Worries swirl over future San Antonio school site

Parents frustrated by rumors that Bullis will move to Mountain View

The Los Altos School District is planning to move forward on a complicated plan to buy land next to the San Antonio Shopping Center, adding a school campus to a fast-growing neighborhood that is hard-pressed for park space.

But amid the long struggle to acquire land at a reasonable cost in a red-hot real estate market, the district's board of trustees has yet to make a firm commitment on whether the site would be home to a neighborhood school, or the long-awaited permanent campus for Bullis Charter School. And left with a vacuum, rumors are spreading that it's going to be the latter.

At a Jan. 8 school board meeting, school board members were expected to discuss Measure N, the $150 million school bond that will fuel land acquisition and construction of a new school. But with two board members absent and one trustee forced to recuse himself, the school board no longer had a quorum, and had to ditch its planned presentation and discussion.

But that didn't stop more than a dozen of residents and parents -- a large number of whom have kids in Bullis Charter School -- from blasting the school board over concerns that the district was planning to plant their school in Mountain View.

Jim Burnham, a parent of a fourth-grade student at Bullis, said it would be a bad idea to put a school that serves families all over Los Altos and Los Altos Hills right next door to one of the largest shopping centers on the Peninsula. Traffic is "horrendous" along San Antonio Road already, he said. Even though the charter school is housed at two campuses in portable classrooms, he said it would actually be a downgrade to migrate to Mountain View.

"It's worse than what we have now," he said.

Los Altos Hills Mayor John Radford, who was one of the signatories for Measure N, sharply criticized the district for failing to provide clarity to district residents. He said voters were convinced that the bond measure was essential in order to accommodate "severe" enrollment growth in the immediate term, even though there was no solid plan on how to use the money.

If the rumors end up being true -- that the district wants to put Bullis in Mountain View -- he said the looming specter of enrollment growth feels like a bait-and-switch in order to house the charter school instead.

"You won't even commit to building a neighborhood school there, and many think the plan is to put Bullis there," he said. "You are obligated to tell us what you are really going to do to solve enrollment growth."

Last month, the district revealed plans to buy the former Safeway and Old Mill office building on the corner of San Antonio Road and California Street, a total of 8.6 acres of valuable real estate next door to the shopping center. Using a complicated deal with developers and the city of Mountain View known as the transfer of development rights (TDRs), the district plans to sell the square-footage of high density development that could have been built on the site to developers to use elsewhere in the city. By doing so, the district expects to recoup over $79 million.

District estimates pin the cost of land in the area at about $15 million per acre, though the cost may be much higher. The Kalcic and Marazzo families who own the parcels said in a statement Tuesday that they have signed a 95-year ground lease with the developer Greystar to build a dense, mixed-use housing development on the site, and have no interest in selling to the school district. At an Oct. 3 Mountain View City Council meeting, one of the lawyers representing the families cautioned that an attempt to take the property through eminent domain would be costly and litigious, saying that there are other more prudent land options out there.

Norm Matteoni, a representative for the property owners, revealed at the board meeting that Greystar had a "preliminary discussion" scheduled with district officials on Wednesday, Jan. 10, to find an alternative that would avoid litigation.

Mountain View City Council members are scheduled to approve the district's plan to sell development rights on Tuesday, Jan. 16, along with a long list of commitments from local developers to buy up the rights to build more than 600,000 square feet of mostly office development throughout the city, particularly in the East Whisman area. During the Oct. 3 meeting, council members largely supported a neighborhood school for the San Antonio site rather than a charter school, but stopped short of making it a condition of approval for the TDRs.

"I think that was the right choice," board president Vladimir Ivanovic told the Voice in a meeting last week. He said that despite the rumors, the board has not weighed in on whether Bullis or a new neighborhood school will be put on the Old Mill site. When the time comes to make the decision, he said it will be done with transparency and plenty of opportunities for the public to weigh in.

That hasn't stopped the public from believing that the new campus would house Bullis. In a letter to the City Council last week, former council member Mike Kasperzak said there is a strong possibility that the Los Altos School District plans to put Bullis Charter School on the property so long as the city doesn't require that it be a neighborhood school. Mayor Lenny Siegel later told the Voice he believes there is a good chance Bullis will be built at the Old Mill site if given the opportunity.

Throughout the Jan. 8 board meeting, parents urged the board to shift gears, move away from the land acquisition plans and take a closer look at whether a new school could be co-located on an existing campus, particularly the large sites at Egan Junior High and Covington Elementary. Bullis parent Stef Lau-Chen said she had serious concerns about the legal battle and high costs that could come with pursuing the Old Mill site, and would much rather see the district consider its existing 116 acres of land.

District parent Mike Carlton, who sat on the district's Facilities Master Plan Committee in 2014, said members looked into options that clearly showed that a permanent site could fit on the Egan and Covington campuses without displacing the existing school, and that it would be much easier than purchasing and tearing down an office park and dealing with tenants leasing the space and years of lawsuits.

Board members have maintained for several years that purchasing land is the preferred solution to manage the growing student population, particularly north of El Camino Real in Mountain View where a vast majority of new housing within the district is located. Although using existing land sounds like a good option on paper, trustees argue that reconfiguring existing schools to fit Bullis would end up costing roughly the same amount and has to potential to cause severe traffic problems.

Ivanovic said Covington and Egan have been thoroughly explored, and while critics may quibble about the true cost of land acquisition versus using existing sites, the costs aren't going to be an order of magnitude different. 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.

"We're not in any hurry to change that model," he said.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.


17 people like this
Posted by taxpayer
a resident of another community
on Jan 11, 2018 at 12:27 pm

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

5 people like this
Posted by taxpayer
a resident of another community
on Jan 11, 2018 at 12:31 pm

part 2 of the project list


• 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.


• 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

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

5 people like this
Posted by Fine, whatever
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2018 at 2:14 pm

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.

32 people like this
Posted by MV Flyer
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 11, 2018 at 2:28 pm

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.

29 people like this
Posted by Ross Heitkamp
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jan 11, 2018 at 2:57 pm

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.

9 people like this
Posted by Order of Magnitude
a resident of another community
on Jan 11, 2018 at 4:08 pm

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.

8 people like this
Posted by MV resident
a resident of The Crossings
on Jan 11, 2018 at 4:55 pm

"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.

30 people like this
Posted by Doveryai, no proveryai
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jan 11, 2018 at 5:43 pm

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

7 people like this
Posted by Bob the Builder
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2018 at 1:05 am

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.

12 people like this
Posted by Several Questions
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2018 at 3:45 am

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.

7 people like this
Posted by BCS enrollment priority?
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Jan 12, 2018 at 1:00 pm

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.

7 people like this
Posted by Sophie
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 12, 2018 at 1:24 pm

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.

4 people like this
Posted by Clarification
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2018 at 2:47 pm

@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.

7 people like this
Posted by Don't Do It
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2018 at 3:03 pm

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

9 people like this
Posted by @clarification
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Jan 12, 2018 at 3:33 pm

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.

4 people like this
Posted by @ @Clarification
a resident of another community
on Jan 12, 2018 at 5:14 pm

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.

8 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 13, 2018 at 4:15 pm

Gary is a registered user.

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.

12 people like this
Posted by Juan
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Jan 13, 2018 at 5:13 pm

Juan is a registered user.

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.

8 people like this
Posted by Enrollment Priority
a resident of another community
on Jan 13, 2018 at 11:36 pm

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.

6 people like this
Posted by TDR Scam
a resident of another community
on Jan 13, 2018 at 11:43 pm

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.

5 people like this
Posted by Someone’s Pocket
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jan 16, 2018 at 11:57 pm

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.

3 people like this
Posted by Messenger
a resident of another community
on Jan 17, 2018 at 1:38 am

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.

4 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 17, 2018 at 3:56 am

Gary is a registered user.

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.

6 people like this
Posted by Los ALtos Hills
a resident of another community
on Jan 17, 2018 at 12:05 pm

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.

4 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jan 17, 2018 at 8:39 pm

Gary is a registered user.

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.

5 people like this
Posted by School Sanity
a resident of another community
on Jan 22, 2018 at 7:24 pm

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

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

After experiencing harassment, owner of Zareen's restaurants speaks out about Islamophobia, racism
By Elena Kadvany | 28 comments | 6,923 views

Don't Miss Your Exit (and other lessons from an EV drive)
By Sherry Listgarten | 13 comments | 2,345 views

Goodbye Food Waste!
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 2,237 views

Premarital and Couples: Tips for Hearing (Listening) and Being Known
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 743 views


Register today!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More