, there should be a neighborhood school for the north of El Camino area around San Antonio Road because it's so far that they have to travel every day. The small area (only 1/4 square mile) is split into 3 subareas and assigned to 3 different schools, each far away. The attendance areas for the other schools contain 1.5 to 2.0 or so square miles of territory each, so all these kids travel the furthest of any students at all 3 schools.

These are Mountain View kids spread across different schools in Los Altos. If enrollment growth continues as the new apartment buildings are occupied, they're going to end up spreading these Mountain View kids across even MORE different schools in Los Altos even further away.

Then consider that there is room at Egan for a 900 student 6-8 school on 12 acres of land and a 500 student K-5 school on 7 acres of land (as has been done for 16 years now). That school is used for Bullis Charter, where the kids aren't local. Why put the only school where kids come from all over the district in the only area that has NO neighborhood elementary school? The kids north of El Camino can get to the Bullis Charter site much quicker than they can to any other elementary school in the district. Ward off this idea that there are going to be kids from the area assigned to Gardner Bullis in Los Altos Hills or Springer Elementary over by Blossom Valley IN ADDITION to Almond, Santa Rita and Covington. Make a typical LASD small neighborhood school for at least PART of the north of El Camino Area on the other side of El Camino at the current site of the Charter school, but with purpose-built construction that can make this a good school site. It need not be some 3 story affair with underground parking serving all 900 kids projected to be there. Just use the land the district already owns and they can have a nice 7 acre site with 2 story buildings for part of it, and a normal playground.