Town Square

Post a New Topic

Palo Alto agrees to add land to Foothills Park

Original post made on Mar 25, 2014

After three decades of languishing in obscurity, a flat parcel near Foothills Park is about to become the newest addition to Palo Alto's expanse of parkland and, quite possibly, a scenic entryway into the hilly preserve.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 12:53 AM

Comments (23)

Posted by Civic Microscope, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 25, 2014 at 6:26 am

Keep all eyes on this Arrillaga guy. They tried to sneak this one by us almost selling off 7.7 acres of OUR land to the developer for under 175!!!
Any land purchase in PA by Arrillaga should be, scrutinized to make sure he doesn't "sweetheart" his way into another theft, er, I mean land deal with the city like this one that almost happened

Posted by Gus L., a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 25, 2014 at 6:44 am

"a storage area for John Arrillaga"
How much was Ol' Mr. Potter paying the City for this Storage Area???
If the answer is Zero, The Council has some explaining to do..
Like the guy doesnt have enough property to store his own pile of stuff?

Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 25, 2014 at 9:04 am

During the discussion of this site Vice Mayor Kniss repeatedly commented with concern on a parking lot in Foothill Park. Note that the parking lot in question is in support of the Oak Gove large barbecue grove site that can be reserved for large parties. Since a lot of food and people are part of the festivities it makes sense that there is a parking lot in support of the Oak Grove site. The Oak Grove site is reserved through the park system and is very popular during the summer and fall. This is described in the Foothill Park Hiking Guide as the Oak Grove reserved group picnic area - west end of Las Tampas Valley - Available by reservation only. Parking within the park in total is designated on the Foothill Park map and guide available at the guard station at the entrance to the park.

As to parking for the newly added 7.7 acre site the area which has hard pan and gravel could be used as an additional parking area for people entering from that side of the park. This is consistent with Arastadero Preserve which has a parking area so this falls into the set of amenities required for the site.

Posted by parent, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 25, 2014 at 9:38 am

Car parking is a huge problem in Foothill Park on weekends. I hope the city can develop a family-friendly bicycle route into the park through this new parcel, from Alpine Road, which is more bicycle-friendly than Page Mill Road.

Posted by Crescent Park Mom, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 25, 2014 at 10:47 am

Mr Arrillaga - your star seems to have lost its shine in Palo Alto. Unfortunately, your reputation has changed such that residents are skeptical of your motives and see you more as a businessman rather than a philanthropist. I imagine this is very sad for you. Its the price you pay for success. Men who have done as well as you have, at some point, no longer have the privilege to conduct themselves as businessmen.

Your vision for Palo Alto isn't in line with its residents anymore. Its not personal. Its just a simple truth. Potentially anything you do in Palo Alto will be an uphill battle. Possible but painful. Maybe it makes more sense for you to focus on East Palo Alto where their need is greater and you can do more good. There is plenty of good work you can do there to improve the area for its residents and businesses. Maybe take a break from Palo Alto for awhile.

Posted by John A., a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Mar 25, 2014 at 10:54 am

Crescent Park Mom, I'll get right on it.

Posted by Resident Watching, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Mar 25, 2014 at 11:14 am

Thanks John. To be sure, we'll make sure to help you with that.

Posted by lindaloo, a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 25, 2014 at 11:32 am

Glad Geoffrey Paulsen was there and spoke up. I am old enough to remember Russell Lee, as well as several of his grandchildren -- and also when the gift was made and Foothills Park first opened. Of course the area s/b conserved as part of the park; it's a no-brainer. Consider the intention of the original gift.

Posted by Council rightwingers, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Mar 25, 2014 at 11:46 am

It was most instructive to watch the developer-devotees Klein, Price, Kniss and Shepherd try to delay and gut the plan. Their buddy Scharff was absent so they lost on a tie vote.
Imagine how far they will go to obstruct dedication of park land that we own.
Berman struggled to figure out how he could support his right wing mentor, Klein, but this was too much for him. I hope he crawls out from under that burden and uses his best judgement in the future.

Posted by another resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 25, 2014 at 12:03 pm

Mr. Arrillaga,

EPA is the future!

Except, you will have to cut down on the airplane noise. SFO has routed all traffic to EPA, EMP, actually via Palo Alto High School, so your friends in Atherton can rest easy and calm. Check out their maps.

Or, make sure you have SOUND PROOF structures, and forget terraces, unless you want to feel like you're working under an SFO runway.

Posted by jerry99, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 25, 2014 at 1:30 pm

First thing the City Council did that I agree with. More parks, NO MORE APARTMENTS, CONDOS, or HOUSES in Palo Alto. The idiotic new development that will be going up on 101 at the Airport should shut down all 101 south traffic completely and I see that Pete's Harbor has been granted a permit to build 411 apartments there, just next to 101 north, which should screw traffic up in that location too.
[Portion removed.]

Posted by Dan, a resident of Southgate
on Mar 25, 2014 at 4:03 pm

Gus L.: My understanding from previous articles is that Mr. Arrillaga was paying $1,250 per year. That doesn't seem very philanthropic. Who wrote that lease? Also, I understand Mr. Arrillaga dumped a lot of material there, like shards of marble. Perhaps Mr. Arrillaga should fund the clean-up of this tract as a demonstration of his philanthropic nature, as partial compensation for the years he rented the land cheaply, and because he trashed it.

Posted by watcher, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 25, 2014 at 4:19 pm

> "Keep all eyes on this Arrillaga guy."

It's not Arrillaga we have to watch, it's the city staff. If, as Keene claims, the "there was no way the City would entertain consideration of selling the property at that appraised price and that additional/offsetting parkland may need to be a factor, in addition to a higher sale price," why did one of his deputies draw up a REAL ESTATE CONTRACT AND RECEIPT FOR DEPOSIT – for a price of $175,000 -- on September 14, 2012? And then have a closed session meeting on September 18 with the city attorney to discuss the sale?

Posted by The price of liberty, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 25, 2014 at 4:48 pm

Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance. Some governments, like PA's, seem to require more watching than others. Especially when John Arrillaga has strings attached to his development " gifts".

Posted by badornato, a resident of Menlo Park
on Mar 25, 2014 at 6:20 pm

I am sad that most people dont read the newspaper anymore. or anything else about local news. the average citizen walking down the street with their iPhone doesn't know what is going on in their community.

I am also sad that Mr. Arrillaga tried to pull a fast one on all of us. Shame on him and sorry to see him sully his extraordinary record of philanthropy by low balling 175,000 for 7.7 acres of property. The deal stinks and so does the Palo Alto City Council for even considering this in closed doors at a time they were attempting a sweetheart deal on the property at Mc Arthur Park.

Time for a new City Council and manager.

Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 25, 2014 at 7:01 pm

During the discussion of the 7.7 acre site it was brought up that Acterra has 2 years remaining on their lease for a tree nursery. It was concluded that their presence on the site is approximately 1/4 acre. Mayor Sheppard in comments of the Acterra lease noted that their lease could be expanded for the full 7.7 acres. This is inconsistent with all of the discussion that was in process for this effort, including the comments provided by the residents.
That should not be considered as an option given the strong desire for the residents for this add-on which is the intention of the designation as open space preserve.

Posted by Neighbor, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 25, 2014 at 7:20 pm

[Post removed.]

Posted by another resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 25, 2014 at 11:23 pm

The price of liberty,

"Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance. Some governments, like PA's, seem to require more watching than others. Especially when John Arrillaga has strings attached to his development " gifts"."

Eternal vigilance "plus" for Palo Alto for sure.

Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 26, 2014 at 8:14 am

There are a number of outstanding issues related to the Open Space Preserve:
1. Incorporation of the 7.7 acres for best use. The hard pan can be used for parking - a necessity to keep people off of the roads. Note the Rancho San Antonio Preserve is a good example of Open Space usage, as well as Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Both are heavily used by the population. The parking area can be a staging area for group events - foothill runs, or disaster issues such as fires.
2. Mayor Shepherd noted deterioration on Buckeye Creek. Also note that Los Trancos Creek is a border of Foothill Park. Both Creeks need to be evaluated end to end to guarantee best conservation usage to support the general area. Diversion of creek water? Note what is happening here and correct it.
3. As part of the creek evaluations that should include the San Francisquito Creek going from the Searsville Dam downward through the border between Santa Clara and San Mateo counties and Palo Alto Golf Course and Baylands exit to the bay. There is a deterioration in the baylands due to lack of water coming down the creek. This is going to lead to flooding of homes and businesses in the lower PA area. Note that interested parties have business locations in a vulnerable area - think El Nino which is projected for the coming year. We all need to manage risk from top to bottom. The SCVDW identifies the creek as a flood control project requiring special government attention - FEMA, etc.
4. Funding for the soccer fields and golf course upgrade needs to be identified and budgeted. Delay in schedule will promote general deterioration of the site. Removing all of the trees on the PA golf course is counter productive, needless, and a waste of funding and resources. There should be community agreement on the projections being reviewed.

Posted by David, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2014 at 8:33 am

Crescent Park Mom and the other clueless posters,

Please know the facts before you convict a true philanthropist in an open forum that allows anonymity (hide your true identity behind a digital mask). Your true intentions shine through clearly, and for me I see nothing but bitterness and hate. So many assumptions and blind accusations fill this board on this land parcel subject it is embarrassing.

Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 27, 2014 at 11:05 am

David - you are as elusive as anyone else on this blog - you are hiding under a digital blog. I think people's intentions are very clear in that they want the land available and incorporated into the total Foothill Park environment.

I am also embarrassed by the kind of comments displayed here but they are typical of what you see in general in this forum. No one would put their name on or end up with their tires slashed.

People want their city council to follow logical and legal conclusions as to what the issues are -I heard nonsense up there. I think nonsense has been part of this whole situation going back to incompetence on the part of the CC - no forward planning and lack of awareness of the legal responsibilities and complications regarding the management of land dedicated to conservation requirements. That was a CYA action in process.

I have no hard feelings concerning the principal in this situation - in fact I admire that on different blogs people complain about the 1 million people who will descend on us - John's company is helping to build north San Jose to have a place for the projected 1 million people to work. I am very familiar with the overall location in general and this is a really great addition to the Silicon Valley business projections. I sit in on the Moffett Field Restoration Advisory Board Meetings so am aware of the challenges we have on the peninsula in general.

I went over to the Arastadero Preserve yesterday and took a look just inside the fence line and saw mounds of wood chips - someone is a chipper enthusiast but I see potential fire issue here. What I saw was not good.

Let's get on with the next big challenge which is the crude oil train shipments that will follow the Amtrak capital corridor route down the east bay to Santa Clara, San Jose and onward to Santa Maria - see the SJM 03/25/14 - Phillips 66 Plan Crude Oil Route Crosses Bay Area. That is traveling the route were the largest amount of building growth is taking place. This situation makes the whole lower bay vulnerable.
That train goes right through Alviso on its way south.

We need a lot of thought on how to confront that issue. All of you Open Space people put your collective hats on so that a clear, logical path is carved out as to how to handle this challenge. And a lot of risk management needs to be added to the overall building in process in that general area.
Possibly a legal challenge by the collective cities who are vulnerable.

Posted by curmudgeon, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 27, 2014 at 11:29 am

" My understanding from previous articles is that Mr. Arrillaga was paying $1,250 per year. That doesn't seem very philanthropic."

It is when you realize the residents of Palo Alto were being unwitting philanthropists.

Posted by resident 1, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 27, 2014 at 11:32 am

Comment on above - in El Segundo the oil was transported by ship - this was the Chevron facility. There was always a ship off Manhattan Beach. The oil in question should be transported by ship to Santa Maria from the state of Washington port and bypass the northern California cities.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The dress code
By Jessica T | 26 comments | 2,073 views

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,449 views

Two Days to Save This Dog?
By Cathy Kirkman | 15 comments | 1,278 views

It Depends... Disguising Real Characters in Fiction
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 420 views

Twenty-five years of wedded bliss
By Sally Torbey | 0 comments | 112 views