Town Square

Post a New Topic

New Menlo Park council reverses decision on Caltrain separations

Original post made on Jan 16, 2019

The wheels of Menlo Park's grade separation project lurched forward Tuesday night in a markedly different direction from where plans were headed under the city's previous City Council.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 11:51 AM

Comments (36)

19 people like this
Posted by kblocker
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on Jan 16, 2019 at 1:22 pm

kblocker is a registered user.

As sympathetic as I am to the residents that will be impacted by the revisions to the train tracks it is imperative that the greater good be primary. Lets get these new crossings built....the sooner the better.


26 people like this
Posted by Martin Engel
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Jan 16, 2019 at 1:29 pm

Excuse me, new City Council, but what about Encinal? Shouldn't you be responsible for all four grade crossings?

As I've commented elsewhere on related articles, Menlo Park going alone on this grade-separation decision-making is myopic. Ray Mueller has it right when he approached Palo Alto for seeking a coherent solution. Indeed, he should also connect with Atherton. (A unified position on grade separations among all the towns on the Peninsula will provide far more effective political (read: economic) leverage with our three counties, with the State and with the Federal Government.)

There are twelve grade crossings (I think) to be dealt with through our three cities. It is in Caltrain's interest (as well as or own) that grade separation solutions are consistent and coherent. What does that mean? For example, although I oppose a viaduct, that would be a coherent and consistent solution running from (at least) Redwood City to, or through, Mountain View (and beyond). Of course, that would also be true of a trench, which I do support.

And, not least, there are economy-of-scale cost benefits. When it comes to rail corridors, doing more is more cost-effective.

Another point about costs. Doing the short-term cheapest thing is not doing the best thing, especially in the long run. If there is to be ever greater urban densification on the Peninsula, as everyone predicts, putting the rail-corridor below ground level today should be the only appropriate solution. Let me put that another way: Pay now or pay much more later.

Unfortunately, in politics, "kicking the can down the road" is standard operating procedure (SOP)!


30 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 16, 2019 at 1:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 25, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
If this is done one crossing at a time it will be very expensive, take a long time and result in a dis-integrated design.

Please at least think about a more comprehensive and integrated approach.

Why not see this as an opportunity rather than a problem?

One thought is the put the trains underground, use the surface rights above it for housing in the stretches between stations and use the surface above the stations for transit connections and parking. The surface area of the current right of way is very valuable land - particularly in Atherton - and could generate a lot of the needed capital.

Why not take this as an opportunity to design a multi-dimensional, multi-purpose system that uses the existing right-of-way that includes CalTrain, HSR, utility conduits for telephone and internet cables, surface housing with high density housing around each station. And add pedestrian path and a separate bicycle path on the surface along the entire right of way. And include 3 or 4 12" conduits for the technology of the future.

We should think of this right of way as an integrated multi-modal communications spine for the peninsula.

A piecemeal approach will be very expensive.

Do it once and do it right.


4 people like this
Posted by TBM
a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2019 at 1:46 pm

Another advantage of elevating the tracks is that Menlo Park could be the first mid-peninsula station where high-speed trains could stop for passengers (as an interim step).

High speed trains have legally required "high" entrance doors that are incompatible with Caltrain's low platforms, but Caltrain recently got more funding to replace sooner all of it's old diesel trains with new electric trains. The new electric trains come with alternative high doors Web Link . Caltrain could re-build the new Menlo station with high platforms. High platforms enable "level boarding" through the high doors, which results in less time stopped at the station waiting for passengers to board and alight and facilitates accessibility for wheelchairs.

The standard maximum length of a high-speed train consist is 400 meters (1312 feet) which is longer than the distance between Ravenswood and Oak Grove, but by elevating the tracks, a long station platform can extend over both roads.


2 people like this
Posted by TBM
a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2019 at 2:03 pm

@ "Excuse me, new City Council, but what about Encinal? Shouldn't you be responsible for all four grade crossings?"

The distance between Encinal and Atherton is insufficient for the rails to pass high over Encinal and return to grade before Atherton at an acceptable gradient.

Atherton will not elevate the tracks because to do so would require a temporary shoofly track that demolishes dozens of expensive residences and mature trees.

The best option for Encinal is to make it a shallow pedestrian & bicycle underpass. A deep underpass for vehicles would require many property takes.


19 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 16, 2019 at 2:09 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Atherton will not elevate the tracks because to do so would require a temporary shoofly track that demolishes dozens of expensive residences and mature trees. "

So go down, not up!

A bored tunnel would obviate this issue.


23 people like this
Posted by Eric Doyle
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Jan 16, 2019 at 2:16 pm

It’s exciting to learn that the tunnel option is still alive (per the statements of Council members Mueller and Combs)!

Now, the railroad is a symbolic wall separating two major parts of our city. Imagine the immense public benefit of the land restored by putting the rail underground. Imagine a park running the length of the city - or the combined length of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton! People could cross east/west anywhere. Implying that its sole purpose is to ensure that “local residents won’t have to see the train from their window at home” totally misses the point.

Alternative C would only make our symbolic wall literal.

Of course the tunnel would be expensive, and, of course it would require collaboration with our neighbor cities. In this age of constructing barriers, the collaboration itself would be a fringe benefit. The moment is ripe for doing something positive for the future of our extended community.


Like this comment
Posted by whatever
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 16, 2019 at 2:31 pm

Anyone contacted Elon Musk's tunneling company for information, options, etc.


Like this comment
Posted by TBM
a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2019 at 3:30 pm

@ "Anyone contacted Elon Musk's tunneling company for information, options, etc"

Musk's Tunneling company only does sewer pipes.

One option is to build a warren of Tesla sewer pipes under Atherton and the rail crossings, with elevators that take vehicles directly into the garage of each property.
The surface at-grade crossings can remain open for commercial vehicles.
It would be self funded by the beneficiaries, no need to beg for Other Peoples Money


7 people like this
Posted by dana herndrickson
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 16, 2019 at 3:49 pm

For all the reasons I and others have so clearly pointed out before,

the "tunnel" is DEAD; only a faint illusion persists and that too will fade away.

(The faster the better)

It might be desirable; but no one with control of public funding will EVER support it.

I recommend Peter and like-minded residents form a business and raise private and public funds.

Then simply submit a tunnel proposal to Caltrain.

And no, I am not a prospective investor.

Good luck!!!


25 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 16, 2019 at 3:56 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

There are those who think the past and those who celebrate in the future.

Short term solutions are just that - short term.

A bored tunnel will preserve and improve our community.


Anything else will divide us.


9 people like this
Posted by Dana Hendrickson
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 16, 2019 at 5:15 pm

"There are those who think the past and those who celebrate in the future."

And those who fantasize about spending lots of other peoples' money.

And those who appreciate what is realistically possible.


13 people like this
Posted by Thierry Depeyrot
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Jan 16, 2019 at 8:12 pm

This is good news. It was completely myopic to only deal with Ravenswood, without taking care of the other crossing. Alternative C is much better than A. Now I wish we could find a solution for Encinal too - and make the crossing much safer for our kids as the go to school.


15 people like this
Posted by MV
a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2019 at 9:34 pm

So the hyper-wealthy NIMBY folks are opposed to making infrastructure that enables their employees's commute to be less miserable for "reasons". Money being among them. Shame for the whole lot. There are several INDIVIDUALS who could foot the bill for whatever is needed. Maybe give back to the community for a change?


2 people like this
Posted by Steve Schmidt
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Jan 16, 2019 at 10:36 pm

Steve Schmidt is a registered user.

Dana Henrickson is on the right track. A fully elevated alternative spanning three Menlo Park crossings is similar and superior to the new place-holder of Alternative C, the berm. I'm confident that the methodical approach taken by our Council of evaluating and ultimately eliminating infeasible alternatives will lead us to the fully elevated version of the project which grade separates Encinal as well.


4 people like this
Posted by wendy
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Jan 17, 2019 at 9:12 am

It is heartening to see that the new council decided to reverse the 'Ravenswcod-Only' approach!

I don't have the technical expertise to say whether the at grade crossings should go up, down, in between or a combination. The reality is that high speed rail is baring down on us and we can either jump on the train or be run over by it.

I do believe in economies of scale and using a comprehensive design approach that helps us look beyond one crossing, or even four crossings. At the very least, it seems prudent to design a solutivel that is compatible with the solutions Palo. Alto and Redwood City are considering. It would be a huge shame if Atherton were to opt out before considering options for Encinal.

Palo Alto made an interesting little video of train movement on their portion of the tracks. It's very helpful in visualising the bigger picture. It would be useful to do that. If this link doesn't work, you'll find it in a PA almanac article from October.

Web Link

I hope we do what it takes to come up with viable options going forward.

Wendy


6 people like this
Posted by Shaun Maguire
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Jan 17, 2019 at 3:19 pm

I find myself agreeing with Peter Carpenter on this matter. Although important transportation for residents and commuters alike, Caltrain is a blight on all the communities it bisects. And the more the system grows the more impact on all the communities in one of the most affluent and creative areas of the country. Imagine a peninsula without these noisy behemoths running up and down it. I believe a major opportunity was missed back in the 1970s when there was the possibility of having BART be extended underground down the entire peninsular.

Let's not use Band-aid solutions which will have to be lived with for generations to come. The costs of doing this right will be amortized over many years to come. If not done right the costs will be in the form of serious externalities and the resultant social costs.


2 people like this
Posted by Willows resident
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Jan 17, 2019 at 6:08 pm

Is anyone concerned about the new intersection at Alma & Ravenswood with Alt C? After spending hundreds of millions of dollars and enduring many years of construction of the grade separation, cars will need to contend with an additional fully signalized intersection. With the additional traffic on Alma resulting from the new intersection, it will probably take as much time to traverse this intersection as with the El Camino & Ravenswood intersection.

Alma & Ravenswood has tons of pedestrian and bike traffic. How long will pedestrians need to wait at the traffic light in order to cross Ravenswood to get to the library? How will the large number of pedestrians impact traffic and overall safety?

The viaduct would presumably create the same problem since it would allow reconnecting Alma with Ravenswood with a new intersection. At least it would be at grade vs 12' below grade as with Alt C. I hope they build the bike undercrossing at Middle before the construction begins on the grade separation. I would definitely use it to get around during the grade separation construction.


5 people like this
Posted by Martin
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jan 18, 2019 at 8:52 am

Let's paraphrase the the Felton Gables neighbors: "We don't care about safety of anyone as long as our view is pretty."


4 people like this
Posted by Been In Menlo A long WHile
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 18, 2019 at 10:16 am

This issue is 30+ years old!!
Menlo Park was approached by the federal govt. approximately 30 years ago, with the idea of giving free federal aid I believe , or a s free as federal money can be and the Menlo Park governing body said they didn't want it

It is time to resolve this issue that should have been resolved before it became more of a problem than it already was


9 people like this
Posted by Gotta laugh
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jan 18, 2019 at 2:02 pm

I really have to laugh at some of the ridiculous comments here.

Imagine the Peninsula without the rail line? That's a good one. It would be complete and total gridlock. The rail line that has run down the Peninsula since the 1860s is one of the chief factors that allowed this area to grow. Towns grew up around their train stations, and the area prospered. It still serves as a vital transportation link. It's only logical that the route needs to grow and expand as the population grows and more people need to move around. Wishing the train would go away is just foolish.

San Mateo County withdrew from the BART plan in 1961. County supervisors at the time thought it too expensive. It was a done deal long before the 1970s. It would be helpful if the previous poster checked the facts before posting.

Of course Encinal should be part of the Menlo Park grade separation project. Atherton is missing an opportunity by not including Watkins in the project.

This is a 100-year project — people would be wise to consider that when claiming it would be a mistake to separate Encinal and Watkins.

If motorists have to stop and wait for a train at Encinal Avenue in 2060 they're going to think leaving the crossing there was a big mistake. And by then, trees will have grown tall enough to shield the delicate eyes of Felton Gables residents.

Consider this: When the railroad was first built it was just one track. The sky didn't fall when the second track was added, and today's it's just accepted. The same thing would be true for a viaduct, berm, or whatever is done to separate Ravenswood, Oak Grove, Glenwood, Encinal and Watkins from the crossings. And dare I say it, Fair Oaks, too.

The time has come for leadership to work with Atherton to plan a project that will be there for the next century, at least — not just some temporary fix that won't be adequate in 10 or 20 years.


8 people like this
Posted by Tunnel Vision
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 18, 2019 at 6:31 pm

I don't buy the idea that "The surface area of the current right of way is very valuable land - particularly in Atherton - and could generate a lot of the needed capital." To get more specific, most of the ROW in Atherton is very narrow (80' - 85'), has limited access points, and backs up to residences that'll likely fight tooth-and-nail to prevent anything being built up near them. Unless anyone can show any sort of feasibility study with fact-based value estimates, I'm going to call that the pipe dream it is.


3 people like this
Posted by Dana Hendrickson
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 18, 2019 at 8:32 pm

"Let's not use Band-aid solutions which will have to be lived with for generations to come. The costs of doing this right will be amortized over many years to come. If not done right the costs will be in the form of serious externalities and the resultant social costs"

The CA PUC - NOT Caltrain - controls the grade separation purse strings and the legislature controls funding for the PUC. The PUC has a prioritized list of 37 grade separations for the entire state. Let's guess that each costs $200 M in current dollars. That's a total of $$7.4 Billion.

It will take DECADES to fund even some of these and fewer than 5 are on the Peninsula.

Why would the PUC be moved by your argument to allot a third of this total to Menlo Park? Two-thirds to Menlo Park and Palo Alto? Even more to include Atherton?

Until you demonstrate that the money could be available, tunnels will remain a fantasy and a unhelpful distraction.


Like this comment
Posted by Johson
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Jan 19, 2019 at 9:57 am

Nice info, I got a question: Anyone contacted Elon Musk's tunneling company for information, options, Web Link etc.

It will take DECADES to fund even some of these and fewer than 5 are on the Peninsula.


2 people like this
Posted by Reality Check
a resident of another community
on Jan 19, 2019 at 11:21 am

Reality Check is a registered user.


Alt. C, while far, far better than Alt. A can still be improved upon by elevating the tracks several more feet across downtown to get the tracks and trains completely up and out of the way on a viaduct, opening up space under the tracks to be tastefully landscaped along with paths and station- & community-serving amenities.

Why would anyone favor the barrier of a formidable 10-12-foot tall solid berm (a blend of concrete walls and/or steeply mounded soil) versus a visually- and physically open area between Santa Cruz Ave. & Merrill and Alma?

On either side of downtown (south of Ravenswood and north of Oak Grove), the tracks could immediately slope back down to grade level on a landscaped berm in areas where there is no need or desire for new open space under the tracks. Since the tracks would begin sloping back to ground-level north of Oak Grove, the Glenwood pavement could dip down somewhat to pass under the tracks to provide the required bus/truck clearance ... while its sidewalks could remain level.

• a fully-elevated viaduct is only several feet taller than the Alt. C berm
• viaduct only needed across downtown (Ravenswood to Oak Grove)
• no viaduct past homes to the north or south where new space under tracks is not needed
• creates new, open, traffic-free space under the tracks and station across downtown
• eliminates very costly, disruptive and permanent lowering of Ravenswood, Oak Grove, Alma, Merrill, Garwood
• eliminates the permanent need for costly fail-safe pumping to keep Alt. C lowered streets from flooding
• creates new east-west downtown connectedness where it has never been vs. Alt C.'s solid berm
• gets trains and the new single center-platform boarding area completely up and out of the way
• no significant impact (vs. Alt C) on Linfield Oaks, Felton Gables, Park Forest
• tracks can stay at current grade (or nearly so) at Encinal, to satisfy neighbors who like "their" dangerous crossing

The downsides to the downtown viaduct are totally worth the upsides:

• it may cost more if savings of not having to lower roads don't offset increased viaduct cost
• about 10 feet taller than Alt. C across downtown (Ravenswood - Oak Grove), less elsewhere





3 people like this
Posted by TBM
a resident of another community
on Jan 19, 2019 at 1:34 pm

It is a pity that Felton Gables want to keep their dangerous crossing.
The cost of Alt. Fully-Elevated could be reduced by closing Encinal to traffic and raising the track 10 feet on a berm at that location. That would eliminate the cost and disruption of digging an underpass at Glenwood Ave and would create an acceptable 1% gradient from Glenwood to the Atherton border.
A low pedestrian/bicycle underpass can by punched through the berm at Encinal.
On the down side, it does become increasingly problematic to extend the temporary shoofly tracks toward Atherton.


4 people like this
Posted by TBM
a resident of another community
on Jan 19, 2019 at 2:04 pm

@ " Anyone contacted Elon Musk's tunneling company for information"

So far all Musk's tunneling company has done is purchased an off-the-shelf tunnel boring machine, made in Germany by the world largest manufacturer of tunnel boring machines, and put it to work to bore a standard sewer pipe.
Then he claims that, by some unspecified miracle, it is by far the lest expensive tunnel ever bored.

Opinions are divided into 2 camps:
1. Expedience tunneling engineers agree that Musks claims are 100% BS.
2. People who know nothing about tunneling believe that Musk is the messiah Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 19, 2019 at 2:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is an excellent source of facts re costs of tunelling:

Web Link

And as technology improves cost will come down while costs of above ground construction will increase.


7 people like this
Posted by Reality Check
a resident of another community
on Jan 19, 2019 at 2:42 pm

Reality Check is a registered user.

@Peter's reference relates to the cheapest and easiest part: boring tunnels for all-electric trains between stations ... but is silent on what drives tunneling cost and complexity through the roof:

Underground stations, unless really small and tight, do not fit into the bore diameter of the tunnel boring machine (TBM) ... because these generally require far more space: human circulation, access & egress (elevators for ADA plus stairs and/or escalators), emergency evacuation & life safety, security, ventilation, etc., etc. Even the between-station costs are higher here due to US freight and passenger train loading gauge (clearance envelope) being significantly larger than for UK/European trains (such HS1/2 and/or Eurostar in the Chunnel) and, on Caltrain, still include beefy UP diesel freight locomotives (1,800-3,000 gallon fuel tank per locomotive!) hauling hazmat freight cars, tankers, etc. Costs are way, way higher than merely boring simple tubes for tracks exclusively carrying electric trains. Then you have the certainty that cities wishing to tunnel over Caltrain & UP's objections will be made to be financially responsible for building, operating and maintaining the additional fail-safe water pumping systems to keep the tunnels and stations from flooding due to heavy rainstorms, San Francisquito Creek overflowing its banks, high groundwater table intrusion, etc. Caltrain & UP will certainly want to have the cities indemnify them regarding any and all extra liability exposure due to the myriad significant life-safety and risks in addition to the perpetually higher O&M cost of the tunnels and underground stations.


4 people like this
Posted by TBM
a resident of another community
on Jan 19, 2019 at 4:38 pm

^^^^
And in Atherton the underground station could only be built by temporarily re-routing the train to the East, by eminent-domaining a dozen very expensive residences.
The existing rail station would become a large hole in the ground Web Link , Web Link , while the station parking lot would become the work yard.

Atherton rail station is only 50 feet above sea level, and an underground station would be about 60 feet deep, so keeping the bottom of the hole dry during construction will add considerably to the cost.


2 people like this
Posted by Reality Check
a resident of another community
on Jan 20, 2019 at 11:20 am

Reality Check is a registered user.

@TBM: building a new underground (or trenched) Atherton station for 150 or so daily riders will never happen. As Atherton is presently contemplating anyway, Atherton station would surely be closed instead ... as it essentially already has been since 2005 when weekday service was suspended there due to extremely low (and falling) ridership.


Like this comment
Posted by compare to hsr issues and cost
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jan 22, 2019 at 4:04 pm

compare to hsr issues and cost is a registered user.

Why change anything,

The existing track network has worked fine for over a hundred years.

What is proposed to cost an average of 1.5b and 4.0b approx. 2.75b which will cost double whatever number you come up with by the time this thing is built is money this city will never have.

I cross multiple road crossings everyday and don't have any problems at all.

It's ridiculous to pay billions of dollars we don't have and disrupt people, traffic, housing, businesses, for years, to shave seconds off your commute? Somebody pinch me I must be having a nightmare.

Anyway way you slice it, it's a boondoggle, need an example just look at the progression of the hsr.


7 people like this
Posted by Underground is the obvious choice
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Jan 31, 2019 at 1:51 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with in particular Peter Carpenter's post above about doing this right once and for all, and then benefit for many decades to come. An underground solution eliminates all traffic concerns and is the safest choice, it eliminates all noise issues allowing Caltrain to run as many trains as they want, and most importantly it frees up land above that can be used for housing and urban planning, potentially offsetting some of the cost.

Boring does sound expensive, but an alternative used in many other places such as Stockholm Sweden is to dig out a trench, which then has a concrete lid. From a financial perspective one could in a first phase build an open air trench, with bridges for traffic above, and then top it off on a city by city basis when it makes sense.

Elevating a train track is a recipe for graffiti, spontaneous and more permanent night guests, maximizing noise pollution, not to mention the ever-lasting eye sore. It is one thing to do a cozy and sunny rendering of a romantic brick viaduct, and quite another to build that in reality.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jan 31, 2019 at 2:59 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

Everyone that wants to go underground keeps ignoring the HUGE question: what will be done with the dirt? It is already outrageously expensive and difficult to get rid of dirt here (nobody wants it). You can imagine what it will cost if funding is ever found to put in a tunnel or trench.


1 person likes this
Posted by Local Resident
a resident of Atherton: other
on Feb 6, 2019 at 2:57 pm

Your mayor is a visionary. Kudos to him for thinking big picture and collaborating with other communities (Palo Alto, Atherton, etc.) about a tunnel option. The question is how can this multi-billion dollar project get funded? IF it can, at least partially with local funds, then it has a chance.

The benefits of an underground option are tremendous:

- Multiple streets in Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto could remain as-is with no train conflict.
- Minimal surface disruption during construction (businesses and residents would be inconvenienced, only minimally).
- Noise and visual impacts eliminated. We cannot ignore the stress level that the train adds to our lives every day.
- The corridor could be used for other purposes, such as a bike trail.


2 people like this
Posted by No Easy Solutions
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Feb 6, 2019 at 10:23 pm

I thought MP's approach to grade separation was dysfunctional until I stumbled upon Palo Alto's discussion for their plan. That is a whole different level.


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Local Transit to the Rescue?
By Sherry Listgarten | 25 comments | 3,150 views

Morsey's Creamery brings buffalo-milk gelato to downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 11 comments | 2,052 views

"You Gotta Have Balls [to do counseling] . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,755 views

Eating Green on the Green – August 25
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,086 views

Lessons from visiting great grandma
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 259 views

 

Register now!

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.

More info