well maybe everyone who is up in arms now about the use of the bond funds should have actually read measure N which basically gave the LASD a blank checkbook to fund whatever capital projects they want to that are contained in the nebulous project list.

From Measure N:

By approval of this proposition by at least 55% of the registered voters voting thereon, the Los Altos School District shall be authorized to issue and sell bonds of up to $150 million in aggregate principal amount to provide financing for the specific school facilities projects listed below in the Bond Project List, subject to all of the accountability safeguards specified herein.

the project list:

Expand existing school facilities to accommodate growing student enrollment.

• Construct new classrooms, libraries, multipurpose buildings, and other essential
buildings for the purpose of housing students on new or leased land acquired by the
District, to accommodate growing student enrollment and avoid school overcrowding.

• Add restrooms to accommodate enrollment growth on existing campuses.

• Expand libraries, flexible classrooms, science, engineering, technology and math
classrooms (STEM) and other educational facilities to accommodate enrollment
growth on existing campuses.

• Acquire, construct, develop, redevelop, modify and/or reconfigure sites and/or
facilities, including furnishings and equipment, to enable the District to house all public school in-District students, and to continue to house those attending Bullis Charter School in conditions reasonably equivalent to those attending District-run schools, all in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of Proposition 39 (Education Code section 47614).

• Make site improvements associated with expanding existing campuses,
accommodating new or expanded facilities or constructing campus facilities, including utilities, hard courts, roadways, parking lots, paving, fields and outdoor learning areas and equip and furnish all such projects.

I'm sure some folks "in the know" knew the unspoken priority list for use of the funds but the LASD board was never willing to share it with the public

for those who don't recall what the bond language you can read it here

Web Link

part 2 of the project list

SCHOOL UPGRADES AND REPAIRS TO KEEP EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SAFE,
CLEAN AND IN GOOD REPAIR

• Replace aging roofs, utilities, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems, emergency and fire systems and provide for other needed major maintenance by establishing programs to support repair work needed for classrooms,
labs and other school facilities for the next decade.

• Make safety improvements and code upgrades to building exteriors; make structural
upgrades to classrooms, labs and facilities, including Title 24 and ADA improvements to improve access for students and teachers with disabilities.

• Acquire and install energy efficiency systems to reduce energy/utility costs.

• Improve traffic flow around schools for student and neighborhood safety.

• Replace aging portable classrooms with permanent classrooms to accommodate
enrollment growth and to provide safe and modern educational facilities.

• Pay off capital leases or other lease-based obligations.

• Purchase and install new furnishings and equipment for existing and newly
constructed, modernized or rehabilitated classrooms and facilities.

• Replace worn, broken, or out-of-date furniture and equipment for all classrooms and other facilities as needed.

• Improve food service facilities, servery and outdoor eating areas, including new
paving and shade structures.

• Upgrade and repair classrooms, labs and other educational facilities, including
interior improvements, infrastructure and building system upgrades.

III. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES FOR 21ST CENTURY LEARNING

• Acquire, upgrade and repair technology and communication infrastructure including, without limitation, cabling and wireless infrastructure, network hardware and
software, and other shared access equipment such as digital whiteboards, document
cameras, projectors, and printers.

• Add, update and expand telecommunications, classroom sound enhancement, and
digital media production capabilities.

• Acquire and upgrade software, computers, and other classroom instructional
equipment.

Listed projects, repairs, improvements, rehabilitation projects and upgrades will be completed only as feasible, and the listing of projects does not imply a particular prioritization among such improvements. Listed projects may be completed at any and all school sites where such project is determined necessary. Decisions regarding the scope, timing, prioritization or other facets of project implementation will be made solely by the Board of Trustees by subsequent action in accordance with a Facilities Master Plan and with input from the Facilities Master Plan Advisory Committee. In implementing the Bond Project List, it is the intent of the Board to maintain or expand park and open space to support the needs of students and the community. The bond program shall be designed to maximize
recreational space and opportunities for public use

That part of town is the area to avoid unless you have to go there. It's nothing but a traffic mess. One big MEH. Maybe they'll throw Bullish down there.

I don't want Bullis there--it doesn't serve the neighborhood (or that many MV residents to begin with). It's been a thorn in the side of the school district, and they are eager to get them off of their Los Altos land. This site, if built, would be best serving the kids who live within walking distance of the school, not from all over Los Altos.

I agree that the reason for the school to be located in Mountain View is because many Mountain View kids go to Los Altos schools in this area, so putting Bullis this is a poor choice. Unfortunately, Mountain View city council doesn't control that decision.

But they do control the decision on TDRs. My concern with those is that we have a general plan that calls out where we want high density development. TDRs essentially move that high density development someplace else, in violation of the plan we agreed to. That concerns me - there must be restrictions, review, public input and approval of where they can be used. I am counting on our city council to NOT give them a blank check with regard to TDRs.

V. Ivanovic says some funny (not amusing) things. So the cost of buying 8 acres
of land in Mountain View to house the district-wide charter school is not going to be an order of magnitude different? What does he even think that means. It's would cost $75 Million to build the school for the charter at Covington. It would cost more at the Old Mill site, because the district promised the city to squeeze everything down (read underground parking). However, suppose it did cost the same $75 Million to construct at that location. It won't cost $700 Million more to take the land in Moutain View (an order of magnitude difference), so what? It WILL cost $50M to $100M more.

"By buying the Old Mill site, he said the district is going to keep true to its long-term strategy of small, neighborhood schools, averaging only about 50 kids per acre". Yes, Vlad. Perfect for a neighborhood school for children who live in the surrounding neighborhood. Per your statement, why would the Board turn around and place BCS there? It doesn't make sense. BCS would need 18-19 acres, per your calculation.

I believe it is vitally important to not only have a new school added to this area, but to ensure that any new school built in the San Antonio Precise Plan area -- with nearly $100 million dollars of Mountain View’s financial resources -- also be designated a public neighborhood school which will serve Mountain View children — prior to any signing of MOU’s or TDR’s. It should be a stipulation as part of the agreements.

As it stands currently, the city of Mountain View has to consider the very real possibility that the LASD will simply relocate BCS (or another magnet school) to the new school location in the San Antonio Precise Plan area upon completion, which would leave that area exactly where it is presently -- without a neighborhood school for the rapidly growing population of school age children, and having used nearly $100 million dollars of city resources (taxpayer dollars & development rights) in the process.

If the LASD is unwilling to commit, in writing, to the new school being a neighborhood school that will serve Mountain View children, prior to any MOU’s or TDR’s being executed, then I 100% request a delay in the signing of any/all MOU’s or TDR’s until such written agreement can be obtained.

Trust, but verify

I agree that is a great place to put a new school considering the opportunities. And I also agree it should be a neighborhood school. Build it and they will come.

OK, so the magic number is 50 students per acre eh? So with this new 8.6 acre site,
we won't see more than 450 kids there, will we?

More funny from V. Ivanovic. The district has clearly indicated their plan to place 900+ kids from the charter school on this new site, or 100 students per acre. So what he's saying is that "except in Mountain View" they are true to their model of small schools (with about 50 kids per acre.) Oh, but, wait, there's a 3 acre city park as part of this property, so it's only 5 acres of school and outdoor recess type space. So we're talking 200 kids per acre. Fine, because it's Mountain View, no problem.


Now at Covington, the school plus adjacent park total 22 acres. So at 50 kids per acre there's room for 1100 kids there. But wait, we can't add any more than found there now, just the 500 from the one elementary school. Huh?

This guy is not even internally consistent. The sad things is that they are all like this on the board. No one sanity checks their logic. It's very sad.

One way we know they have already decided to use this land for the charter school is that when they layout the cost numbers for construction they are clearly talking about 900+ students and their options involve splitting Bullis between Egan and Blach and building for 450 at each site, or building for 900 at Covington and relocating the district offices to the current Bullis site. So, how can they say they haven't made up their minds yet? What they mean is they don't want to ADMIT their intentions yet. But they are only talking charter school. There's no intention to have any school but the charter school use this Greystar site for the next 5 years. They should be ASHAMED.

Putting BCS there could be a win for Mountain View. If fewer kids from Los Altos Hills want to make the commute BCS might be prevailed upon to change their enrollment priority to allow more kids from the area. Or the laws of supply and demand may mean they have to. It's a fantastic school and though I understand the preference for a neighborhood school, there are some potential benefits if BCS goes there as well.

A new school in old Safeway lot will make the traffic at San Antonio and California even worse. The corner of San Antonio and California is already too busy, I can’t imagine what a new school will bring to this section during school hours. City Council , please review the transportation, parking, road development very carefully before approving the school plan.

@BCS Enrollment Priority: BCS would have to re-write their charter to designate a new preference for a particular area. They just can't magically proclaim a new preference for the following school year. It takes a lot of planning and waiting until the next renewal period which is every 5 years, if the school were to decide to pursue that route.

After reading through the attachments for Tuesday night's MVCC agenda, I have come to the conclusion that NO SCHOOL should be placed at this site. This is a joke. Shame on MVCC and LASD for trying to place a school for any children at this site. 8 story building going in across the street (does that kick out Milk Pail?), obvious pollution from proximity of that site to exorbitant amount of traffic on San Antonio, unknown site contaminants, train noise?, etc. There have been no studies conducted about the legitimacy of this site for school. Not to mention actually only about 5-6 acres once they make space for the supposed park that will be shared with the community during the day (!). That doesn't sound safe at all. Horrible idea while the rest of LASD children enjoy surrounding residential neighborhoods with green fields and tracks on which to play. We as tax payers should demand equitable sites for any future school placements. It's ok if my children aren't placed at that site and enjoy green pastures and clean air, but it's fine if your children are forced to attend school on that site. NO. We must not fall into this thinking. So the NEC population will continue to grow. Let's make a neighborhood school for the NEC children at the Egan site. What to do with BCS at Egan? I don't know. Site half of BCS as a share at Covington. Use current land. I think the NEC children should be served first right now. Give them a proper site and don't shortchange them because LASD has their own agenda to protect only certain kids in the district (clearly their own who attend Covington). We need to elect an NEC representative to that Board. NO to buying this ridiculous land at the old Safeway site.
Web Link

I believe BCS did already change their enrollment priority, and recently too, to include a year by year stepped-down change to allow larger number of children from outside the former Bullis-Purissima priority area in Los Altos Hills.

Since BCS is chartered by the Santa Clara COE, and Mountain View is in Santa Clara County, I can't see why allowing more MV residents wouldn't be feasible in the long run. If there is any possibility that BCS is going to be in MV, and MV has to bear the consequences of traffic it would cause, there should absolutely be some benefit to the nearby community.

Correct. BCS did renew their charter two years ago and re-wrote the charter to include a gradual step down with former BP priority area. They would have to use the same format for any changes to the current charter. If they so choose, they would have to include a priority for MV students when they renew the charter in 3 years. It requires a formal process. That is my only point. They just can't snap their fingers and start giving priority to MV students (or any particular area) in 6 months for example. They have to follow the renewal timeline which is every 5 years, when submitting ANY changes to the current charter.

One poster above notes that the Los Altos school bond measure was largely a BLANK CHECK - which is why it barely passed. Now the Los Altos School District wants the Mountain View City Council to hand over another virtual BLANK CHECK consisting of authorizations and $23 million and ttansferable development rights TDRs) the city staff claims may be worth $80 million. The matter is on the Tuesday night, January 16 agenda of the Mountain View City Council. Even if you do not care about the public svhools, local development or the use or squandering of public resources, show up or at least tune into the meeting (Cable Channel 26). It could be more entertaining than DONALD TRUMP.

The TDR swap sounds like a scam already, the city council needs to stand up for the residents of Mountain View and say NO. It's NOT in the best interests of Mountain View residents to put a school in the middle of Mountain View that kids next door can't even attend!

Neighborhood school or NO DEAL.

The enrollment priority for the attendance area of the school that closed before BCS opened is a special feature in the case of a charter school opening when a traditional school closes. It is not allowed to just define a priority based on the location of the school. For one thing, the location of the school can change (as opposed to the l location served at the time a given school is closed).

Now, the priority is limited to no more than 10% of spaces for the 2018-2019 year.
Following that there is NO priority based on residence location within LASD, and there can not ever be one again.

Legally, it seems to me that the TDR's are a surplus property that LASD acquires as part of the purchase of land. So it seems that there needs to be public notice and a bid process to dispose of this surplus property. They are talking like they are just asking the city suggested price of $130 per foot. It seems like they might be worth more than that. I believe that one of the points to be used to contest any eminent domain action is that LASD is acquiring something for which it has no use.

Now, if the TDR's were used on the OTHER side of the table, by the seller, then that would be acceptable. But LASD can't eminent domain this away. It's worth noting that the TDR feature was created in December 2014. At that time they were not salable, so the owner would need to use them. So they were tailor made for Federal Realty which has 30 acres of land. It's unclear if LASD ever pursued this with Federal Realty. Certainly it's the case that back then they were not only not salable but there were not subject to resale either. So it begs the question, if Federal had been offered the right to resell the TDR's or to use them itself, would Federal have been receptive to including a school site plan in its future development efforts?

it seems to me that this whole process was really messed up. LASD was not on the ball. They didn't start to try to make use of TDR's for over 2 years after they were made available and then it took them another year to come down to a specific plan. They end up mistreating the Greystar project by their clumsiness. It's a mess.

I’d like to know why former Council members Mike Kasperzak and Ronit Bryant got so involved in this question. Given their pro-development record in other people’s neighborhoods, I’d suspect they are getting something in return from Greystar and Co. in exchange for their efforts to throw a monkey wrench into this Mountain View collaboration with LASD.

Like they say, don't shoot the messenger. I think the concerns are totally valid about this odd plan to move the charter school 1/2 mile from Los Altos (corner of San Antonio and W. Portola) to Mountain View (corner of California Street and San Antonio). #1, they clearly are faking it when they say they haven't made up their
minds yet. #2, putting a double-size school for 900 kids there totally wrecks
this idea of having any left over space to use for a Park.

Listen to the words of Margaret Abe Koga. There is no need for a new school
in the area before 10 years from now. Well, she may be underestimating it.
However, certainly there won't be any demand in 3.5 years when they say they
could finally open a school on the Greystar property. It's clearly a move
by LASD aimed at the Charter school. It doesn't have to make sense, because they
don't think it's on their dime!

How to fix? Well, limit the school there to 500 or so kids, and then
if the Charter School is there, at least they will be split across
2 sites. The Park plan would at least work somewhat in that case.

Well, you heard one Councilmember after another claim to have the expertise to work this problematic and quite possibly illegal swap but to have insufficient knowledge to insist that a neighborhood school be accessible by neighborhood school children. It appwar this City Council majority is not going to require anything of their masters from Los Altos. Los Altos players say JUMP and these Councilmembers only ask "HOW HIGH?" A charter school for kids from Los Altos Highs and Los Altos and part of Palo Alto right here in Mountain View. What an honor. But there may be something else at work here. Transferable developments rights. Or more broadly: selling municipal authority to the highest corporate bidders. City officials could retire like kings on that gravy train. The City would be destroyed but the City Manager and other bigwigs would live happily ever elsewhere.

It's interesting to note that the Town of Los Altos Hills has an informal agreement with LASD not to use the Gardner Bullis campus (10 acres) to house Bullis Charter School. Yet Mountain View doesn't feel like it can give $100 Million and ask for a definite commitment to use the new site for a neighborhood school. Gardner Bullis has about 330 students enrolled. Yeah, right. Makes sense to me.

Thanks for the warning from Los Altos Hills. I do not know if it will fall on deaf ears in Mountain View. Some Councilmembers seem to just believe whatever the LASD reps say.

As to the question of the alternative locations for schools in the area, LASD has had an elementary school nearby for a very long time. They plan to revert this to open space in Los Altos if they get this new site in Mountain View. It's interesting how close this is. They don't want a neighborhood school in the area, as they use the nearby site for the charter school and have for 16 years. This site will close if LASD gets its way and takes the land from Greystar.

You can see pictures of the creation of the 2nd school site here: Web Link