I lived in Los Altos Hills for many decades and found it interesting that Los Altos Hills residents were not allowed in Foothills Park - but the Palo Alto residents who WERE allowed could access this park ONLY on Los Altos Hills roads. So LAH taxpayers maintained Palo Alto residents' ONLY access road, but LAH residents weren't allowed in the park. Remarkable!

Let me see - tit for tat? Palo Alto 'restricted park' Mountain View 'restricted shoreline'? Seems fair to me. $5 for a pass for me to git in Foothill, then $5 for a pass, for any Palo Alto resident to get in Shoreline (which WE PAID FOR btw).

Or be more reasonable Palo Alto elected leaders, don't listen to 'residentialists' who continue to encourage public policies from the past that really do (now) seem intended to encourage social/economic/racial segregation.

just another 'white privileged' property owner in MV

With some difficult decisions, like whether to hold or sell a stock, one can find guidance by taking the opposite approach - would I buy that stock today? If not, I should sell it. Applying that same philosophy to this situation, the question then becomes, if Palo Alto were opening Foothills as a new park today, would they choose to make it exclusive? I seriously doubt they would. Literally hundreds of parks have been opened on the peninsula since Foothills was and ALL are open to everyone. This one exception was retaliation against Los Altos Hills for not contributing.
All current arguments are hollow rationalizations with clear alternative solutions. The most obvious, that poor Palo Alto cannot afford staffing for more visitors, is for them to transfer the park to the county to operate. The character of Foothills is more consistent with a county park than a city park.
I hope the City Council members will view this clearly through the fog of arguments trying to maintain a status quo of exclusivity.