Residents organize effort to keep nonresidents out of Foothills Park

Effort to reverse City Council decision comes a month after members voted to open the space to everyone

PALO ALTO >> A month after the City Council decided to open the exclusive Foothills Park to everyone, a group of residents is seeking to overturn the decision with a referendum.

The effort to reverse the council’s decision comes after members voted to open the residentsonly 1,400-acre nature preserve off Page Mill Road as part of a settlement with the NAACP and ACLU of Northern California. The two groups had sued the city of Palo Alto this summer alleging the park access policy is unconstitutional.

Now with the park set to open to non-Palo Altans on Dec. 17, a group of residents is petitioning to put the council’s decision to a public vote. It would target namely two sections, which call for opening the park to nonresidents with a maximum capacity of 1,000 persons, and another that says that for the first 90 days that the park is open, however, a temporary limit of 750 people at any time will be imposed.

The move to block the council comes after months of staunch opposition from a vocal segment of Palo Alto residents who believe the park should remain as is. Since the lawsuit from the ACLU forced the city to settle by opening the park to nonresidents, critics, who have organized the petition, believe the public should have a say.

“T he democratic process should be followed,” the petition says. “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.”

Saying she did not want Palo Alto’s name to be besmirched, Irina Beylin organized the petition to “stand up for our reputation” and open the park through a process led by the public. She said the council “caved in” to demands by interests outside Palo Alto after it had voted for a plan to open the park through a pilot program.

In order to successfully block

the council’s decision, Beylin and her supporters will need to gather 2,500 signatures by Dec. 16 — a day before the park is set to open to the general public. The ACLU has said that if the decision is blocked, litigation against the city over the restrictive policy will resume. The City Council could also opt to take the decision to voters as well, skirting the need for signatures, but the threat of litigation is likely to keep members from making that decision.

Beylin said she has already gathered “a few hundred signatures” and boasts the support of Councilwoman Lydia Kou, who has been a vocal skeptic of moves to open the park to nonresidents.

“It just becomes a bad precedent,” Beylin said. “We don’t want to move forward with a complete lack of transparency and not allow the public to be involved. A few years down the road when you open Foothills Park Wikipedia or Palo Alto Wikipedia all the lawsuit stuff will be there. We want to open and have it nice, but we don’t want our name to be associated with this lawsuit.”

Although it has remained intact despite off- and- on debate, the controversial park’s policy resurfaced this spring and intensified after the council refused to consider opening plans on several occasions this summer.

Since the restrictive policy went into effect 60 years ago, Foothills Park is believed to be the only publicly owned park in California that excludes out- of-towners unless accompanied as guests by city residents.

Past proposals to open the park have been beaten back by longtime Palo Alto residents who remember how the policy to exclude nonresidents came about: Palo Alto wanted to buy in to the nature preserve, but neighboring Los Altos and Los Altos Hills did not.

The latest debate was stirred amid a backdrop of social justice protests against systemic racism and police brutality. The ACLU and others scrutinized the policy only after the council refused to consider opening plans on several occasions this summer, including one plan by the city’s Parks and Recreation commission, which forced the resignation of a commissioner.

Gathering the signatures necessary will be a daunting task, but Beylin and about 20 other volunteers are canvassing for signatures.

“People are enthusiastic about it,” she said. “We want to open the park in a sensible manner and we want to preserve it for future generations, too. If we don’t open it up responsibly we will lose the preserve and we will get more issues.”

Mayor Adrian Fine, who has long opposed measures to continue restricting nonresidents from entering Foothills Park, said Palo Altans should not sign the petition. In the past, Fine has said the policy infringes on people’s rights and is an outdated law that keeps low-income people out unless they can afford to live in Palo Alto.

He said he did not agree that the city skirted a democratic process to open the park. The lawsuit, he said, forced the city into closeddoor negotiations and added that when considering a sensitive legal matter in public, making any comments could undermine the city and resident’s position.

“We considered that matter confidentially,” Fine said. “In this case, we had a few closed sessions on the items and multiple public sessions. There were hundreds of written and spoken comments the council reviewed and considered. The city even published a blog detailing all the meetings and a FAQ.”

Fine said the referendum petition could expose the city to more litigation.

“I discourage people from signing the petition because it would almost certainly resume the lawsuit which Palo Alto seems destined to lose on First Amendment grounds, and then we’d still have to open the park and pay their attorney’s fees,” Fine said.