Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board study session signals support for west-side parking at Los Altos High School
Summary
District staff presented four conceptual layouts to add student parking at Los Altos High School; the board expressed a consensus to pursue Option 2 — a west-side lot — pending coordination with the City of Los Altos, the Division of the State Architect and traffic engineers.
Get email alerts on the School Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Mountain View–Los Altos Union High School District board held a study session on Los Altos High School parking and reviewed four conceptual plans for adding student parking on campus. After discussion of safety, tennis-court loss and permit requirements, the board signaled a consensus to pursue the option that locates a new lot on the west side of campus pending city and state approvals.
The proposals, prepared quickly with consultant QKA, modeled tradeoffs between additional parking and the number of tennis courts preserved. Option 1 would convert the four courts currently used for construction staging into a contiguous lot and net 78 parking spaces while keeping eight courts. Option 2 shifts the new lot to the campus’s west side, also preserves eight courts and yields 76 spaces (64 in a new lot plus 12 angled spaces on the east driveway). Option 3 preserves nine courts and yields about 57 spaces; Option 4 preserves 10 courts and yields about 43 spaces. Mike, the district facilities presenter, summarized the Option 1 figure: “It’s 78 spots, 8 tennis courts,” and described the other layouts as conceptual sketches subject to engineering and regulatory constraints.
Board members emphasized student safety, especially conflicts where new vehicle entrances would intersect existing bike and pedestrian routes. The board and staff repeatedly noted that any design would have to meet Division of the State Architect (DSA) requirements for new parking (accessibility, shading, EV-ready stalls) and comply with City of Los Altos right-of-way rules for new driveways. Staff also cited drainage and bio-retention (“bioswales”) as design and cost drivers. The consultant’s ballpark construction estimate for the lot layouts shown was about $360,000; staff said driveway/curbwork and city-imposed sidewalk modifications would be additional and were not yet estimated.
Participants reviewed districtwide parking totals presented by staff: Mountain View High School was shown with about 465 on-site spaces and Los Altos High School with about 346 spaces; adding a temporary lot created last year added 46 temporary spots, bringing Los Altos’s total to about 392 when the temporary area is counted. District staff said the 46 temporary spaces currently remain temporary and would require a permanent process if the district elects to formalize them.
The board discussed athletics impacts: after reconfiguration during earlier construction the district has operated with eight tennis courts and staff said eight courts meet the minimum for a varsity match (four singles and three doubles). Board members noted that even with 12 courts close spacing may limit the ability to host larger championships, and some said safety and parking equity for students were higher priorities than restoring all lost courts.
On balance the board indicated a preference to continue work on Option 2, contingent on coordination with the City of Los Altos, review by traffic engineers, and DSA plan review. Staff were directed to continue design work and to bring traffic-engineering analysis, cost detail and necessary permitting steps back to the board; no formal motion or vote was taken at the study session.
Next steps noted by staff included traffic-engineer review (to evaluate driveway placement and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts), DSA submission for building and accessibility requirements, and coordination with the city over driveways and sidewalk modifications. Board members raised funding considerations, noting that building a permanent lot or larger campus renovation would require bond money or other funding sources that are not yet identified.

