News

Residents launch referendum petition to keep ban on nonresidents at Foothills Park

Appeal would force city to restore 1965 policy at nature preserve, hold public vote

A group of residents has launched a referendum petition to reverse the City Council's decision on Nov. 2 to repeal a provision that prohibits non-residents from visiting Foothills Park. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

Palo Alto's recent decision to expand access to Foothills Park by welcoming nonresidents to the exclusive nature preserve is facing a challenge from a group of residents who are hoping to reverse it through a referendum.

If the referendum effort succeeds, the City Council would have to cancel its plan to open Foothills Park to nonresidents on Dec. 17. It would also likely revive the lawsuit against the city by a coalition that includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and residents from Palo Alto and neighboring cities over the exclusive nature of the 1,400-acre preserve where admission is currently limited to Palo Alto residents and their guests.

In challenging the 1965 law that restricts Foothills Park access, the plaintiff coalition has argued that it violates several fundamental rights of nonresidents, including the right to travel, the right to free speech and their right to free assembly. The Sept. 15 lawsuit also argues that the law "traces its roots to an era when racial discrimination in and around the City was open and notorious," citing the prevalence of blockbusting, redlining and racially restrictive covenants in home deeds.

Because these policies have kept many Black residents from purchasing homes in Palo Alto, the law on Foothills Park access "traces its roots to an era when racial discrimination in and around the City was open and notorious."

"The Ordinance perpetuates this historic exclusion and violates the constitutional rights of individuals who are not Palo Alto residents," the lawsuit states. "It bars non-residents from entering a public park that occupies nearly 10% of the land in Palo Alto. And it transforms this vast space into a preserve for the fortunate few: for people who were not systematically denied the right to reside in the City during the era of outright racial exclusion, and people who are wealthy enough to afford to move into the City today, as it has become one of the five most expensive places to live in the United States."

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Almanac Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

The council was preparing to gradually expand access to the preserve even before the lawsuit, though council members were planning to do it on a more limited and gradual basis. In August, the council approved a pilot program that would allow nonresidents to buy up to 50 permits per day to visit Foothills Park. The council also specified at that time that it intended to send the issue of nonresident access to the voters in November 2022.

But faced with the lawsuit, the council voted 5-2 on Nov. 2 to follow the advice of City Manager Ed Shikada and City Attorney Molly Stump and strike the ban on nonresidents from the municipal code. The council also agreed to limit park access to 750 visitors at any one time for the first 90 days (after that, the limit would revert to the current level of 1,000 visitors). Council members Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka both dissented, with Kou arguing that the lawsuit "circumvents the democratic process."

Now, Kou is supporting a citizen effort to overturn the action of the council majority. On Nov. 26, she sent out a mass email informing her supporters of the referendum drive and urging them to get involved.

Much like Kou had argued at the Nov. 2 meeting, supporters of the referendum are alleging that because the council made its decision to settle in a closed session, the council should suspend the policy change until a public vote.

Irina Beylin, who is gathering signatures for the referendum, told this news organization that she does not oppose Foothills Park to nonresidents. She said she supported the council's initial proposal for a one-year pilot program with limited nonresident permits and careful evaluation of impacts on the nature preserve.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

She strongly objected, however, to the council's Nov. 2 decision to scrap the provision based on a lawsuit. This, she said, creates a "slippery slope" in which other outside groups can pressure the city with lawsuits to overturn policies favored by the public.

She noted that even if the signature-gathering effort succeeds, it doesn't mean that the city will have to wait until November 2022 to welcome nonresidents. The council, she said, can simply revert to the pilot program that the council had initially approved through a public process.

"We have to do it openly and transparently. Nothing behind closed doors," Beylin told this publication.

The referendum petition similarly frames the issue as one transparency.

"The democratic process should be followed," the referendum petition states. "The current changes to Foothills Park Ordinance were approved by City Council behind closed doors without input from the public. The measure to open Foothills Park to General Public should be put on the ballot and details should be openly discussed with constituents."

As of Monday afternoon, proponents of the referendum have already gathered a "few hundred" signatures, Beylin said. They need to get more than 2,500 by the Dec. 16 deadline to force a referendum. With the pandemic raging across the nation and Santa Clara County recently adding new restrictions to contain the recent increase in COVID-19 cases, she knows the signature-gathering effort remains an uphill climb, particularly since local law requires all signatures to be gathered by hand. But she believes that if the council rescinds its Nov. 2 policy and instead moves ahead with a more gradual pilot program, it will have the added benefit of securing buy-in from more residents.

"When people see that the pilot program works, I'm positive that it would be overwhelmingly supported by Palo Alto residents to open the park, with certain conditions," Beylin said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Residents launch referendum petition to keep ban on nonresidents at Foothills Park

Appeal would force city to restore 1965 policy at nature preserve, hold public vote

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, Dec 2, 2020, 9:53 am

Palo Alto's recent decision to expand access to Foothills Park by welcoming nonresidents to the exclusive nature preserve is facing a challenge from a group of residents who are hoping to reverse it through a referendum.

If the referendum effort succeeds, the City Council would have to cancel its plan to open Foothills Park to nonresidents on Dec. 17. It would also likely revive the lawsuit against the city by a coalition that includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and residents from Palo Alto and neighboring cities over the exclusive nature of the 1,400-acre preserve where admission is currently limited to Palo Alto residents and their guests.

In challenging the 1965 law that restricts Foothills Park access, the plaintiff coalition has argued that it violates several fundamental rights of nonresidents, including the right to travel, the right to free speech and their right to free assembly. The Sept. 15 lawsuit also argues that the law "traces its roots to an era when racial discrimination in and around the City was open and notorious," citing the prevalence of blockbusting, redlining and racially restrictive covenants in home deeds.

Because these policies have kept many Black residents from purchasing homes in Palo Alto, the law on Foothills Park access "traces its roots to an era when racial discrimination in and around the City was open and notorious."

"The Ordinance perpetuates this historic exclusion and violates the constitutional rights of individuals who are not Palo Alto residents," the lawsuit states. "It bars non-residents from entering a public park that occupies nearly 10% of the land in Palo Alto. And it transforms this vast space into a preserve for the fortunate few: for people who were not systematically denied the right to reside in the City during the era of outright racial exclusion, and people who are wealthy enough to afford to move into the City today, as it has become one of the five most expensive places to live in the United States."

The council was preparing to gradually expand access to the preserve even before the lawsuit, though council members were planning to do it on a more limited and gradual basis. In August, the council approved a pilot program that would allow nonresidents to buy up to 50 permits per day to visit Foothills Park. The council also specified at that time that it intended to send the issue of nonresident access to the voters in November 2022.

But faced with the lawsuit, the council voted 5-2 on Nov. 2 to follow the advice of City Manager Ed Shikada and City Attorney Molly Stump and strike the ban on nonresidents from the municipal code. The council also agreed to limit park access to 750 visitors at any one time for the first 90 days (after that, the limit would revert to the current level of 1,000 visitors). Council members Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka both dissented, with Kou arguing that the lawsuit "circumvents the democratic process."

Now, Kou is supporting a citizen effort to overturn the action of the council majority. On Nov. 26, she sent out a mass email informing her supporters of the referendum drive and urging them to get involved.

Much like Kou had argued at the Nov. 2 meeting, supporters of the referendum are alleging that because the council made its decision to settle in a closed session, the council should suspend the policy change until a public vote.

Irina Beylin, who is gathering signatures for the referendum, told this news organization that she does not oppose Foothills Park to nonresidents. She said she supported the council's initial proposal for a one-year pilot program with limited nonresident permits and careful evaluation of impacts on the nature preserve.

She strongly objected, however, to the council's Nov. 2 decision to scrap the provision based on a lawsuit. This, she said, creates a "slippery slope" in which other outside groups can pressure the city with lawsuits to overturn policies favored by the public.

She noted that even if the signature-gathering effort succeeds, it doesn't mean that the city will have to wait until November 2022 to welcome nonresidents. The council, she said, can simply revert to the pilot program that the council had initially approved through a public process.

"We have to do it openly and transparently. Nothing behind closed doors," Beylin told this publication.

The referendum petition similarly frames the issue as one transparency.

"The democratic process should be followed," the referendum petition states. "The current changes to Foothills Park Ordinance were approved by City Council behind closed doors without input from the public. The measure to open Foothills Park to General Public should be put on the ballot and details should be openly discussed with constituents."

As of Monday afternoon, proponents of the referendum have already gathered a "few hundred" signatures, Beylin said. They need to get more than 2,500 by the Dec. 16 deadline to force a referendum. With the pandemic raging across the nation and Santa Clara County recently adding new restrictions to contain the recent increase in COVID-19 cases, she knows the signature-gathering effort remains an uphill climb, particularly since local law requires all signatures to be gathered by hand. But she believes that if the council rescinds its Nov. 2 policy and instead moves ahead with a more gradual pilot program, it will have the added benefit of securing buy-in from more residents.

"When people see that the pilot program works, I'm positive that it would be overwhelmingly supported by Palo Alto residents to open the park, with certain conditions," Beylin said.

Comments

sjtaffee
Registered user
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Dec 2, 2020 at 1:15 pm
sjtaffee, Menlo Park: The Willows
Registered user
on Dec 2, 2020 at 1:15 pm
3 people like this

Once again the so-called "liberals" of PA show that they are willing to take up NIMBY causes when it presented with anything that demonstrates that not everyone is as economically privileged as they are. The caste system is alive and well throughout our nation and yes, even in its so-called liberal enclaves. They are willing to shove all their heavy manufacturing jobs and toxic waste facilities into areas east of 101, but not to share the beautiful foothills west of it.


Tecsi
Registered user
another community
on Dec 2, 2020 at 2:11 pm
Tecsi, another community
Registered user
on Dec 2, 2020 at 2:11 pm
11 people like this

I don’t understand why a city who paid for the land, developed the park, maintained and maintains the park, should be forced to open it to others. And should Palo Alto choose to, it would reasonable to charge non-residents an entry fee to help cover the park’s costs.


pogo
Registered user
Woodside: other
on Dec 2, 2020 at 4:35 pm
pogo, Woodside: other
Registered user
on Dec 2, 2020 at 4:35 pm
6 people like this

How inclusive...


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 2, 2020 at 8:11 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 2, 2020 at 8:11 pm
6 people like this

Tecsi:

why should someone that owns beach front, paid for it and developed it be forced to allow others access to it? Sound familiar? It should, Martin's Beach. Bet you think people should have access to that beach don't you? Because it's what's right.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Dec 3, 2020 at 6:45 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Dec 3, 2020 at 6:45 am
5 people like this

Palo Alto paid far less than fair market value when it purchased the property for Foothill Park from Dr. Russell Lee's family:


"Palo Alto purchased Foothills Park from the family of Russel V. Lee in 1959 at a cost of $1,000 per acre."


Enough
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Dec 3, 2020 at 9:47 am
Enough, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Dec 3, 2020 at 9:47 am
6 people like this

Peter,

So what? The city may have gotten a good deal but why does that matter? They have paid for maintenance and improvements for the last 61 years. No one outside of Palo Alto paid for that. If Palo Alto must allow access to residents from other cities they should charge a $50 per car fee to help pay for the maintenance and improvement.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Dec 3, 2020 at 9:53 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
Registered user
on Dec 3, 2020 at 9:53 am
4 people like this

" Santa Clara County offered to cover about 40% of the cost ($500,000) in 1964, on the condition that the park be opened to all, but Palo Alto declined."

"In 2005, the county provided $2 million in grant funding to go towards the purchase of 13 additional acres of adjacent land, in exchange for which Palo Alto allowed anyone (nonresidents included) to freely pass through that area and enter Foothills Park, on trails from Arastradero Preserve."

Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.