Community opposes converting Los Altos High tennis courts into parking; board declines to approve $15,000 traffic study and asks for more data

Neighbors, students and transportation advocates told the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High board on Oct. 13 that converting tennis courts at Los Altos High School into a parking lot would harm community recreation and worsen neighborhood traffic.

District staff asked the board to approve a $15,000 traffic study to evaluate options for adding parking in a back area of the Los Altos High campus. After two hours of public comment and trustee discussion, the board did not approve the study and directed staff to obtain additional data from the cities and return with more information; no motion to approve the study passed.

Why it matters: The district is short of student parking at Los Altos High after nearby on‑street capacity was reduced. Staff presented a temporary lot of 47 spaces but said the campus remains about 75 spaces short compared with Mountain View. Community members argued the district should pursue alternatives to removing recreational courts and should coordinate with the cities of Los Altos and Mountain View on broader transportation solutions.

Public comment: Caroline Moran, a parent and resident near Los Altos High, told trustees she opposed turning tennis courts into a parking lot and urged the district to promote public and active transportation options. “I very much oppose the idea of turning those tennis 4 tennis courts or even wherever they've been back into, into parking lots,” Moran said.

Alex Hoffman, a recent Los Altos High graduate and former member of the tennis team, said the on-campus courts promote community and argued adding parking in the same area would create more conflicts between cars and cyclists. Terry Barton, who said he is chairperson of the Mountain View Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee, urged the board not to frame the problem as only a parking problem and described the decision to remove neighborhood on‑street parking as a contributing factor. Barton said converting 36,000 square feet of court space to parking would remove a valuable educational and recreational resource and cited a market value estimate of $9,000,000 for that land area.

Staff presentation and board discussion: District staff said a temporary lot of 47 spaces had been created and that the architect recommended a traffic study focused on intersections near the campus; staff asked the board to approve a $15,000 contract for that study. Trustees raised questions about the geographic scope of the study, whether the city had existing traffic data, and the actual number of students who lack parking permits. One trustee reviewed district permit data and said only 17 students living outside a one‑mile boundary had been denied permits, suggesting the shortfall may be 20 to 30 spaces rather than dozens.

Outcome: Trustees declined to approve the $15,000 traffic study at this meeting. Several trustees said they wanted staff first to request available city traffic studies and to continue working with the city to identify shared solutions. The chair noted that if no member moved to approve the contract, the item dies for lack of motion.

Ending: The board asked staff to return with a fuller set of data — including any traffic studies the city can share, a clearer estimate of unmet student parking need, and options that consider both community recreation and transportation — before the board votes on spending for a traffic study or on conversions of recreational space.