Agenda packet, regular meeting, fourth session — Los Altos City Council, January 11, 2022

Agenda
1-11-22 AGENDA (AMENDED 01.05.2022).PDF
Meeting Materials
COMPLETE PACKET (01.11.2022).PDF
COUNCIL Q AND A FOR STUDY SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING.PDF

INFORMATIONAL ITEM ONLY - TENTATIVE COUNCIL CALENDAR
(01.03.2022).PDF
ITEM 1. DRAFT MINUTES 12.14.2021 (AMENDED 01.11.2022).PDF ITEM 2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 2

WITH ALTA PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR COMPLETE STREETS MASTER PLAN.PDF
ITEM 2. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE (ADDED 01.06.2022).PDF
ITEM 3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH BELLECCI AND ASSOCIATES, INC.PDF
ITEM 4. LOS ALTOS SUMMER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM.PDF
ITEM 5. EXTENSION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY.PDF
ITEM 6. REQUEST WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT - AGENDA ITEM
REMOVED.PDF
ITEM 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT DOG PARKS.PDF
ITEM 7. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE (ADDED 01.06.2022).PDF
ITEM 7. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE (ADDED 01.11.2022).PDF
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (01.06.2022).PDF

1. Documents:

1.I.

Documents:

AMENDED 01.05.2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2021 – 7:00 P.M.

Please Note: Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the City Council will meet via Telephone/Video Conference only.

Members of the Public may join and participate in the Council meeting at https://webinar.ringcentral.com/j/1494194672
TO PARTICIPATE VIA THE LINK ABOVE - Members of the public will need to have a working microphone on their device and must have the latest version of Ringcentral available at this link http://www.ringcentral.com/download.html. To request to speak please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen.

TO PARTICIPATE VIA TELEPHONE - Members of the public may also participate via telephone by calling 1-650-242-4929 (Meeting ID: 149 419 4672). Press * 9 on your telephone to indicate a desire to speak.

Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. Once called to speak, speakers will be asked to state their name and place of residence. Providing this information is optional.

TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS, prior to the meeting, on matters listed on the agenda email [email protected] with the subject line in the following format:

PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM ## - MEETING DATE.

Emails sent to the above email address are sent to/received immediately by the City Council.

Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure it can be distributed prior to the meeting. Correspondence received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record.

Please follow this link for more information on submitting written comments.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
AMENDED 01.05.2022
AGENDA
January 11, 2022
City Council Meeting

Page 2 of 3 ends

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA - Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. Speakers are generally given two or three minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period. According to State Law (also known as “the Brown Act”) items must first be noticed on the agenda before any discussion or action.

CONSENT CALENDAR - These items will be considered by one motion unless any member of the Council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.

1. City Council Minutes: Approve the Minutes of the December 14, 2021, Regular City Council Meeting. (A. Chelemengos)

2. Professional Services Agreement Amendment: Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Alta Planning + Design for Complete Streets Master Plan in a not-to-exceed amount of $14,000 for a total contract value of $179,426; and find that the amendment is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. (M. Lee)

3. Professional Services Agreement Amendment: Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Bellecci and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $120,090 for consulting and support services for various engineering tasks for FY 2021-2022. (T. Nguyen)

4. Los Altos Summer Internship Program: Approve the program outlined in the Los Altos Summer Internship Program and authorize program implementation. (I. Silipin)

5. Extension of Local Emergency: Adopt Resolution extending the declaration of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (J. Maginot)
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None

DISCUSSION ITEMS

6. Item removed from agenda per applicants request 01.05.2022

7. Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks: Consider development of one fenced-in dog park in north Los Altos located adjacent to the Civic Center Soccer Field and one fencedin dog park in south Los Altos at McKenzie Park West; make findings that the (Project) is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) , 15301, 15304, and 15305; that none of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 to the availability of the foregoing categorical exemptions applies to the Project; and direct the City Manager or designee to prepare and file a notice of exemption in connection with this project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062 and increase the current fiscal year budget by $100,000 allocated from Park in Lieu funds. If approved by Council, staff will return with changes to the City’s Municipal Code, policies and procedures, and appropriate findings as required. (D.

Legge/M. Hernandez)
AMENDED 01.05.2022
AGENDA
January 11, 2022
City Council Meeting

Page 3 of 3 ends

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
• Tentative Council Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
(Council Norms: It will be the custom to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Prior to the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.)

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947-2610.

Agendas Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/online/index.html.

All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk’s Office, City of Los Altos, located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record.

AMENDED 01.05.2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2021 – 7:00 P.M.

Please Note: Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the City Council will meet via Telephone/Video Conference only.

TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS, prior to the meeting, on matters listed on the agenda email [email protected] with the subject line in the following format:

PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM ## - MEETING DATE.

Emails sent to the above email address are sent to/received immediately by the City Council.

Please follow this link for more information on submitting written comments.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
AMENDED 01.05.2022
AGENDA
January 11, 2022
City Council Meeting

Page 2 of 3 ends

1. City Council Minutes: Approve the Minutes of the December 14, 2021, Regular City Council Meeting. (A. Chelemengos)

4. Los Altos Summer Internship Program: Approve the program outlined in the Los Altos Summer Internship Program and authorize program implementation. (I. Silipin)

5. Extension of Local Emergency: Adopt Resolution extending the declaration of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (J. Maginot)
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None

DISCUSSION ITEMS

6. Item removed from agenda per applicants request 01.05.2022

Legge/M. Hernandez)
AMENDED 01.05.2022
AGENDA
January 11, 2022
City Council Meeting

Page 3 of 3 ends

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
• Tentative Council Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Agendas Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/online/index.html.

If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

The following is public comment received by the City Clerk’s Office. Members of the public may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. Please be advised that, according to State law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period.

Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy.

From: Pat Marriot
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item not on agenda Jan 11, 2021 public ethics Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 4:46:54 PM
Council Members,
For the record, my op-ed (below) was published in the Palo Alto Daily Post on December 16, 2021 under the headline, “Bias clouded council’s vote on theater.” The issue is relevant beyond the theater vote.

Pat Marriott
Ethics and the Public Trust
In recent years political discourse has devolved to the point where laws – codified and seemingly clear cut – are interpreted according to a politician’s needs.

But what of ethics, far more ambiguous than laws?
I was prompted to explore public ethics when the Los Altos city council voted 3 – 2 to approve a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a residents’ theater working group (TWG). The city agreed to hold a downtown parking plaza five years as a potential site for a new theater while the group tries to raise funds for a feasibility study.

Former Mayor Fligor has lobbied relentlessly for a theater since January 2021, when she pressed for a council objective to support the TWG. She emphasized no city money or staff would be required. Other council members argued a theater is not a city asset nor part of the city’s infrastructure, but Fligor won deciding votes from Councilmembers Weinberg and Meadows, who also voted for the MOU.

Fligor addressed the TWG at its first meeting saying she had met them before or “you’re a dear friend.” She noted she and the group’s leader “go way back. ... I know her family well” and she “would not be on Council today if it were not for [another group member].” The local paper published an article headlined, “Mayor Neysa Fligor last week expressed support for building a new theater downtown.” It reported a Chamber of Commerce meeting where she said, “a theater would provide so many benefits to the entire community. For me, it’s a win-win.”
Yet the TWG admits that a theater will never be self-supporting and they will ultimately look to the city for financial support.

The group lobbied council members, commissioners and business owners, but did no public outreach. At a meeting summarizing lobbying efforts, one member reported on her “great meeting” with Councilman Weinberg: “He’s a strong proponent. It’s fun to talk to a councilperson so positive to make this happen. … Jon has coached us. … He wanted to be cutting the ribbon for the theatre. That’s how excited he is.” Residents voiced concerns about Fligor’s and Weinberg’s advocacy before the proposal came to Council. Acknowledging those concerns but ignoring their gravity, Fligor said, “The key for myself and other council members is that we are fair and open minded when it comes to us. I still would approach it with an open and fair mind.”
The city attorney said officials can have strong opinions as long as there’s no financial gain.

That’s the law. What about ethics? I looked to the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics for guidance. https://tinyurl.com/MCAethics
When we vote for public officials, we assume they will represent all constituents and make decisions for the common good. We expect them to be trustworthy, to act with transparency and to keep an open mind before making decisions. Fairness demands all opinions be heard without preconceived bias.

Conflict of interest – or the perception of conflict of interest –favoring friends or private groups tells the public their vote, their opinion, doesn’t count.

Fligor bumped TWG to the head of the line for Council consideration. The planning and financial commissions never weighed in on land use and fiscal impacts. Yet the city faces a $25 million budget shortfall with multiple priority projects unfunded.

Los Altos ethics guidelines say, “Public service ethics is not only about doing the right thing, but also about the public’s confidence that indeed the right thing has been done.” Fligor’s and Weinberg’s obvious support for a special-interest group has eroded public confidence. They, and all public officials, would do well to remember the law is a floor, not a ceiling, for public service ethics.

From: Pat Marriot
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item not on agenda January 11,2022 Cities Association Board Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 2:28:59 PM
Council Members,
I offer, for the record, my letter to the Town Crier, which was published in the online edition January 5, 2022. Councilwoman Fligor’s power grab, backed by Councilmembers Weinberg and Meadows, violates tradition and fair play and brings shame on our city. Fligor should be embarrassed to attend the board meetings, knowing she has usurped Mayor Enander’s rightful place.

Enander deserves mayor’s board seat
Los Altos City Councilmember Neysa Fligor’s insistence on keeping her seat on the Cities Association Board of Directors was inappropriate and divisive. She claimed she has to stay to continue work on the diversity and justice subcommittee and the transition to a joint powers authority.

Mayor Anita Enander is supremely qualified in those areas and would contribute greatly to the discussions. If she took her rightful place on the board of 15 mayors, Fligor would still keep her seat on the Executive Board, which is a separate entity. And it’s the Executive Board that’s responsible for continuity, since many cities change mayors every year. That rotation benefits cities and residents, with each mayor bringing new experience and talent to the board.

Fligor said, “I can’t emphasize how important it is for me to continue serving.” Important to her? Of course. But not to the residents of Los Altos or to the Cities Association.

What’s important is teamwork, respect and integrity. Denying Mayor Enander the seat is an insult to her, to long-standing city policy, and to Los Altos residents.

We expect fair play from our elected representatives. Holding public office should not be a way of fulfilling one’s personal agenda.

Pat Marriott
Los Altos
From: Couture, Terri
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: City Council meeting Jan 11, 2022 for Items not on the agenda Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 7:28:22 PM
Dear City Council, city staff and members of the public The new Los Altos mayor Anita Enander should serve on the board of the City Associations of Santa Clara County.

However, Neysa Fligor begged to continue in that position, even though she is no longer mayor, thus breaking a 12-year tradition of the current mayor serving on the board.

Why did Fligor discount and disregard this tradition?
Why did Fligor push to stay?
In Fligor’s November 23, 2021 letter to the public she touted civility and cooperation. She spoke of respect and tradition. Her actions speak louder than her insincere platitudes. She seeks division when there should be cooperation.

Councilmembers Weinberg and Meadows, who voted against Mayor Enander serving on the board, can remedy this decision by revisiting their votes.

The council is supposed to take care of the citizens of Los Altos, not pursue selfish endeavors.

Sincerely yours,
Terri Couture
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2021
Held Via Video/Teleconference Per California Executive Order N-29-20.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Enander called the meeting to order.

ESTABLISH QUORUM

Present: Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadow, Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, and Weinberg

Absent: None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Diya Venuprakash, of Girl Scout Troop 60078, led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Name of Case: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/b AT&T Mobility v. City of Los Altos; United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. 5.20-CV-294-SVK

2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Name of Case: GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS v. City of Los Altos; United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. 5:20-CV-386-CV Mayor Enander reported that the Council held a Closed Session earlier in the evening and stated that no action was taken and there was nothing to report out.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes made. City Manager Engeland provided and explanation on the removal of Agenda Item #12.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Duncan MacMillan, Jon Baer, and Scott Spielman (with time ceded from Janey Corrigan and Terri Couture) provided comments.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 2 of 7 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. City Council Minutes: Approve the Minutes of the November 30, 2021, and December 7, 2021, Regular City Council Meetings (A. Chelemengos)

3. 2022 City Council Meeting Schedule: Adopt 2022 City Council meeting schedule and receive 2022 Commission meeting schedules (A. Chelemengos)

4. Contract Award: Structural Reach Replacement, Project WW-01002 to Bellecci & Associates, Inc.: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement on behalf of the City with Bellecci & Associates, Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $176,574 and up to a 10% design and construction support contingency amount of $17,657 for a total of up to $194,231 to provide design and consulting services for the Structural Reach Replacement Project WW-01002 - Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (b) (A.

Trese)

5. Professional Services Agreement - Access Control System for Police Department:

Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with The Flying Locksmiths of Sacramento in an amount not to exceed $114,132 for installation of Openpath Access Control System (ACS) for the Police Department. (A. Tseng)

6. Halsey House Funding Appropriation: Authorize appropriation of $250,000 from the Park In-Lieu Fund to Project CF-01004 for mothballing of the Halsey House - Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15331 Class 31 (A. Fairman)

7. Purchasing Policy Update: Review and adopt the revised purchasing policy and adopt Resolution No. 2021-60 Establishing Certain Monetary Limits For Purposes Of Purchasing (J. Furtado)

8. Funding of the City’s Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB): Adopt Resolution 2021-61 authorizing and directing the transfer of $1.5 million to CALPERS to invest in the City’s California Employers’ Retirement Benefit Trust (CERBT) (J. Furtado)

9. CALPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability Paydown: Adopt Resolution No. 2021-62 approving the transfer of $5 million to CALPERS to pay down the City’s unfunded accrued liability. (J. Furtado)

10. 2022 City Council Assignments: Accept the Mayor’s appointments to local and regional boards and Council Committees for 2022 (A. Chelemengos) 10A Side Letter Agreement: Adopt Resolution 2021-63: A Side Letter Agreement between City of Los Altos & Sanitary Truck Drivers and Helpers Union Local #350 (“TEAMSTERS”); Side Letter Agreement of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (I. Silipin) Item added 12.10.2021
Council Member Lee Eng requested Consent Calendar Item 2. Housing Services Agreement be removed from the Consent Calendar.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 3 of 7 ends

Both Council Member Fligor and Weinberg requested that Consent Calendar Item # 10 2022 City Council Assignments, be remove from the Consent Calendar.

In addition, Council Member Weinberg requested that Consent Calendar Item 6 be acted on separately.

Mayor Enander announced the Consent Calendar Item would be heard immediately following the Consent Calendar and that Consent Calendar Item 10 would be considered following Agenda Item 11.

Council Member Fligor moved to approve Consent Calendar Items 1, 3-5 and 7, 8, 9 and 10A.

The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Council Member Fligor moved to approve Consent Calendar Item 6. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lee Eng and the motion passed 4-1 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander NOES: Council Member Weinberg
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

2. Housing Services Agreement: Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Three-Year Agreement with Alta Housing (Formerly Palo Alto Housing) for Housing Services in a Not to Exceed Amount of $195,000. (J. Biggs) Council Member Lee Eng stated that she would like this matter tabled until an agency report has been provided and reviewed containing such information as services, number of units charged with, any violations, sales data, turnover rates, and data relative to program qualification/validations.

Mayor Enander called for public comment.

Terri Couture provided comments
Council discussion commenced.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 4 of 7 ends

Mayor Enander moved to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a three-year agreement with Alta Housing (Formerly Palo Alto Housing) for Housing Services in a not to exceed amount of $195,000. The motion was seconded by Council Member Fligor and the motion passed 4-0-1 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor and Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Council Member Lee Eng
Mayor Enander moved that Council direct staff to request a report from Alta Housing to be brought to Council within 60 days. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None

DISCUSSION ITEMS

11. Objective Standards for Single Family Residences: Consider and find the project exempt from review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308 and adopt Resolution No 2021-57 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos establishing Objective Standards for Single Family Residences to implement Senate Bill 9
Associate Planner Jia introduced the matter and offered to answer Council questions.

While staff retrieved the associated documents, Mayor Enander called for public comment. The following individuals commented: Peter Mills, Mehruss Ahi, Jon Baer, Roberta Phillips, Joe Beninato, Salar Safai, Jeanine Valdez, Monica Waldman.

Assistance City Attorney Ramakrishnan provided and overview of the proposed Objective Standards. Council discussion commenced and various minor edits, clarifications, and typographical corrections were made.

At 8:58 p.m., Mayor Enander called for a brief recess. At 9:10 p.m., Mayor Enander reconvened the meeting.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 5 of 7 ends

At the conclusion of Council discussion, Council Member Lee Eng moved that the Council find the project to be exempt from review under CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308 and adopt Resolution No 2021-57 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos establishing Objective Standards for Single Family Residences to implement Senate Bill 9.

The motion was seconded by Council Member Weinberg and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

10. 2022 City Council Assignments: Accept the Mayor’s appointments to local and regional boards and Council Committees for 2022
Council Member Fligor stated she wanted to remove the matter to request that she continue her assignment on the Santa Clara County Cities Association – Board of Directors to continue her work on matters that have not yet concluded.

Council Member Weinberg stated that, with Council Member Fligor’ s agreement, he would like to request that he be assigned as the City representative to the City/CUSD/FUSD School Issues Subcommittee and Council Member Fligor be assigned to the City/LASD Schools Issues Subcommittee. Council Member Fligor was agreeable to the requested change. Council Member Weinberg also expressed concern with the Legislative Subcommittee assignments and the committee’s standing status opposed to an ad hoc committee.

Mayor Enander expressed her desire and anticipation to serve on the Santa Clara County Cities Association – Board of Directors and noted the position being traditionally filled by the Mayor.

Council discussion commenced.

Vice Mayor Meadows moved to approve the Committee/Commission assignments for the Council Members with the change to representatives for the School Subcommittees, as suggested by Council Member Weinberg and accepted by Council Member Fligor, (described above) and excluding assignment to the Santa Clara Cities Association Board of Directors primary and Alternate. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lee Eng and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 6 of 7 ends

Following additional Council discussion, Council Member Fligor moved that the Council reappoint Council Member Fligor to the Santa Clara County Cities Association Board of Directors, as primary, for a period of 6 months. The motion was seconded by Council Member Weinberg and the motion passed 3-2 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Weinberg and Vice Mayor Meadows NOES: Council Member Lee Eng and Mayor Enander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Council Member Weinberg moved that the Council appoint Mayor Enander as the alternate to the Santa Clara County Cities Board of Directors for a period of 6 months. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
.

13. American Rescue Plan Act Expenditures: Discuss potential uses of the American Rescue Plan Act dollars; identify projects or programs for which American Rescue Plan Act dollars can be used, if any, and provide direction to staff as necessary.

Deputy City Manger Maginot provided a staff report and answered questions from the Council.

Mayor Enander called for public comments. The following individuals commented: Gary Hedden, Roberta Phillips, Elizabeth Ward (Executive Director at Los Altos History Museum), and Jeanine Valdez.

Following Council discussion, Vice Mayor Meadows moved that the Council authorize the use of the American Rescue Plan Act funds as outlined on page four (4) of the December 14, 2021, Staff Report and defer discussion of the use of the remaining funds (approximately $291,499 currently in the General Fund) until the Council retreat. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lee Eng and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 7 of 7 ends

14. Tentative Council Calendar: Conduct Quarterly Review of Tentative Council Calendar and provide direction to staff.

City Clerk Chelemengos provide a brief report and offered to answer questions.

The Council reviewed the Tentative Calendar and identified items to be removed and clarified.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
• None

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Council Member Weinberg, with support from Council Member Meadows and Fligor requested that the matter of BMR Incentives as well as a discussion regarding a clarification letter be sent from the City Council to Assemblymember Berman and Senator Becker requesting clarification of certain SB 9 mandates and related issues created to the discussion at the upcoming Council retreat.

There was also a majority of the Council that supported an item on a future agenda to discuss expansion of the Housing Element Outreach Subcommittee

ADJOURNMENT
At 11:14 p.m., Mayor Enander adjourned the meeting.
____________________________
Anita Enander MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Andrea M. Chelemengos MMC, CITY CLERK

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item # 2
Reviewed By:

Interim City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Subject: Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Amendment #2 for Professional Services Agreement with Alta Planning + Design for Complete Streets Master Plan; find that the amendment is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Prepared by: Marisa Lee, Transportation Services Manager Reviewed by: James Sandoval, Engineering Services Director Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment: Memo from Alta Planning + Design
Initiated by: Transportation Division
Previous Council Consideration:

City Council Project Award on May 12, 2020, Agenda Item #5 Fiscal Impact:

Amendment #2 will cost the not-to-exceed amount of $14,000 from the Annual Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Improvements Project (TS-01052). Sufficient funds are available within the approved CIP budget. A fund transfer is not requested.

Funding Source: CIP Fund
TDA
Article
III
Traffic
Impact
Fees Total
Project: Annual Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Improvements # TS-01052
Project balance from prior Years 336,506 0 0 336,506
Current Year Budget 350,000 50,000 100,000 500,000
Expended to date (32,552) (32,552)
Encumbered to date (15,426) (50,000) (67,448) (132,874) Current request (14,000) (14,000)
Balance Available $657,080 $0 $0 $657,080
The City awarded a contract to Alta Planning + Design on May 12, 2020 in the amount of $165,426 for development of the Complete Streets Master Plan (CSMP). The project was reviewed at a Subject: Amendment #2 for Professional Services Agreement with Alta Planning + Design for Complete Streets Master Plan
January 11, 2021 Page 2
Study Session on November 9, 2021, where Council received an overview of the project and provided feedback. At that time the project was on budget, with an amount of remaining budget reserved to facilitate a final round of revisions after comments from the City Council and the public review period. This City Council Study Session resulted in feedback that would require substantive changes to the structure of the CSMP, as well as an additional future Council Study Session requested by the Council, which would require additional budget outside of what was reserved for finalization of the report.

Amendment #2 will expand the total contract value to $179,426.

Environmental Review:

The CSMP project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15262 – Feasibility and Planning Studies, §15301 (c) – Existing Facilities, § 15304 (e) - Minor Alterations to Land, §15306- Information Collection, §15322 – Educational or Training Programs Involving No Physical Changes. The Amendment is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendment to the Contract would have no environmental impacts and none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 applies.

Summary:

Additional service is required to conduct a comprehensive update to the Complete Streets Master Plan (CSMP) as well as return for an additional future Study Session requested by the Council.

Additional work scope is funded through CIP TS-01052, Annual Bicycle / Pedestrian Access Improvements.

Background
The Draft Complete Streets Master Plan establishes a community supported long-term vision for improving walking and bicycling in Los Altos by updating the previous Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. The CSMP provides a strategy to develop a comprehensive bicycling and walking network to provide access to transit, schools, and Downtown alongside support facilities like bicycle parking and pedestrian amenities. These network improvements are paired with education, encouragement, and evaluation programs. The document identifies a plan to implement these projects and programs through prioritization and phasing to ensure implementation is manageable and fundable.

The CSMP process was initiated in May of 2020 to merge and update the City’s existing bicycle plan and pedestrian plan, as well as expand Safe Routes to School programs and infrastructure recommendations. The project is expected to be completed in the Spring of 2022. City Staff and Subject: Amendment #2 for Professional Services Agreement with Alta Planning + Design for Complete Streets Master Plan
January 11, 2021 Page 3
Alta Planning + Design have received comments from the Complete Streets Commission, City Council, the Climate Action Planning Commission, as well as residents. Public comment period was open from October through December of 2021. Mailers were sent to households city-wide to solicit feedback. Ads were placed in the Town Crier and the Draft CSMP was publicized through the City Manager’s email update. Over 150 comments have been logged.

A contract in the amount of $165,426 was approved between the City of Los Altos and Alta Planning + Design on May 12, 2020 at a City Council Meeting.

Amendment #1 extended the project schedule and was approved by the City Manager in November 2021.

Discussion/Analysis
Alta can complete the majority of suggested text edits submitted by the City Council, the Complete Streets Commission, and public members; however, an additional fee is needed to satisfy more considerable out-of-scope revisions. Alta has provided additional value throughout the process by completing tasks not currently budgeted. A few examples include:
• Expanded project website beyond the contract scope with events calendar where users can add items to their calendar systems.
• Met with a property owner during the Loyola Corners Concept Plan Line Drawing development.
• Prepared and presented at an 11th Complete Streets Commission Meeting (ten meetings scoped).
• Developed the Los Altos Loop as an overarching implementation strategy on top of the prioritization process.

In the attached memo, Alta has put together three alternatives for addressing comments:
• Option A, which completes the Final Plan with remaining budget, including text edits and the addition of an executive summary, no additional fee • Option B, which includes text edits, executive summary, adds new network improvements, and additional City Council Study Session for $6,000.
• Option C, which covers a comprehensive update including text edits, executive summary, network improvement additions, glossary of terms, complete streets design guide, and additional City Council Study Session for $14,000.

Subject: Amendment #2 for Professional Services Agreement with Alta Planning + Design for Complete Streets Master Plan
January 11, 2021 Page 4
Additionally, Alta has listed optional tasks independently as an alternative methodology for choosing individual additions. These items include Executive Summary, Glossary, Network Changes, Complete Streets Design Guide, and Additional Council Meeting for independent amounts.

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment #2 with the authorization of work scope in Option C of the attached memo so that a comprehensive update, incorporating all comments and feedback, may be completed in updating the draft CSMP. This option also allows for the additional future Study Session requested by Council.

Project Option Project Budget
Original Contract $165,426.00
Add-on: Option A $0.00
Total with Option A $165,426.00
Add-on: Option B $ 6,000.00
Total with Option B $171,426.00
Add-on: Option C $ 14,000.00
Total with Option C $179,426.00
ATTACHMENT 1

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Los Altos
To: Marisa Lee, City of Los Altos
From: Jeff Knowles, Alta
Date: December 9, 2021
Re: Los Altos Complete Streets Plan Scope Change #2
Scope Amendment #2
This memo presents options for expanding Alta’s scope of work to accommodate suggested edits to the Draft Complete Streets Master Plan and deliver a final plan.

Purpose
Alta can complete the majority of suggested text edits submitted by the City Council, the Complete Streets Commission, and public members; however, an additional fee is needed to satisfy more considerable out-of-scope revisions. Alta has provided additional value throughout the process by completing tasks not currently budgeted. A few examples include:
• Expanded project website beyond the contract scope with events calendar where users can add items to their calendar systems.
• Met with a property owner during the Loyola Corners Concept Plan Line Drawing development. • Prepared and presented at an 11th Complete Streets Commission Meeting (ten meetings scoped). • Developed the Los Altos Loop as an overarching implementation strategy on top of the prioritization process.

Proposed Amendment Options
To accommodate the suggested edits to the Draft Complete Streets Master Plan, Alta presents three options for the City to consider with respective fee implications.

Option A: No Budget Change
Option A completes a Final Plan with the remaining budget (no amendment needed) and adds an executive summary that is not previously budgeted or scoped. This option makes the majority of suggested text edits and fixes legibility issues but does not include a glossary of terms, the addition of new projects, a design guide for Complete Streets treatments on typological roadways, or attending the third meeting with City Council (two are currently scoped).

ATTACHMENT 1

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Los Altos
Option B: Minor Budget Change
Option B completes a Final Plan addressing all the items in Option A. In addition, Option B includes Alta time to evaluate and add new projects to the network map and associated tables, compute new cost estimates, re-run prioritization, and amend the respective Appendix tables. Alta will also add one additional meeting with City Council (not currently scoped or budgeted) under this option.

Option C: Comprehensive Update
Option C completes a Final Plan addressing all the Option A and Option B items. In addition, Option C includes Alta time to develop a glossary of terms and a design guide for retrofitting existing street typologies in Los Altos to include Complete Streets elements.

Please note that none of these options includes a fee for another round of revisions following a second City Council Study Session. Additional contingency may be considered.

Table 1. The proposed scope of work modifications
Option Task Name Original Deliverables Modified Scope of Work Fee A

2.4 Plan
Development
• Final Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
• Alta will complete minor text edits to the Draft
Plan.
• Alta will add a visual legend for bikeways at
critical points in the document (e.g., Appendix
B: Bikeway Recommendations).
• Alta will fix legibility issues with tables and
concept plans.
• Alta will add an Executive Summary (not
currently scoped or budgeted).
• Alta will continue to meet monthly with City
staff beyond the originally scheduled end date.

No Change

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Los Altos
Option Task Name Original Deliverables Modified Scope of Work Fee B

2.4 Plan
Development
• Final Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
• Alta will complete everything listed in Option A,
PLUS:
• Alta will evaluate and add new projects to the
network map and associated tables, compute
new cost estimates, re-run prioritization, and
amend the respective Appendix tables.
• $4,000

5.2 Stakeholder
Engagement
• Alta will attend and
support staff at two
(2) City Council
meetings to present
the draft plan at one
Study Session and the
final plan for adoption
or approval at one
Council Meeting.
• Alta will attend one additional City Council
Study Session AND one City Council meeting.
• Alta will prepare an additional presentation to
City Council (not currently scoped or budgeted)
to document changes from the first Study
Session).
• $2,000
C

2.4 Plan
Development
• Final Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
• Alta will complete everything listed in Option A
and B, PLUS:
• Alta will develop a glossary of terms.
• Alta will develop a design guide for retrofitting
existing street typologies in Los Altos to include
Complete Streets elements.
• $12,000

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Los Altos
Table 2. Proposed fee modifications
Option Revised Fee
A No Change
B $6,000
C $14,000
Optional Tasks
The following could be added to Alta’s scope of work individually or in a combination not presented in the options above.

Optional Task Fee
Executive Summary $1,500
Glossary of Terms $2,000
Changes to Network Recommendations $4,000
Complete Streets Design Guide $6,000
Additional Council Meeting $2,000
Contingency* $5,000
*Contingency for an additional round of revisions following a second City Council Study Session. The options presented do not account for completing another round of edits beyond what has been collected to date.

Proposed Timeline
Option A
February 2022 Alta makes revisions and delivers Final Draft to City Staff ATTACHMENT 1

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
From: Jim Wing
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 02-MEETING DATE 01-11-2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:37:20 AM
Los Altos Mayor Enander and Distinguished Council Members, Subject: Council 01-11-22 Meeting Agenda Item 2, Professional Services Agreement for CSMP
Please continue this agenda item and request Staff to add items to make Draft CSMP holistic by adding following traffic congestion items.

Traffic impact on neighborhoods caused by increased number of housing units.

This item has been requested by two Council Members, CSC members, and public.

Most likely neighborhoods to be impacted are: Sherwood Triangle, Loyola Corners, Woodland, Homestead, and First Street between Main and Cuesta [ 161 units approved / in planning review]. CSMP will help make better staff decisions for making Whitney one-way to eliminate visibility restricted turns to First. Is placing a park on city owned property in the middle of heavily traffic congested Loyola Corners safe? Cut-thru AM and PM commuters who jump off congested expressway / arterial’s and use Los Altos residential streets as a bypass. Covid has somewhat mitigated this problem in the past couple years, but it will be over sometime in the future and residential streets will again be used as congestion bypass.

Draft CSMP is a good plan for getting Los Altos residents to leave cars at home and bike or walk. It now needs to be made holistic so that Los Altos has a mitigation plans for increased number of housing units and our residential streets being used for “AM / PM commuters congestion bypass. Cut-thru commuters will not be deterred by having great walking / biking streets since they are only passing thru Los Altos and have a long drive ahead to get to work or home in another city.

Thank you for your consideration!
Jim Wing, Milverton Road, Los Altos

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item # 3
Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Subject: Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Bellecci & Associates, Inc. for Various Engineering Tasks for FY 2021-2022 Prepared by: Thanh Nguyen, Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Aida Fairman, Engineering Services Manager James Sandoval, Engineering Services Director
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment:

None
Initiated by:

Staff
Previous Council Consideration:

None
Fiscal Impact:

Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement for FY 2021-2022 will be in the notto-exceed amount of $120,090 ($63,008 for contract inspection services, $49,636 for design services, and $7,446 for design contingency).
- The proposed Amendment No. 1 will cause the total contract value to exceed the $100,000 limit, which requires authorization by Council - The funds for this Amendment No. 1 are already included in the approved Engineering Services Department Operating Budget for FY 2021-2022
Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:

None
Summary:
• This Amendment No. 1 would provide additional funds for general daily construction inspection services and design services for the repair of a storm drain outfall.

Subject: Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Bellecci & Associates, Inc. for Various Engineering Tasks, FY 2021-2022 January 11, 2022 Page 2
Staff Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Bellecci and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $120,090 for consulting and support services for various engineering tasks for FY 2021-2022
Subject: Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Bellecci & Associates, Inc. for Various Engineering Tasks, FY 2021-2022 January 11, 2022 Page 3
Purpose
Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Bellecci and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $120,090 for consulting and support services for various engineering tasks for FY 2021-2022.

Background
On October 19, 2021, the City entered into an agreement in the amount of $70,000 with Bellecci & Associates, Inc. for various engineering services for FY2021-22, which included inspections of active construction sites for compliance with the stormwater pollution prevention requirements, and for the daily Engineering inspections related to the various permits issued by the City for work in the public right-of-way.

The City is in need of day-to-day inspection services because the City’s Engineering Inspector resigned in October 2021.

One of the tasks that Bellecci & Associates started under the agreement for the various engineering tasks for fiscal year 2020-21 included the preliminary design for the repair of the city storm drain outfall at 1266 Montclaire Way. Additional funds are now being requested to complete the final design and address the comments from the various regulatory agencies that reviewed the preliminary design and will issue the required permits for construction in 2022.

Discussion/Analysis
The proposed Amendment No. 1 would extend Bellecci’s services during FY 2021-22 for an additional three months to cover the daily engineering inspection services until the permanent Engineering Inspector’s position is filled and for the design and consulting services to repair the Montclaire storm drain outfall. Tasks for the storm drain outfall repair include, but are not limited to, topographic survey and design services required by regulatory agencies such as Valley Water, Regional Water Quality Control Board, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item # 4
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Subject: City of Los Altos Summer Internship Program
Prepared by: Irene Barragan Silipin, Human Resources Manager Reviewed by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Summer Internship Program Outline
Initiated by:

City Council Sub-Committee
Previous Council Consideration:

Council Meeting on October 12, 2021
Fiscal Impact:

There is an on-going annual cost of $30,000 to budget for the cost of an annual summer internship program. Approving this item will increase the current year budget by $30,000 and be budgeted in the City’s General Fund.

Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
• Does the Council wish to support an annual Los Altos Summer Internship Program.

Summary:
• The City Council formed a City Council Subcommittee to establish an internship subcommittee.
• Passing this proposal will achieve the goal of establishing a summer internship program to join efforts with Silicon Valley NextGen Commission initiative designed to attract students to local government careers through summer internships.

Staff Recommendation:

Move to approve the program outlined in the Los Altos Summer Internship Program and its implementation.

Subject: City of Los Altos Summer Internship Program
January 11, 2022 Page 2
Purpose
The recommended program is intended to contribute towards the regional talent pipeline. The primary objectives are to:
• Expose students to the City of Los Altos services and local government • Find and develop emerging talent or future employees
• Add capacity to Los Altos.

This is done by attracting talent and providing opportunities for students through internships. The secondary objectives and benefits include increasing development opportunities for staff and mentoring the next generation of leaders.

Background
The City Council identified a need to offer internship opportunities for students interested in learning more about local government. A subcommittee was formed (represented by Mayor Enander, Councilmember Fligor and staff) to establish a student internship program.

The sub-committee met to discuss and identify the aspects of maintaining an internship an educational, interesting, and rewarding experience. The sub-committee’s goal was to communicate program goals and ensure the City of Los Altos commitment to making connections in professional fields offered in local government. As a result, the program outlines the Los Altos Annual Summer Internship Program.

Discussion/Analysis
At the direction of the City Council, staff drafted a proposal and met with the subcommittee to outline the Los Altos Summer Internship Program. If approved, the summer internship program will be implemented as an annual summer program.

Recommendation
Move to approve the program outlined in the Los Altos Summer Internship Program and its implementation, including increasing the current Fiscal Year budget by $30,000.

ATTACHMENT 1
City of Los Altos
Summer Internship Program
Program Description
The City of Los Altos will partner with Next Gen Regional Internship Program to join efforts with the initiative designed to attract students to local government careers through a summer internship.

Next Gen, is a commission of local government departments/hiring managers composed of City Managers, Assistant City Managers, Human Resources Directors and staff, emerging leaders, representatives of workforce investment boards and local government professional organizations (Cal-ICMA and MMANC), and university career center staff from San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.

The Two-County committee is sponsored by the City/County Managers Associations of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and offers a variety of programs every year to enhance knowledge about local government departments/hiring manager, career opportunities and skill advancement.

Purpose & Objectives
The program is intended to contribute towards the regional talent pipeline. The primary objectives are to:

1. expose students to local government

2. find and develop emerging talent or future employees

3. add capacity to Los Altos.

This is done by attracting talent and providing opportunities for students through internships.

Secondary objectives (and benefits) include:

1. Increasing development opportunities for staff and mentoring the next generation of leaders.

Program Components
The program consists of the following elements:

1. Advertising/Posting internship opportunities on a variety of job boards and centralized posting with Next Gen.

2. Welcome and onboard all Los Altos Interns every summer

3. Providing students with an internship for 3 months or longer

4. Host intern learning forums in partnership with Next Gen Intern definition: A time-bound and supervised role where individuals in school or in transition, work on project-based/hands-on projects as an extension of education and learning.

ATTACHMENT 1
City of Los Altos
Summer Internship Program
Timeline
The general program timeline is as follows:

October/November – City of Los Altos partners with the Next Gen Regional Internship Program Coordinators to kick-off they year.

November/December – Human Resources and City Manager kicks-off the annual program citywide, executive team and all departments about considering hosting an intern January/ February – Post/Advertise internships on a variety of advertising boards and partner with NextGen on centralized advertisement efforts.

March/April – Review, screen, interview and extend internship offers.

May/June – Welcome and onboard new interns prior to kicking off their assignment May-August – Offer learning forums for interns
August/September – End of internship conduct exit interviews to gather feedback on their experience
Roles and Responsibilities
City Manager
Make the program a priority and discuss at leadership meetings; ensure they have adequate support; find opportunities to connect with/recognize interns Human Resources
Develop program timeline; encourage departments to host an annual intern; partner with Next Gen to plan the intern learning forums; develop resources for hiring mangers; onboard new interns.

Intern Hiring Managers
Provide interns with meaningful work; encourage them to attend the learning forums; provide training, coaching, and feedback; recognize interns’ efforts and contributions

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item # 5
Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Subject: Emergency Declaration Resolution
Prepared by: Jon Maginot, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Resolution of The City Council Of The City Of Los Altos Declaring The Existence Of A Local Emergency Due To The Covid-19 Pandemic
Initiated by:

Staff
Previous Council Consideration:

March 12, 2020 (Declaration of Emergency); March 17, 2020; August 24, 2021; October 12, 2021; November 9, 2021; December 7, 2021
Fiscal Impact:

None. However, a local emergency declaration is a prerequisite for requesting state or federal assistance.

Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
• Does the Council wish to renew its existing declaration by adopting a resolution declaring a local emergency to emphasize the need for continued adherence to public health guidance?
Summary:
• AB 361 requires the City to adopt a resolution every 30 days extending a local emergency declaration to continue to allow legislative bodies to meet virtually Staff Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution extending the declaration of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic Subject: Emergency Declaration Resolution
January 11, 2022 Page 2
Purpose
To adopt a resolution extending the existing declaration of emergency Background
On March 12, 2020, the City Manager issued an Emergency Declaration in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-08 ratifying the Emergency Proclamation. On August 24, 2021, October 12, 2021, November 9, 2021 and December 7, 2021, the City Council adopted resolutions continuing the declaration of the existence of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The threat posed by COVID-19 continues to pose a serious risk to the public health and safety of the City of Los Altos.

Discussion/Analysis
Resolution No. 2021-46 states that the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager) is to report to the City Council within sixty (60) days on the need for further continuing the local emergency.

AB 361, signed into law on September 15, 2021, allows a public agency to continue to hold virtual City Council and Commission meetings while under a declaration of emergency without complying with certain elements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The bill requires that a legislative body renew the declaration of emergency every 30 days in order to continue meeting in this matter.

AB 361 applies to local agencies until January 1, 2024.

Recommendation
The staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution extending the declaration of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency relating to the respiratory illness known as COVID-19, which is caused by the novel corona virus SARS-CoV02; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the existence of a pandemic due to the global spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, the Los Altos City Manager, in his capacity as the City’s Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency in response to the escalation of COVID-19 to a pandemic, and on March 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-08 ratifying and continuing the proclamation of local emergency; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Santa Clara County Health Officer issued the first of successive orders requiring all individuals residing in the County to shelter in their places of residence as specified, to socially distance, and to take other measures to prevent community spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, the Governor issued a statewide shelter-in-place order; and on August 28, 2020, the Governor announced a “Blueprint for a Safer Economy,” which provided protocols for slowly reopening the state’s economy following the initial shelter-in-place mandate; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2021; October 12, 2021; November 9, 2021; and December 7, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolutions extending the declaration of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, by the beginning of January 2022, over 1,900 Santa Clara County residents had dies of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, due to the diligence of Los Altos residents in complying with health guidance, Los Altos has one of the lowest rates of reported incidence of COVID-19 infection in Santa Clara County; and
WHEREAS, vaccines provide proven protection against COVID-19; and WHEREAS, by the beginning of January 2022, approximately 86 percent of Santa Clara County residents over the age of 5 had been vaccinated, and statewide vaccination rates were higher than the national average; and
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 2
WHEREAS, the Governor lifted the Blueprint for a Safer Economy on June 15, 2021, and local health restrictions have also been lifted due to sharp declines in COVID-19 case counts since vaccines first became available; and
WHEREAS, despite progress in addressing the pandemic, not all eligible individuals are fully vaccinated, and new, more virulent variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are spreading in California and throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, according to the Santa Clara County Health Department, by July 1, 2021, the 7-day average of new COVID-19 cases reported in Santa Clara County was down to 37 cases per day, but three weeks later on July 22, 2021, the 7-day average was up to 188 cases per day; and
WHEREAS, as a result of rising case counts, on August 2, 2021, the Santa Clara County Health Officer issued a new health order requiring the use of face coverings indoors by all persons; and
WHEREAS, despite significant progress, COVID-19 remains a threat to public health and safety in the Los Altos community; and
WHEREAS, throughout the pandemic, the City of Los Altos has taken steps to address the health crisis, for example, by facilitating outdoor dining within the City; and WHEREAS, AB 361 requires the City Council make findings every thirty (30) days reaffirming the existence of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, in view of the ongoing health crisis, the City Council now desires to affirm its existing declaration of local emergency.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Los Altos that:

1. The City Council has reviewed the need for continuing the declaration of local emergency and finds, based on substantial evidence, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and that the public interest and necessity require the continuance of the proclamation of local emergency related to COVID-19.

2. Said local emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until terminated by the City Council of the City of Los Altos.

3. The Director of Emergency Services is hereby directed to report to the City Council within thirty (30) days on the need for further continuing the local emergency and, if deemed appropriate, the City Council may take further action.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 3
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___ day of ____, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrea Chelemengos, MMC, CITY CLERK

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

DISCUSSION ITEM
AGENDA ITEM # 6
Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
CJ
Finance Director
JH SE
Meeting Date: January 11, 2022
Subject: Agenda Item # 6 removed from the agenda
Request withdrawn - Item removed from the agenda per the applicant’s request.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

DISCUSSION ITEM
Agenda Item # 7
Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
Meeting Date: January 11, 2021
Subject: Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks
Prepared by: Donna Legge, Recreation and Community Services Director Manny Hernandez, Maintenance Services Director
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Proposed Dog Park Location Map

2. Recommended North and South Locations

3. Proposed Dog Park Locations

4. Proposed Dog Park Location Notes
Initiated by:

City Council
Previous Council Consideration:

February 12, 2019; November 10, 2020; February 9, 2021; February 23, 202; September 21, 2021; and October 26, 2021.

Fiscal Impact:

If approved, with recommended locations, the Park Improvement CIP for Fiscal Year 2021-22 will be increased by $100,000. The funds will be allocated from the City’s Park in Lieu Funds. There is no impact to the City’s General Fund.

Improvements will be necessary at each dog park location and will come forward as part of the normal budget process.

Environmental Review:

The City Council finds the development of one fenced-in dog park in north Los Altos located adjacent to the Civic Center Soccer Field and one fenced-in dog park in south Los Altos at McKenzie Park West (Project) to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), 15301 (Existing Facilities), 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land), and 15305 (Minor Alterations to Land Use Restrictions) in that the proposed dog parks established hereby is not anticipated to have any significant adverse impact upon the existing environment, will involve the use of an existing recreational facility, and will not significantly alter existing facilities or existing land use restrictions. The City Council also finds that none of the exceptions Subject: Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks
January 11, 2022 Page 2
set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 to the availability of the foregoing categorical exemptions applies to the Project. The City Manager or designee is hereby directed to prepare and file a notice of exemption in connection with this ordinance, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062.

Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
• Does Council want to approve two fenced-in dog parks? Summary:
• In accordance with LAMC 5.08.010, dogs are prohibited to be off-leash in Los Altos parks • Residents do not have a place to take dogs off-leash, legally, within the Los Altos community
• The Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) evaluated the off-leash pilot program and recommended that the Hillview Baseball Field program be discontinued and further recommended that the PARC explore additional options for dogs in Los Altos • Council directed staff to work toward identifying possible locations for fenced in off leash/dog park options in Los Altos and to bring the possible locations and proposals to Council in January 2022
Staff Recommendation:

Based on Council making the above CEQA findings, the staff recommends the development of one fenced-in dog park in north Los Altos located adjacent to the Civic Center Soccer Field and one fenced-in dog park in south Los Altos at McKenzie Park West (Attachment 2) and increase the current fiscal year budget by $100,000 allocated from Park in Lieu funds.

Should Council wish to consider a third fenced-in dog park, staff recommends Heritage Oaks before Rosita Park.

If approved by Council, staff will return with changes to the City’s Municipal Code, policies and procedures, and appropriate findings as required.

Subject: Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks
January 11, 2022 Page 3
Purpose
To determine preferred locations to develop one fenced-in dog park in north Los Altos and one fenced-in dog park in south Los Altos.

Background
At its regular meeting on October 13, 2021, the PARC evaluated the 6-month off-leash pilot program at the Hillview Baseball Field held between April 1 and September 28, 2021. The PARC recommended that Council discontinue the off-leash program and further recommended that the PARC explore additional options for dogs in Los Altos.

Staff presented the recommendation to Council at its regular meeting of October 26, 2021. Council directed staff to work toward identifying possible locations for fenced-in dog park options in north and south Los Altos, and to bring the possible locations and proposals to Council by January 2022.

Discussion/Analysis
City staff used the following criteria to rank the ability of each location to accommodate a fencedin dog park:
a. Sufficient size
b. Sufficient parking
c. Buffer from residential homes
d. Access to water
e. Not on shared use field
f. Shade and/or seating
g. Feasibility
Based on the criteria, staff identified and ranked the following nine different fenced-in dog park locations in order, by the highest score:

1. McKenzie Park West

2. Heritage Oaks Park

3. Civic Center - Soccer Field East

4. Rosita Park

5. Marymeade Park

6. Grant Park

7. Civic Center – Hillview Baseball Field

8. Civic Center - Community Center East

9. McKenzie Park East
Subject: Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks
January 11, 2022 Page 4
Not Feasible
a. Civic Center – Oak Tree Location (property is currently under lease to Friends of Library and was not fully vetted)
b. Lincoln Park
c. Montclaire Park
A further consideration to the criteria listed above is the geographic balance and placement of the potential dog parks and are overlayed with the boundaries of the city in Attachment 1.

Based on geography as a primary filter, the nine locations are ranked as follows:

North Los Altos:

1. Civic Center - Soccer Field East

2. Rosita Park

3. Civic Center - Hillview Baseball Field

4. Civic Center - Community Center East
South Los Altos:

1. McKenzie Park West

2. Heritage Oaks Park

3. Marymeade Park

4. Grant Park

5. McKenzie Park East
Attachment 3 includes the locations in north Los Altos (2 through 4) and south Los Altos (2 through 5), as alternatives to the preferred locations. It is important to note that the proposed dog park areas shown in the attachments are conceptual and are not engineered or to scale. Upon direction from Council, staff will fence the identified areas securely and appropriately for dog parks, make the minimal necessary improvements, and then begin to design permanent features and improvements for the dog parks. These designs and associated costs will return as part of the normal budget process.

In north Los Altos there are four proposed dog park areas, spread over two locations.

The Civic Center site has three potential locations. The area located to the east of the soccer field is the recommended site for a dog park in the north. In addition to meeting the ranking criteria, it is in an area that is not currently programmed and is anticipated to have limited residential impact.

Subject: Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks
January 11, 2022 Page 5
The other two locations at the Civic Center site are anticipated to have a higher impact on nearby residences. In addition, the Hillview Baseball Field removes a portion of the outfield permanently, while the east area behind the Community Center has a planned and funded pickleball court and half-basketball court ready for construction. This area would also have a high impact on residential properties close by.

The preferred alternative site in north Los Altos is to fence a portion of the Rosita Park multipurpose athletic field. In addition to meeting the criteria listed above, this area provides the largest square footage for a dog park in the northern area of Los Altos and includes sufficient space to add shade structures and seating at a minimal cost. This site will displace current use(s) of the park and parking could be problematic during heavy field use and tournaments.

In south Los Altos, the areas under consideration include McKenzie Park West; Heritage Oaks Park; Marymeade Park; Grant Park; and McKenzie Park East. The recommended location in south Los Altos is McKenzie Park West. This site has the least residential impact; does not displace or remove current amenities; and has sufficient access to water and shade. In addition, staff believes parking by City and employee vehicles can be accommodated in the Municipal Services Center lot, making public parking more accessible.

The preferred alternative location in south Los Altos is to fence in the undeveloped portion of Heritage Oaks Park. This site has a greater impact on residential homes than McKenzie West, but meets all the other criteria, including greater access to parking. The site has no programming currently in place and is an unused/vacant area in the City’s park system.

Other locations in south Los Altos should be considered if the two preferred locations are not selected. For a greater analysis on each of the sites, please see Attachment 4, which contains specific notes on each of the locations.

Recommendation
Based on Council making the above CEQA findings, staff recommends the development of one fenced-in dog park in north Los Altos located adjacent to the Civic Center Soccer Field and one fenced-in dog park in south Los Altos at McKenzie Park West (Attachment 2) and increase the current fiscal year budget by $100,000 allocated from Park in Lieu funds.

Should Council wish to consider a third fenced-in dog park, staff recommends Heritage Oaks before Rosita Park.

If approved by Council, staff will return with changes to the City’s Municipal Code, policies and procedures, and appropriate findings as required.

Subject: Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks
January 11, 2022 Page 6

W PORTOLA AVE
LEGEND
■ PROPOSED DOG PARK LOCATIONS

EXISTING PARKS
0 LOS ALTOS NORTH
0 LOS ALTOS SOUTH - CITY LIMIT - CREEKS
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

PROPOSED DOG PARK

LOCATION MAP
I I -
COV
�-===
INGTON -��f -__,-,_�
Jc,ll.JL,': ____ ---1
Recommended
North and South
Dog Park Locations
Attachment 2
North Los Altos - Soccer Field East
(97 Hillview Avenue)
South Los Altos - McKenzie Park West
(707 Fremont Avenue)
Proposed
Dog Park Locations
Attachment 3
North Los Altos - Rosita Park
(401 Rosita Ave)
North Los Altos - Hillview Baseball Field
(97 Hillview Ave)
North Los Altos - Community Center East
(97 Hillview Ave)
South Los Altos - Heritage Oaks Park
(Portland Ave / Miramonte Ave)
South Los Altos - Marymeade Park
(Fremont Ave / Grant Rd)
South Los Altos - Grant Park
(1575 Holt Ave)
South Los Altos - McKenzie Park East
(707 Fremont Ave)
Attachment 4
Proposed Dog Park Location Notes
North Los Altos Locations Staff Notes
Civic Center
Soccer Field East
1) Minimal residential impact; 2) Some shade; 3) Access to water, restrooms, and sufficient parking; 4) Seating could be incorporated; 5) No displacement of current uses; 6) Due to new configuration of Community Center Parking lot and
additional turf area, there is sufficient space.

Rosita Park 1) Seemingly minimal residential impact; 2) Access to water and restrooms; 3) Shade and seating could be incorporated; 4) Parking sufficient - may be difficult during heavy-use, tournaments, and events; 5) Will not displace any current uses; 6) Need to coordinate/confirm with current users.

Civic Center
Hillview Baseball Field
1) Some direct residential impact; 2) Minimal shade and seating; 3) Water can be incorporated; 4) Access to
restrooms and sufficient parking; 4) Would require
installation of a permanent outfield boundary fence; 5) Defines and separates current uses; 6) Increases availability of ideal hours with fence; 7) Space will be reduced from pilot program space.

Civic Center
Community Center Northeast
1) Some direct residential impact; 2) Access to water, shade, restrooms, seating, and parking; 3) Southeast area is planned for basketball and pickleball courts; 3) Does not displace any current uses.

South Los Altos Locations Staff Notes
McKenzie Park West 1) No residential impact; 2) Access to shade, water, seating, and restrooms; 3) Does not displace current uses; 3)
Sufficient parking if employee and city vehicles are
accommodated by MSC; 4) Remove existing climber; 5)
offer limited time for parking to increase availability of spaces to park users.

Heritage Oaks Park 1) Some direct residential impact; 2) Access to water, shade, and restrooms; 3) Some parking; 4) Seating could be
incorporated; 5) No conflicts with other park uses; 6)
Undeveloped/vacant area of park – maximizes available
park land.

Marymeade Park 1) Some direct residential impact; 2) Access to shade, seating, water, and restrooms; 3) Additional parking would have to be explored - parking on site is not sufficient.

Grant Park 1) Some direct residential impact; 2) Access to water, restrooms, seating, shade, and parking; 3) Park is heavily programmed and may reduce flexible open use.

McKenzie Park East 1) Some direct residential impact; 2) Access to shade, water, seating, and restrooms; 3) Supplementing use of large
open/green space; 4) Does not displace current uses; 5) Sufficient parking if employee and city vehicles are
accommodated by MSC; 6) Offer limited time for parking
to increase availability of spaces to park users.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
From: iris Avidan
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 9:48:33 AM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. My dog attended the park daily, she was happier and more relaxed. I enjoyed talking to other dog owners and exchanging tips and info.

A large dog park is crucial, the one at the baseball field was too crowded. Appreciate the city's effort to open a new one.

Thanks,
Iris Avidan
Resident of north Los Altos.

From: seth strichartz
To: Public Comment
Subject: public comment agenda item 7 meeting on jan 11 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 9:55:25 AM
I put forth my strong support for the off leash dog program at Hillview.

Sincerely,
seth strichartz
100 sioux Lane
Los Altos
From: Brent Rolland
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:00:09 AM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. Like many families during the pandemic "lock down", we rescued a puppy from a foster organization. The ability to socialize that puppy was crucial to ensuring that we have a well-adjusted, friendly, adult dog - one that doesn't bark, growl, misbehave, or otherwise frighten people we meet on the streets walking in town.

A year and a half later - he's still got a lot of puppy energy in him - and we need the ability to let him run and play with other dogs to help burn off that energy.

I don't think that anyone is asking for acres of protected space - just a space where the dogs can play, chase a ball, and interact with other humans. The proposed space near Hillview park would certainly satisfy that requirement (and should be sufficiently far from neighbors so as not to annoy them with people and pets having fun).

Sincerely,
Brent Rolland
Resident of Los Altos
From: James Sweeney
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:25:22 AM
Hello Council members,
You now have a chance to finally provide a permanent, sanctioned location for off lease dog play.

Dog park advocates recently met with the city manager and other officials to view the suggested location for an permanent off lease dog park in the new grass area that replaced a portion of the old parking lot behind the backstop at the Community Center end of the Hillview Soccer field. The city manager and others there were very positive about the advantages of this location.

It is already partially fenced and additional fencing to enclose the whole grass area would not be too expensive or disruptive to any other activities. This grass area did not exist prior to the construction of the new community center so a dog park would not interfere with any previous use.

Parking, water, and bathrooms are close and the area is not adjacent to any homes.

The city has been attempting to address a location for over a decade for a sanctioned dog park.

Those of us who enjoy socializing with other dog owners and letting our dogs socialize with fellow canines feel it is time to at least authorize this area as a permanent dog park. There should be open hours for dog play, which would spread out use and prevent too many dogs at one time using the space. The previous hours both resulted in lots of dogs playing in restricted hours, and were also not geared to the times most dog owners prefer taking their dogs out, which would be in the later morning when the grass is not so wet and afternoons before the sun sets and it is too dark to properly supervise the dogs, not to mention the problem of mosquitos coming out at dusk.

It is time to finally do what other cities have already done and establish a dog park in Los Altos.

The Hillview area behind the backstop of the soccer field seems the best place at this time to finally at least partially resolve this issue. While other locations are a good idea for other neighborhoods you will certainly get some negative feedback that will have to be dealt with, as you well know. This location seems the best current option to at least partially address the needs of Los Altos’ many dog owners. Delaying a decision on this very viable option would be unfortunate. Act now so a new dog park can be established as soon as possible.

James L. Sweeney (and Cooper the Maltipoo)
50 Cielito Dr.

Los Altos, Ca 94022

From: Chris Couhault
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:43:17 AM
The dog park has been improving the mental health of people and their pets. Please keep this dog park open for the continued improvement of Los Altos and it’s inhabitant. Thank you! ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 7:35 PM
Subject: Urgent, please read
To: The Los Altos Off-Leash Dog Park Preservation Society <the-los-altos-off-leash-dog-park[email protected]> Reply "unsubscribe" if desired
Dear Hillview Off-Leash Park Supporter:

Our Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the off-leash program be terminated. The City Council will now decide the fate of this program at its meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, October 26 at 7 p m.

Please attend to voice your support. Here are the instructions:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_council/meeting/57541/10.26.2021_agenda.pdf To submit written comments, email: [email protected] Use the subject line: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 5 - Tuesday, October 26th.

Sincerely,
Bette Houtchens
Steering Committee Member
The Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Los Altos OffLeash Dog Park Preservation Society" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-los-altosoff-leash-dog-park-preservation-society+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-los-altos-offleash-dog-park-preservation-society/023a843d-7a06-4e50-ae02- 87c7f1bbecdcn%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

From: Brian Theodore
To: Public Comment
Subject: Voicing my support for a dog off-leash park next to Hillview soccer field Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:18:16 AM
Hello,
I have a dog and would love there to be an off-leash area in Los Altos for dogs to run and socialize, as well as dog owners.

With so many new dog (and pet) owners during COVID and WFH trends over the past couple of years, the need now is greater than it ever has been.

I am highly supportive of the alternative recommendation of next to the Hillview soccer field, and wanted to voice my support.

Regards,
Brian Theodore
852 University Ave, Los Altos, CA 94024
From: VELAYUTHAN COIMBATORE
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:20:42 AM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. This program is important to me because I stongly believe that our Pets need a safe & secure place to be able to be off leash within this community..That goes a long way for the health & wellbeing of our Pets.

Sincerely,
Br
Velayuthan Coimbatore
Los Altos
From: Todd Parmacek
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:45:58 AM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. [If you can, add a personal sentence like “This program is important to me because…” or “I feel we need this program because…”] Sincerely,
Todd Parmacek
Resident of Los Altos
From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT-AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 12:38:54 PM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. This program is important to me because it helps us connect to other residents and builds community.

Sincerely,
Sheena Vaidyanathan
Resident of Los Altos Hills
From: John Deegan
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please Save Our Hillview Off-leash Dog Park
Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 1:24:08 PM
Honorable City Council Member,
I am emailing you to strongly request that you approve Hillview as an off-leash dog park. This location has been extremely important in local dog-owners ability to both have their dogs engage with local fellow dogs, as well as the owners themselves have a place to engage with each other. In the age of COVID isolation, this has been a very valuable and treasured opportunity. From my understanding, the owners and their dogs are local in the neighborhood in Los Altos. Everyone together is very respectful of the park, the baseball diamond, and local residents. I do not see how any of the neighboring homes could have any noise complaint or of a dog entering their property line. The ability for neighbors to come and socialize with their dogs in the morning and/or evening is one of the wonderful aspects of living in a community like Los Altos. Please do not take this away.

Respectfully,
John Deegan.

From: Phyllis Grame
To: Public Comment
Subject: Hillview dog park
Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 1:57:26 PM
I live in Los Altos and support this legal off-leash program.

Phyllis Grame
From: Mia Carlsson
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment - Agenda Item #7 - January 11, 2022. Yes, off-leash program Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 2:45:57 PM
Honorable City Council,
I strongly believe in and support the off-leash program at Hillview, Los Altos.

It is my belief that the pet friendly town of Los Altos are in great need of a safe place for our dogs. We all know that there is a huge percentage of the households with one or multiple dogs. All dogs need to be exercised and socialized in some form. And for sure some dogs prefer not to do the social bit at all or are in training but most do.

I would like to thank you for running the off-leash pilot at Hillview baseball field. I among many have had great experiences from this period. Us dog owners and our dogs have gained tremendously on this. We now know many of our neighbors and we know that we can rely on our dog friends if needed. We build a stronger community that we are proud to belong to.My dog gained friends and social skills and miss her friends dearly. Walking is really not doing much for their social skills or energy level.

I sincerely hope that years of debating about a potential off-leash area can finally lead to it happening. What an amazing gift to our Los Altos citizens that would be!
Kind regards,
Mia CarlssonResident of Los Altos
From: Dave Orr
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: public comment on agenda item #7, dog parks (Jan 11) Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 3:08:58 PM
Sorry for the early send.

3. Centralizing a dog park will help with maintenance and impact because it'll be more clear what to manage the park for.

For what it's worth, I think that Rosita is the best option for North Los Altos, due to the size, centrality, and popularity of it with dogs now. Any park is much better than no park, of course. :)
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 3:06 PM Dave Orr <d > wrote:

Thanks for considering adding an off-leash dog park to Los Altos.

I support the idea for several reasons:

1. There is clear strong demand for an off-leash area. Dogs are currently let off leash in various parks because they need to run and there's no good alternative. With dedicated areas, dogs and dog owners will be happier, and other parks will be much more empty of off-leash dogs.

2. There are a lot of dogs in Los Altos! It's good to serve a large and friendly portion of the public.

3. From: Tavie Armfield
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT-AGEND ITEM #7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 3:51:29 PM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. I have enjoyed using the temporary field at Hillview this last year. It’s a great way to meet other dog owners and healthy for the dogs.

The Hillview area is a great location since it is so close to downtown. I usually walk on to town for coffee and to meet friends and other dog owners.

Sincerely,
Tavie Armfield
Resident of Los Altos
Tavie Armfield
Consulting CFO
From: Bette Houtchens
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:05:50 PM
Bcc: City Council, City Staff, and several Los Altos Off-leash supporters Honorable City Council,
Please find below a personal testimony from my email, rather than the HDPPS address:

I found my way to Hillview Off-leash in early March 2021, after my 11-month-old puppy followed 5 or 6 other puppies from the high school field onto Jardin Avenue - quite possibly chasing a squirrel. We dog owners scrambled to collect our respective puppies as best we could and went our separate ways. Luckily the City was at the height of Covid 19 work-fromhome protocols, so traffic was sparse, but it was scary. I invested heavily in emergency-recall training with a whistle, but as soon as I heard off-leash dog owners were convening Hillview, a short drive for me, I brought my puppy there. The baseball field was fully-fenced on three sides due to the then ongoing community center rebuild, and I was able to keep my puppy away from the exterior pathway. I was relieved and thrilled.

I'm encouraged that Council instructed Staff to find alternatives for permanent off-leash programming. Off-leash activity is a basic need for our dogs - and truly a saving grace for offleash dog owners! We now have what's probably a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to design, develop, implement, and maintain a permanent, safe, legal, fully-fenced, responsible, well-maintained, and wellmanaged off-leash program. The “soccer-field-east” parklet identified by City Staff isn’t adjacent to any resident homes. There’s a strong community of nearby off-leash dog owners eager to partner with City Staff to ensure the learnings from the pilot are incorporated into the permanent design.

Let's take this amazing opportunity, and make it great!! Thank you,
Bette Houtchens
Resident, Los Altos
From: Casey Richardson
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Regular City Council Meeting - January 11, 2022 - Items of Interest Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:32:17 PM
Good evening, Council Members –
Below is a forwarded comment from a member of the public, following the notice that we sent about the upcoming (1/11/22) Council meeting.
_____________________________
Casey Jensen-Richardson
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Office Assistant II | Recreation & Community Services
Administrative Support | Parks & Recreation Commission
(650) 947-2726
E: [email protected]
From: Harry Guy
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 9:17 AM
To: Casey Richardson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Regular City Council Meeting - January 11, 2022 - Items of Interest Hi Casey,
Just wanted to thank you for sending this email and info. I saw the item on the Council agenda and did a quick read of it. I appreciate the level of effort that Staff, Commissioners and Council have been going through to try to find some solutions that affected groups can accept. No easy task to say the least.

Best wishes,
Harry
On Jan 4, 2022, at 12:04 PM, Casey Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Happy New Year!
Please see Council Meeting announcement for Tuesday, January 11 at 7pm, below, including the following item you have expressed interest in:

Item 7. Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks (4 MB)
Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
_____________________________
Casey Jensen-Richardson
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Office Assistant II | Recreation & Community Services
Administrative Support | Parks & Recreation Commission
(650) 947-2726
E: [email protected]
From: City of Los Altos California <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 4:40 PM
To: Donna Legge <[email protected]>
Subject: Regular City Council Meeting
The agenda and meeting materials for the January 11, 2022, Regular City Council meeting are now available. Members of the Public may join and participate in the Council meeting at https://webinar.ringcentral.com/j/1494194672 TO PARTICIPATE VIA THE LINK ABOVE - Members of the public will need to have a working microphone on their device and must have the latest version of Ringcentral available at this link http://www.ringcentral.com/download.html. To request to speak please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen.

Please see additional participation instructions printed at the top of the agenda.

Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor Members of the public may only comment 1 time per agenda item, during times allotted for public comments.

Once called to speak, please clearly state your name and place of residence. (Providing this information is optional)
Thank you.

Andrea M. Chelemengos, MMC
City Clerk
Regular City Council Meeting
Calendar Date:

Tuesday, January 11, 2022 - 7:00pm
Per the City of Los Altos Open Government Policy, Regular City Council Meeting Agendas will be available eight (8) days in advance of the meeting.

Meeting Information
Agenda:

AGENDA (296 KB)
Audio/Video:

Video Link:

MEETING LINK
Supporting Documents
Item 1. Draft Minutes 12.14.2021 (330 KB)
Item 2. Professional Services Agreement Amendment: No. 2 with Alta Planning + Design for Complete Streets Master Plan (461 KB)
Item 3. Professional Services Agreement Amendment: No. 1 with Bellecci and Associates, Inc (300 KB)
Item 4. Los Altos Summer Internship Program (308 KB)
Item 5. Extension of Local Emergency (324 KB)
Item 6. Rental Fee Waiver Request by the Los Altos Town Crier (1 MB) Item 7. Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks (4 MB)
INFORMATIONAL ITEM ONLY - Tentative Council Calendar (01.03.2022) (245 KB) Complete Packet (01.03.2022) (5 MB)
Unsubscribe
From: Casey Richardson
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Regular City Council Meeting - January 11, 2022 - Items of Interest Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:33:25 PM
Good evening, Council Members –
Below is a forwarded comment from a member of the public, following the notice that we sent about the upcoming (1/11/22) Council meeting.
_____________________________
Casey Jensen-Richardson
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Office Assistant II | Recreation & Community Services
Administrative Support | Parks & Recreation Commission
(650) 947-2726
E: [email protected]
From: Panangattur Venkatachalam <
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 2:21 PM
To: Casey Richardson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Regular City Council Meeting - January 11, 2022 - Items of Interest Hello Casey: People have died of Lime disease. It is caused by Dog Urine. Owners do not know where and when the animal will pass urine.

P.N.Venkatachalam Unit 2206
On Tuesday, January 4, 2022, 09:04:46 AM PST, Casey Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Happy New Year!
Please see Council Meeting announcement for Tuesday, January 11 at 7pm, below, including the following item you have expressed interest in:

Item 7. Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks (4 MB)
Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
_____________________________
Casey Jensen-Richardson
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Office Assistant II | Recreation & Community Services
Administrative Support | Parks & Recreation Commission
(650) 947-2726
E: [email protected]
From: City of Los Altos California <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 4:40 PM
To: Donna Legge <[email protected]>
Subject: Regular City Council Meeting
The agenda and meeting materials for the January 11, 2022, Regular City Council meeting are now available. Members of the Public may join and participate in the Council meeting at https://webinar.ringcentral.com/j/1494194672
TO PARTICIPATE VIA THE LINK ABOVE - Members of the public will need to have a working microphone on their device and must have the latest version of Ringcentral available at this link http://www.ringcentral.com/download.html. To request to speak please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen.

Please see additional participation instructions printed at the top of the agenda.

Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor Members of the public may only comment 1 time per agenda item, during times allotted for public comments.

Once called to speak, please clearly state your name and place of residence. (Providing this information is optional)
Thank you.

Andrea M. Chelemengos, MMC
City Clerk
Regular City Council Meeting
Calendar Date:

Tuesday, January 11, 2022 - 7:00pm
Per the City of Los Altos Open Government Policy, Regular City Council Meeting Agendas will be available eight (8) days in advance of the meeting.

Meeting Information
Agenda:

AGENDA (296 KB)
Audio/Video:

Video Link:

1. A PDF showing the text and items on the HDPPS petition

2. A PDF with 304 Los Altos signatures and a scatter plot showing the majority live near the Hillview Civic Center

3. A PDF of 35 additional Los Altos signatures

4. An additional 3 Los Altos names, collected after the above were forwarded:

Heather Kattner, Lyell Street
Erika Tang, Distel Drive
Daniel Morris, Distel Dr
This gives us a current total of 342 Los Altan signatures. We are a community of highlyresponsible, community-oriented people. Given the recent surge of the Omicron virus, however, many are stressed taking care of their families and workplaces and may find it too challenging to also participate at the upcoming council meeting. With respect, I want to make sure they are represented at least by name.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Bette Houtchens
Steering Committee Member
The Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society

From: Mia Carlsson
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment - Agenda Item #7 - January 11, 2022. Yes, off-leash program Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:50:01 PM
Honorable City Council,
I would like to thank you for running the off-leash pilot at Hillview baseball field.

I among many have had great experiences from this period. Us dog owners and our dogs have gained tremendously on this. We now know many of our neighbors and we know that we can rely on our dog friends if needed.

We build a stronger community that we are proud to belong to. My dog gained friends and social skills and misses her friends dearly. Walking is really not doing much for their social skills or energy level.

It is my belief that the pet friendly town of Los Altos is in great need of a safe place for our dogs. We all know that there is a huge percentage of households with one or multiple dogs.

All dogs need to be exercised and socialized in some form. And for sure some dogs prefer not to do the social bit at all or are in training but most do.

I sincerely hope that years of debating about a potential off-leash area can finally lead to it happening. What an amazing gift to our Los Altos citizens that would be! Kind regards,
Mia Carlsson
Resident of Los Altos
Ps. I did send this email previously but something happened to the format so I hope this comes through in a better shape.

From: Joyce Chou
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM #7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 3:09:10 AM
Honorable City Council,
I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. We need an off-leash dog park at Hillview. Having a pilot program there in 2021 created a vibrant community of dog owners throughout Los Altos. An off-leash area provides a place for dogs to socialize with other pups and humans, thereby instilling the behavior of good canine citizens. It also brings together people from different ages (spanning newborn to retiree), different backgrounds, and cultures from all over Los Altos. Newcomers are embraced by this welcoming community.

Two months have passed since the pilot program ended. Both my pup and I have sorely missed the off-leash park. He misses romping with his friends and I miss connecting with my dog park friends. We had previously gone 4 mornings a week and my high school daughter brought him there 3 to 4 evenings a week. Please establish the off-leash program at Hillview.

We long to return to the place where everyone knows our names.

Respectfully,
Joyce Chou
Resident of Los Altos
From: Wendy
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Off-leash park
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 11:14:42 AM
City Council,
I support the off-leash program at Hillview.

I feel we need an off-leash area not only for our dogs but for our community. I have met so many neighbors and friends at Hillview and the same for my dog. It’s a big assets for our community.

Thank you, Wendy Brugman
Steve Brugman
Kelly Brugman
Sent from my iPhone
From: June Yip
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:39:42 PM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview, or an alternate off-leash area(s) in Los Altos. About 40% of Los Altos residents own dogs. It is important to provide the residents with areas where they can let their dogs socialize, play, and be free. Los Altos is the only city amongst our neighboring cities that do not have dog parks. And I find that ridiculous. The city is not serving the population. Sadly, I didn't not know this when I moved here more than 20 years ago, because I was not a dog owner then. Now that I am a dog owner, I appreciate dog parks where they can play freely, and meeting people in the neighborhood whom I would not have had the chance to meet. It is a community building place, more so than you'd ever imagine. I would like to see my tax dollars go toward serving this community. Please make this happen.

Sincerely,
June Yip
Resident of Los Altos since 2001.

From: Vivien D"Andrea
To: Public Comment
Subject: Dog park at Hillview
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 2:41:45 PM
Hello
I am in enthusiastic support of a dog park at Hillview. I hear there may be a better section of the park to not annoy neighbors which is a good idea. But we need a park in North Los Altos for our furry friends! It also is a great community builder.

Vivien D'Andrea
From: Peggy Kalb
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022” Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 3:21:27 PM
Honorable City Council:

I offer my complete support for maintaining an off-leash dog park. Every city in the area has one except for the city of Los Altos. Why should that be! A dog park, as demonstrated during the trial period last year proved beneficial not only to our neighborhood pets, but also to the citizens who participated. Especially during the pandemic, our communitybenefited from its existence when family members came to spend extended periods of time as caretakers, of elderly parents, necessitating that they bring their pets with them. It was a comforting way for these folks to connect with their dogs at the park!
The park is beneficial to much more than just dogs and their owners! Sincerely,
Peggy K.

Resident, city of Los Altos
From: Jennifer Jacobsen
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 4:12:07 PM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. We feel strongly that a dog park at Hillview is a great central location that is safe for dogs and with minimal impact and we loved having this option during the trial period, which was well attended and all the dog owners were extremely respectful of neighbors and the space!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Jacobsen
Resident of Los Altos

From: Ted Kokernak
To: Public Comment
Cc: Jonathan Weinberg
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 9:34:34 PM
We are all thankful to the city for running the pilot Dog Park Program and we were all impressed how quickly and efficiently the temporary fence was erected at the end of the pilot program to secure the Hillview site. This temporary fence showed that a fence can be erected quickly with minimal effort and cost for the next Dog Park to safeguard both, the public, dog owners and the dogs both inside and outside the park.

It should be natural for a wealthy town like this to include all groups into their city plans. Many Los Altos households have dogs and I recently read that the percentage is now believed to be in the 45% range, which is a large constituency that has an unmet need for a permanent Dog Park.

Dogs brought people together at the Hillview Field Dog Park pilot program, affording residents the opportunity to actually meet in small groups as their dogs play together. These meetings served to strengthen neighborhood bonds. Residents who live in the area tell me that they have actually met their neighbors and that their neighborhood has become much closer with a more congenial spirit. People are more sharing, caring now that they have gotten to know their neighbors this way.

Some residents shared that they felt isolated and lonely before the project started and it is easy to understand these feelings of isolation due to Covid for the last year and now the Omnicron variant wave of infections. The park was an opportunity for people from different backgrounds, religion, age, cultural diversity and so on to meet and help to eliminate boundaries. Dogs are an asset: as people exercise their pets by walking, running, throwing balls & frisbees and playing tug of war so residents are healthier.

Helps us socialize the dogs to be happier, friendlier & safer dogs. Safety is important for everyone, people passing by, dog owners and dogs, so we need a fence along the pathway to secure the area and increase the safety of all concerned.

I strongly support transitioning the Off-Leash Pilot Program at Hillview or the Soccer Fields to a permanent dog park in the downtown area to keep this available to Los Altos residents and their dogs. I really appreciate the thoughtful, consistent support of council members and will do everything we can to support good leaders in the future as we look forward to making Los Altos a better place to live with a permanent Dog Park in the downtown area.

Sincerely,
Theodore Kokernak
15 North El Monte Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94022
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

From: Deborah Getz
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item #7, January 11, 2022 Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 10:26:03 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing this email in support of the off-leash dog program in Los Altos. My dog Cali and I would love to have a safe place to go nearby where she can get her exercise, socialize and be outside in the beautiful California weather! I also love the idea of a designated space for my own social reasons - it builds community while getting a chance to meet other dog owners and get to know my neighbors. I hope that the council decides to implement this program soon!
Kind regards,
Deborah
From: John Crawford
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment, Agenda item #7, January 11,2022 Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 1:35:36 PM
Dear City Council,
My German Shepherd and I really enjoyed the off-leash experience at Hillview Baseball Field.

Please restore this community resource, my dog and I are eager for the return.

Sincerely,
John Crawford and Zeus
265 Frances Drive
Los Altos, CA. 94022
Sent from my iPhone
From: Bill Schneider
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 5:15:21 PM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. It is a valuable resource for dog owners, for the well-being of their dogs and for the sense of community between the people. That sense of community is something we need more of.

Sincerely,
Bill Schneider
Resident of Los Altos
Members of the City Council,
I wish to express my concerns on item 7 "Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks" on the agenda for the Jan 11, 2022 City Council meeting.

I am writing as both a 20+ year resident, and dog owner for all of those years.

We visit McKenzie Park daily.

The agenda take as a given that Los Altos needs to have fenced-in dog parks.

This is simply not necessary.

The issue has been brought up and studied for years, most recently with the Parks and Recreation subcommittee in their May 2020 report.

Each of these studies have indicated that a fenced-in dog park was not feasible.

McKenzie Park was the subject of the last studied location in South Los Altos.

From the May 2020 PARC subcommittee report:
"Therefore, given these considerations and the negative impacts that would result from making a portion of thee park a fenced-in dog park site, the Subcommittee does not recommend a fence-in dog park at this location. Furthermore, the recent financial constraints on the City budget, as a direct result of the Corona virus, also gives reason to reject a fenced-in dog park at McKenzie Park. " Nothing has changed since that study was done.

Los Altos simply does not have enough open space areas for our human residents.

Fencing in areas of our parks for the exclusive use for dogs is wrong.

We don't have the luxury of large swaths of open spaces such as in Mountain View Sunnyvale, and surrounding areas.

Our neighborhood parks are sized to accommodate the local neighborhood, not the entirety of the City population.

We need to preserve what we have for use by all residents.

I advocate off-leash hours at all appropriate parks be established.

This was attempted during the last pilot at Hillview. However that was done in one location only, putting an unfair burden on that area.

In that regard this was a flawed pilot program for the City in general.

A properly pilot requires off-leash programming at all appropriate parks.

Only then can meaningful data be collected for proper impact analysis and conclusions.

This option must be explored further before any other considerations.

This pilot could certainly be done under the PARC and provide a proper analysis for dog parks.

With regard to the specifics of the McKenzie Park location for the fenced-in location there are serious concerns.

The requirements for consideration include "Not on shared use field". In the analysis it also indicates that this site "does not displace or remove current amenities". However, this criteria is not met – as indicated later in the report – as there is the need to remove a climbing structure. This is in opposition to the criteria set forth.

In addition, the tennis courts in this area are used for City sponsored lessons, which may be negatively effected with direct proximity to the fenced dog park. This would result in loss of revenue should it become infeasible to hold lessons.

This area contains many trees and it is a uneven terrain that requires significant investment for creating a usable space for the dog area. A conversion would jeopardize the health of the mature Heritage trees, (redwood and Heritage oaks) in the area.

The area is also used by the staff, patients and residents of the nearby Los Altos Sub-acute facility.

Losing access to the benches and tables poses an unnecessary hardship on those people, in addition to the loss of that use for others
The other area of McKenzie (East) mentioned is directly behind resident facilities.

It is also another heavily used area by many groups, in particular during the non-winter months.

The area is also used by the soccer program during the summer months, so any fenced in area would compromise space for that program.

In short, all of the areas of McKenzie are developed areas that used by the entire neighborhood, city residents and others.

It is disingenuous to remove existing open areas for all for the exclusive benefit of a few.

If Council finds (against all prior considerations) that a fenced in area is necessary surely other options are available.

A completely unused/vacant area can be made into a dog area. Ideally one that is not in a currently designated city park.

Thank You,
Derek Pitcher
Resident, Los Altos
Date: 2022_01_06
To: Honorable Members of the City Council: Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadows, CM’s Fligor, Lee Eng, and Weinberg, City Manager Gabe Engeland, City Attorney Jolie Houston, City Clerk Andrea Chelemengos
From: Jeanine Valadez
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT 2022_01_11 Agenda Item 7 “Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks…” Disclosure: I am a PARC commissioner but am writing this as a member of the public, as a Los Altos Homeowner since 1989, and as the Human Parent of Goldendoodle Hokulea, Yorkiepoo Boba, and Coton de Tulear Thor el Xipil.

Introduction:

First, I would like to thank the work put forth by City Staff in preparing the report attached to the meeting agenda. Several excellent options were suggested. Overall, I strongly support the recommendation for Hillview and Mackenzie-West; however, I hope to convince you of a more expansive and, thereby, more effective implementation, as described below.

I hope I have proven through my past public comments that am a strong supporter of fenced-in and properly gated dog parks. I am heartened by the strong community support for the Hillview location. At the same time, it is evident by reading and listening to all the Hillview supportive input that a great deal of self-interest exists in that community as to locality. In only one or two of the expressions of support, do I read or hear any regard for the establishment of dog parks throughout the city. I have tried to convince that group to expand their scope; I hope I can succeed at some point.

I am here to voice a more wholistic viewpoint, one that brings benefit to the whole City and not just a privileged few that live near the Hillview site.

Staff Report:

I am thankful that the City Council has made operational the establishment of dog parks. I am thrilled that Staff shows preference for at least two locations with feasibility for more. I support the two locations recommended by Staff (Hillview soccer-east and MacKenzie West). Yet, I suspect that with only two sites, and despite all the benefits that will accrue relative to our city’s current state, that several negative effects will ultimately arm both dog park opponents and dog park users with valid complaints about the two dog parks after they are installed. These effects will likely include issues with congestion, destruction of the surfaces, increasingly soiled areas, and inaccessibility should limitations have to be placed on attendance due to wear-and-tear, congestion, and extended refurbishment downtimes.

The Benefits of Many Dog Parks Sooner:

Two parks are a great first step, but the true value is in having many dog parks sooner than later. A good analogy is to consider the topic of pickleball. The Pickleball Community has done a terrific job of educating us all about how their activity works. It is an activity dependent on a high density of courts at one location, not on the proliferation of small-density courts at many locations. When space is limited, they will sacrifice proliferation for increased density. Dog parks are the opposite scenario: they benefit by proliferation of sites across a large geography because proximity and variability are the things of interest and importance to dogs and their owners (in terms of socialization and training). Dog owners will sacrifice size for proximity. Therefore, expanding the list of approved sites, and designing the proper management system alongside the dog parks, brings these strategic benefits:
1) Functional tuning: Dog parks can be of varying sizes and shapes: some tuned to free-roaming, some tuned to long-run-call-and-return, some tuned to small-group play or circuit work, some tuned to training and classes, etc. Fit the function to the site and space available; this fit will happen organically even if not specified or outfitted.
2) More walking: Ease parking and traffic requirements. Parking is still needed, though. 3) Shortened down-time: More parks will mean each park will stay in better shape as a result of reduced congestion, lessened wear-and-tear, and the added ability to establish rotating refurbishment/enhancement/shutdown periods (the latter is difficult at best with only two parks).
4) Fewer fiefdoms: By varying form, function, and up-time, community members will sometimes be invited to or required to visit further afield and get to know people/dogs outside their neighborhood. This is good for community. This will cross-pollinate neighborhoods and better socialize our dogs to many experiences, rather than enable their territoriality to one space (territorial behavior breeds aggression towards new members). 5) Less illegal off-leash use: Of course, some people will always violate the law, but offering many sites for legal use can justify stronger enforcement on the fewer remaining unregulated sites.

My Proposal:

Below, I share my vision for dog parks in Los Altos. I hope the City Council will endorse it. It is a progressive, incremental plan comprised of both permanent and temporary (evolving) elements. It is a strategic way to create an effective number of legal off-leash areas and, at the same time, crosspollinate communities.

I urge the City Council to:
1) Approve the immediate permanent installation of these three (3) fenced-in and vestibule-gated dog parks, with the understanding that the final refinements as to features will be attained as budget allows:
a. Hillview soccer east – size as proposed
b. Mackenzie West – size reduced slightly to preserve the site of the current climbing structure which will be replaced with a new Inclusive Activity feature in the future (see PARC Inclusivity project suggestions); preserving that site provides a buffer between dog use and the tennis courts anyway.
c. Rosita Park – size as proposed pending user-community feedback, which may reduce the east-west scale for the park at no real loss of the utility of the dog park area (the size proposed in the report is quite large).
2) Approve the immediate installation of these three (3) additional temporarily-fenced and gated dog parks, two of which are per Staff recommendation. These sites would reduce load on the permanent sites above and allow for further testing of neighbor-impacts of the locations below. (I maintain that testing of sites when congestion is an issue is not a good test.) a. Heritage Oaks – I favor Rosita over this park because Heritage seems to require more infrastructure development to create a permanent dog park. b. Lincoln Park South (the portion of Lincoln Park south of the Chamber of Commerce) c. Marymeade
3) Consider this note on Lincoln Park South: I do not understand why this park was eliminated from consideration. No rationale was included in the report. Lincoln Park South is more than well away from homes. The noise of Foothill will further cover for any dog park use. The existing berms can help ameliorate visual issues, as could additional hedges planted along the Lincoln Avenue side. There is plenty of parking. Dog parks do not have to be super large or squareshaped. A longish, slender fenced park here can be just fine for socializing dogs with call-andreturn play and training. This park already suffers from a large amount of illegal off-leash use (there is poop everywhere). May as well outfit the function it currently provides with the proper fencing, gating, and management.
4) Direct Staff or the Parks and Rec Commission to conduct a study of the above three (3) temporary sites over 24 months to gauge community input, usage, and other stakeholder issues.

Follow that study with another study to assess a temporary site at Grant. Continue this process until every possible greenspace is tested for dog park feasibility, including for housing developments as of yet unspecified. Convert temporary sites to permanent based on these studies.

By specifying and approving an expanded, more strategic plan on January 11, City Council will bestow great benefit on its human and canine community members; you will give us safe places to play with our dogs. You will, importantly, create the boundaries needed to protect those people who fear or are not ready for dogs. You will keep dogs safely away from places where they do not belong. And finally, you will earn the legacy for having transformed Los Altos into a dog-friendly city, something no Council before you has been able to do.* Over 40% of our city owns dogs; we’re behind you; please make this happen.

Thanks for your time,
Jeanine Valadez
*at least not since I moved to Los Altos in 1989.

From: Alon Amit
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:44:17 PM
Honorable City Council,
I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. We have been visiting the park daily during off-leash hours throughout last year, and it has been a source of friendship and community building for our entire family. We made new friends, and even new professional connections, through the off-leash program, and we can’t wait for it to be made available again.

Sincerely,
Alon Amit
Resident of Los Altos
From: Joan Centofanti
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Friday, January 7, 2022 11:29:04 AM
Honorable City Council,
I am very much in favor of having off-leash dog areas in Los Altos. Dogs are an important part of many Los Altos family lives and we need areas for them to run, play, exercise, and socialize with other dogs. Dogs who are well socialized are better members of the community and less likely to have problems interacting with other humans and their dogs.

We have lived in Los Altos for 31 years and I am certain that off-leash dog areas will be a plus for our community. I met a lot of new people this summer at the Hillview Baseball field and I feel a stronger bond to my community because of it. A dog park is also a great opportunity to teach our dogs better manners, both off-leash and on-leash and to practice coming when called, and greeting people with good manners.

I feel strongly that having an off-leash dog play area enriches our community and I am confident we can find a way to make this possible. It would be better to have the area fully fenced so that offleash dogs don’t run into the street or up to people and other dogs walking by. There are many committed neighbors, including myself, who are motivated to help the park be successful.

Thanks for seriously considering how to establish this important community-building activity for Los Altos.

Sincerely,
Joan Centofanti,
Resident of Los Altos
Bonnie Densmore
Patricia Densmore
Los Altos, CA 94022
January 6, 2022
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. This program is important to me because we are a dog-friendly community and should be able to offer a few places for dogs to run safely and freely as many larger and small cities do.

Sincerely,
Bonnie Densmore
Patricia Densmore
From: Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Friday, January 7, 2022 5:15:14 PM
Except for the public comment email address, all emails are bcc'd to protect against Brown Act violations and preserve privacy.

To: Mayor Anita Enander
Cc: City Council, City Manager, City Staff, and the City Admin Bcc 1: The Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society (HDPPS) Steering Committee Bcc 2: 397+ Los Altos Off-leash Dog Owners and Off-leash Supporters (This time I included the full HDPPS mailing list of Los Altan petitioners and other interested parties.) Bcc 3: A founding member of the long-defunct "Los Altos Parks Dog Group" (LAPDoG), which was formed in 2003 to petition for off-leash parks in Los Altos. LAPDoG met with then-Mayor Francis La Poll, the Town Crier, and the 2003 Los Altos City Council. They also marched in the 2003 Los Altos Pet Parade.

Bcc 4: The Town Crier - for a heads up that we might make history next Tuesday Bcc 5: The Los Altos History Museum - nearby neighbors to the proposed off-leash site and recorders of Los Altos History
Bcc 6: 3800+ Los Altan Dogs (Okay, just kidding on this one, but I’ll bet they’re praying along with HDPPS for good news for off-leash next Tuesday!)
Honorable Mayor Anita Enander,
Thanks for responding to our request for a meeting below with a phone call. I’m sharing your thoughts with the group listed above so that we’re all on the same page. To support the City Staff’s recommendation, you recommended that all interested parties:

1. Show up at next Tuesday’s 1/11/22 City Council meeting, if possible Make sure to download the latest version of RingCentral here

2. Plan to speak or cede minutes to other HDPPS members

3. Whether able to attend or not, email: [email protected] with instructions here (Many thanks to those who have already emailed!)
HDPPS understands that opponents of off-leash will also have their say on Tuesday, and while we can’t predict the outcome of the Council’s discussions and vote, we’re hopeful that the City Staff’s thoughtful recommendation of using the “soccer-field-east'' newly-reclaimed grass area at Hillview will convert opponents to proponents.

Keeping the faith and hoping Los Altos finally breaks on through to the other side of this almost-20-year effort!
Bette
--
Bette Houtchens
Steering Committee Member
The Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:32 AM Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society <[email protected]> wrote:

To: Mayor Anita Enander,
Cc: City Council, City Manager, City Staff, and the City Admin Bcc: Los Altos Off-leash Dog Owners and Off-leash Supporters Honorable Mayor Enander,
First, a hopeful new year and congratulations and best wishes as the new Mayor of Los Altos.

Second, I'm writing on behalf of the Hillview off-leash community to request a meeting with you before the January 11th Council meeting.

Third, to respect everyone’s precious time and minimize frustration, we want to coordinate meeting details with the City Admin before the Council meeting. With Omicron causing significant stress and illness in our immediate community - as well as in our extended families and communities across the globe - we need to be as efficient and respectful as possible.

We were very encouraged by the City Staff’s work to develop thoughtful, viable alternatives on the Hillview site, and we hope to make the off-leash programming effort a solid win for everyone.

Please let us know your availability and thoughts. I will forward any response to my full distribution list.

Best regards,
Bette Houtchens
The Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society
--
Bette Houtchens
Steering Committee Member
The Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society
From: Phoebe Bressack
To: Public Comment
Subject: Off leash dog park
Date: Friday, January 7, 2022 7:42:40 PM
I strongly support the town having an off leash dog park and also support the staff recommendation for it being at “soccer-field-east” newly-reclaimed grass area at Hillview, provided that low fencing can be installed to keep the dogs corralled:-)
Phoebe Bressack
From: Zainab Siddiqui
To: Public Comment
Cc: Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT-AGENDA ITEM #7-January 11, 2022 Date: Friday, January 7, 2022 10:39:21 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
I am in middle school and I have lived in Los Altos since I was 2 years old. I love living in our town. I participate in the window painting during Halloween, I go to the Pet Parade with my family every year, I enjoy the Festival of Lights Parade, and I love going to the Farmers Market in the summer. While these events are amazing, nothing compares to the time I spend at the off leash dog park at Hillview with my family's dogs. Smarty Jones and Benji are Havanese puppies. They are great dogs and they have made so many friends at the dog park.

My sisters and I have also made a lot of friends with the neighborhood kids who bring their dogs there. We love walking to the dog park after dinner on most evenings. Please keep the off-leash Hillview dog park open. It is so much fun and it is so important to me and my neighborhood friends.

Thank you for listening!
Your Neighbor,
Zainab S.

Resident of Los Altos
From: Zeenat Khan
To: Public Comment
Cc: Hillview Dog Park Preservation Society
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT- AGENDA ITEM #7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Friday, January 7, 2022 11:45:14 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:

We strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. Our town needs a dedicated off-leash space in which our dogs are free to run, play and socialize with each other. Please help us make off-leash at Hillview a permanent reality for our pets.

Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Maryam S. and Zeen K.

Residents of Los Altos
From: Miriam Umeoka
To: Public Comment
Subject: fenced in dog park at HOP
Date: Saturday, January 8, 2022 12:38:28 PM
As a resident just across HOP I'm against the fenced-in dog park; the main reason being the lack of parking space in the area. We already have too much traffic and people parking everywhere (even in prohibited areas) when there are soccer classes during the week and even worse during the weekends with the weekend crowd. HOP is a small park, with few trash bins (which by the way overflows during its busiest times) and one restroom.

Hope you put this into consideration.

Thank you.

Miriam Umeoka
From: Haritha Nandela
To: Public Comment
Cc: Uma Subramanian
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT –AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Saturday, January 8, 2022 1:57:55 PM
Hello Committee members,
We are long due an enclosed dog park in Los Altos. I support the initiative to build a dog park at Hillview and Mckenzie park. Please approve this proposal.

Thanks
Haritha and Biscuit Nandela
From: Garrick Toubassi
To: Public Comment
Subject: In support of the Hillview dog park
Date: Saturday, January 8, 2022 2:13:25 PM
To the Honorable Mayor Anita Enander, and other members of the Los Altos City Council, Although I will be unable to attend the meeting on 1/11/22, I would like to add my voice of support for the Hillview dog park. As a resident of Los Altos for 22 years, and a resident at our home on East Edith for 12 years, our family has enjoyed the ability for dog's (and human's!) to socialize on a regular basis. The environment amongst the participants and dogs is incredibly friendly, welcoming, inclusive, and wholesome. You should join us one day to see for yourself! Owners are very responsible about picking up waste, and humans and dogs of all ages enjoy the environment.

Given the large (and given the Pandemic, growing!) number of dog owners, it seems a very reasonable use of this public space to carve out the small amount of time per day for dogs and dog owners to congregate.

On behalf of myself and my family, please make the Hillview dog park a permanent fixture.

Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Garrick Toubassi
From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: Dog Park - Agenda Item #7
Date: Saturday, January 8, 2022 6:13:23 PM
Los Altos City Council Members:

I object to the recommendation made in the agenda report summary prepared for the Jan 11 city council meeting, to consider Heritage Oaks as a possible third dog park location.

Heritage Oaks is not suitable for a dog park because of its proximity to the residences on McKenzie Ave and the lack of parking. The impact on the residence is acknowledged in the agenda report summary but the report fails to acknowledge the severity of this problem.

Contrary to the report, parking is very limited. Moreover, unlike some of the other parks in Los Altos, there is no nearby parking lot. Access to the few available parking spaces is only possible through McKenzie Ave. This is likely to result in traffic jam in McKenzie Ave and risk collisions with residents’ cars pulling out of their garages. This problem is already seen today even without the establishment of a dog park but a dog park will make this much worse.

Other parks in South Los Altos are better suited than Heritage Oaks for a dog park in terms of the impact on the residents and the parking but I believe a much better solution is the big parks in Mountain View, e.g., Questa. This is a very big park, no nearby residences, and large parking lot. The dog Off-Leash area is a small portion of the park. No interference with other activities in this park. Questa has a lot of capacity and can easily serve the south Los Altos residents for dog Off-Leash today. The city of Los Altos could formally discuss this with Mountain View.

Menashe Shahar
1335 McKenzie Ave
From: J LK
To: Public Comment
Cc: City Council
Subject: Public comment agenda item #7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Saturday, January 8, 2022 7:57:45 PM
Attachments: cc0672a1-26af-4e82-8621-f1372cd1c8fa.tiff
e376f2d1-37e2-4584-8bd5-2cf2a325bf31.tiff
Dear City Council,
I am very concerned that a proposal for two fenced-in dog parks is being considered by the City Council on January 11th. One of the locations identified by the City staff is McKenzie Park despite the numerous concerns raised by the Dog Park Subcommittee in their May 20, 2020 report. These include damage to heritage trees, drainage issues, expense, and danger to dogs from caterpillars. Additionally, the citizens of Los Altos were also clear that McKenzie Park should not be altered and destroyed for the sake of a dog park. It is disappointing that the City is pushing forward with this location despite its own clear evidence that this is not desired by the community and not safe for dogs.

Lincoln Park is listed as “not feasible” in the current Jan 11th proposal since it was deemed unwise to impact green space. Based on this criteria, McKenzie Park should also not be an option. McKenzie Park is a gem of a park with grassy areas, trees, and natural landscape that is enjoyed daily by the local community.

If the City insists on creating a fenced-in dog park, it should start with one lowcost location without dangers to dogs and humans to determine success and feasibility. Based on the City’s negative evaluation of the off-leash program, I suspect the idea will be abandoned. Owning a dog does not mean we are in favor of destroying parkland for a dog park. We have so little green space in Los Altos and should prioritize its protection. Please put the money and energy into projects that benefit our entire community.

Sincerely,
Ed Kim
South Los Altos resident
Excerpt from Dog Park Subcommittee May 20, 2020 report
McKenzie Park Location Discussion:

Initially, staff recommended that McKenzie Park be considered for a fenced-in dog park. The Subcommittee noted that there were some problems in recommending that site:

For example, substantial capital investment would be necessary to make McKenzie Park functional as a fenced-in dog park. Hardscape would need to be removed, some trees would need to be removed, drainage would need to be improved and fencing would need to be extensive to enclose the irregular area of this park.

In addition, there was concern for the impact to trees from dog urine and resulting necessary watering. Also, protective fencing would be required for a number of the trees. Parking is also an issue due to the site being frequently full of vehicles during the day. Caterpillars, potentially harmful to to dogs, are abundant in the months of April and May in this park. Although all parks in Los Altos face this potential infestation issue, it is a particular issue for the McKenzie Park site because the proposed fenced-in dog park would be located directly under the trees that are most infested with the caterpillars. Furthermore, a fenced-in dog park at this location would remove resident access to a play structure as well as public benches and picnic tables. Finally, and importantly, the data from the workshops do not support having a fenced-in dog park at this site.

Therefore, given these considerations and the negative impacts that would result from making a portion of the park a fenced-in dog park site, the Subcommittee does not recommend a fence-in dog park at this location.

Furthermore, the recent financial constraints on the City budget, as a direct result of the Corona virus, also gives reason to reject a fenced-in dog park at McKenzie Park.

Views of McKenzie Park front of park open space:

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: Comments to City Council"s agenda 1/11/2022 Item #7 Date: Saturday, January 8, 2022 10:38:13 PM
Dear City Council members,
This is a comment to the Staff report in regards to establishment of Permanent dog parks.

It looks really strange that after the failure of the Pilot Program in the Baseball Field the staff recommended establishing at least 2 dog parks in Los Altos.

This basically sounds like: "We tried it. It failed. Let's do it anyway but on a larger scale and at an additional cost of $100,000 per year to the community".

This makes no sense whatsoever.

If the City of Los Altos really wants to please the fraction of the owners of ~4000 dog (who actually want to use off-leash park) the best way would be to offer a part of this $100,000 to the City of Mountain View to share maintenance costs of the Cuesta Park in exchange for a "license to use the off-leash dog area by Los Altos residents" (which they can do now anyway) because:

1. The dog owners will have much much larger and much better place to run the dogs offleash

2. The neighbors of the proposed fenced dog parks in Los Altos will not have the "noise pollution" produced by barking dogs, increased traffic, and devaluation of their properties because of these nuisances.

3. The City will avoid reduction of the tax revenue due to devaluation of the properties neighboring the dog parks.

4. The City will also avoid a likely costly litigation brought by the owners of the properties neighboring the dog parks.

5. The current aesthetics of the parks will not be compromised by the ugly fencing around the off-leash areas

6. The City will be able to also use the leftover amounts between the declared $100,000 of cost and the actual cost of the "license to use" the Cuesta Park to improve the existing parks so there will be even more activities (including the potentially revenue-producing ones) there.

7. All Los Altos residents will avoid polarization of the community because everybody will get what they want: dog owners will have legitimate ability to use a very good dog park and the neighbors of the proposed sites will be able to continue the "quiet enjoyment" of their properties without disturbance of the excessive barking noises.

I hope that you will discuss this option and do what is right for the residents of Los Altos! Best Regards.

Vladimir Rubashevsky
1301 McKenzie Ave.

From: M Squire
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item #7 Jan.11 2022
Date: Sunday, January 9, 2022 12:49:19 PM
Dear City Council Members,
In looking at the current Staff report, we understand that the first two choices for fenced-in dog parks are the Civic Center Soccer Field East and McKenzie Park West.

We are writing because Heritage Oaks Park is listed as an alternative to McKenzie Park West. We are concerned that if McKenzie Park West is eliminated for some reason by the City Council, then Heritage Oaks would be voted on.

Therefore we would like to voice our opinion that Heritage Oaks Park is not best suited for a fenced-in dog park.

We would like to address only two of the criteria the Staff used in choosing park locations, sufficient parking and a buffer from residences. Both are insufficient.

First, would be parking. The current parking that exists in front of the underdeveloped area of Heritage Oaks Park is also undeveloped. It is just mud and big puddles now during the rainy season. There is no pavement or parking stripes. This park is very well used and that parking area always gets filled up with cars from park users. If a dog park is added, where many dog owners will be driving to the park to exercise their dogs, there definitely will not be enough parking. As it is, people illegally double park on the one side of the park.

However, the most important issue is the lack of buffer between the park and residences.

The park is only 50 feet across the street from peoples’ homes. This is not sufficient.

We would like the City Council members to imagine being in their homes and having to listen to barking dogs starting at dawn and continuing intermittently all day. We live directly across the street and we hear unleashed dogs barking during the early hours of the morning regularly, and that is from only 2 -3 dogs gathering.

The noise level
from barking dogs was one of the negatives reported from the Hilliview Off-Leash Pilot Program this past Fall and I fear that noise would be a big uncontrollable issue.

There is no mention of how rules will be enforced and who will enforce them.

McKenzie Park West at least is considered to have no residential impact according to the Staff report.

We would like the City Council to seriously consider the neighbors of Heritage Oaks Park before voting in favor of putting a fenced-in dog park at Heritage Oaks.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Millie and John Squire
From: Chaya Shahar
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fenced Dog Park - Agenda items #7 1/11/22
Date: Sunday, January 9, 2022 1:42:34 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am opposed to the Fenced dog park at Heritage Oak park (as it listed as an alternative to McKenzie Park West)! Heritage oak park is not suitable to serve as a location for a dog park in all aspects! Residential houses are in very close proximity to the park. There is not a sufficient buffer zone between the park and my home. It is just a few seconds from my front door!!!! Any dog can jump in front of cars or run to my home and bite my grandchildren or me. The noise level of barking dogs that close to residential houses would be unbearable.

Additionally, there is minimal parking with no parking lot like in all the others parks! The parking is on the street and in front of my home. Currently, without a dog park, there is often insufficient parking for residents as well as park goers. There is often traffic on the street which can be very dangerous for residents backing from their garage and children who are playing. The presence of a dog park will make this problem significantly worse, it will increase traffic and can endanger children as well as residents.

As citizen of Los Altos I have the right to live in peace and without noise or fear of dog attack as I or my grandkids steps out the door or I may accidentally drive over a running dog or made an accident because of too much traffic as I get out of my garage.

We are too close to the park !!!
Best regards,
Chaya Shahar
1335 McKenzie Ave.

Los Altos
From: Smadar Agmon
To: Public Comment
Subject: January 11 meeting Agenda item #7 the establishment of permanent dog parks Date: Sunday, January 9, 2022 2:40:11 PM
Dear city council members,
I am a long time Los Altos resident at McKenzie Ave. and I am opposing the establishment of a fenced dog park at Heritage Oaks park as it will affect residents and park users negatively.

1. My main concern is the noise from a dog park which does not fit so close to residents in an otherwise very quiet neighborhood. Both the residents on McKenzie ave and the park users will loose the otherwise tranquil environment. Being so close to residences and to a well used park, I think the location is not appropriate for a dog park.

2. Another very important concern is the parking, or the lack of appropriate parking. Parking is already an issue on McKenzie Ave. With multiple households having more than two drivers, some of their cars have to park on the street. With more ADUs being built soon there will be even more residents' cars on the street. The postman leaves us warning notes if we park our cars in front of the mailboxes and sometimes does not deliver our mail on that day which leaves less places to park on our side of the street. Park visitors usually park their cars on the park side of the street but on most weekends and some afternoons there aren't enough spaces there or they are puddles of water after a rainy day, and they park on the houses side as well which leaves us no room for our cars. The undeveloped area has parking that is undeveloped as well and gets very muddy in the winter.

3. The park is heavily used which is great but many times large groups gather there for events such as birthdays. In those cases which are not rare, especially in the summer, the visitors end up parking far from the park, snaking along McKenzie ave. since there is no parking allowed on Portland or Miramonte streets. Adding more cars will affect the park users' experience by having to park even farther from the park.

4. My other concern is If some dog owners trust their dogs to behave or just for convenience, decide not to leash their dogs between the car and the gate of the fenced park, I can see a potential danger to kids who play there and people who are scared of dogs. This place is well trafficked at all hours of the day. It is not mentioned who will supervise users behavior and what will be the punishment.

5. It seems from a map that the undeveloped side of the park is unused which is not the case.

There is a lot of charm to the natural setting and many people choose to walk, jog, bike, or walk their dog there.

6. The location of the dog park is another concern. It will have to be very close to the creek. I don't think it is healthy to have so much dog urine close to a watershed. The way the rectangular area of the park was drawn on the map is impossible to build as part of it seems to be in the creek. People like to walk, jog, bike, or walk their dogs close to the creek for the natural setting and it will be nice to leave the dirt path there for them to enjoy which will make the park even closer to the nearby houses.

7. The look is another concern. For years we were able to maintain a more natural appeal to the city and a large fenced area does not qualify for the look we are trying to achieve.

I think McKenzie park West by Fremont Ave is a reasonable place for a fenced dog park for South Los Altos. No residents will be affected, it is located on a main traffic route, Fremont ave., with good access and good parking. It is not adjacent to a park where many people try to spend time peacefully, and it is already noisy there as it faces Foothill Expressway so dog barks won't disturb an otherwise quiet place. We should not forget that Cuesta park is very close, big, and very suited to off leash dogs.

Regards,
Smadar Agmon
From: Cheryl Kershner
To: Public Comment
Subject: January 11, 2022: ITEM 7- DOG PARK
Date: Sunday, January 9, 2022 6:34:36 PM
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk, We, life-long guardians of dogs, remain vehemently opposed to the latest attempt to diminish parkland in our beloved city, particularly McKenzie Park.

The arguments against this latest attempt of the City to reduce the scant open space remaining to its residents are countless. Albeit included are: destruction of heritage trees; increased traffic, parking and noise in an already crowded corridor; undue hardship on abutting neighborhoods; liability exposure; and cost of maintenance, including use of oft-rationed water. Too, with the world's present condition painfully demonstrating the need for more open space, more time outdoors and less crowded gatherings, we are appalled that money, time and focus is being spent on decreasing our precious open space.

Respectfully submitted by:

Cheryl Kershner and David Kays
919 Clinton Rd, Los Altos 94024
From: Rani Roley
To: Public Comment
Cc: Rani Roley
Subject: Dog Park - Agenda Item #7
Date: Sunday, January 9, 2022 8:25:39 PM
Hello,
I do not support the recommendation made in the agenda report to consider Heritage Oaks as a possible 3rd dog park location.

I am a dog owner and we live right across the park. We constantly see traffic issues with cars blocking our driveway especially during the summer months and also when there is any game at the park. There are very limited parking spots and I can’t imagine the issues with increased traffic. It’s already a nightmare navigating the street trying to get to our home when there are so many people at the park.

Along with the increased traffic, there will be a lot of noise from the dogs barking etc. ruining any tranquility.

The fenced in area will be too close to our homes - there is only a small road (McKenzie Ave) between the park and our houses. Heritage Oaks Park is a tiny park compared to the others.

Thank you,
Rani Roley
From: Betty Christopher
To: Public Comment
Subject: January 11 Agenda Item #7
Date: Sunday, January 9, 2022 9:32:25 PM
Re: Fenced-in Dog Park
Dear City Council Members,
I agree with the staff recommendation that McKenzie Park West is a better location for a fenced-in dog park than Heritage Oaks Park.Heritage Oaks Park is right across the street from many homes. The noise from dogs barking is annoying, especially early morning and early evening.

Please do not plan a fenced-in dog park at Heritage Oaks Park.

Thank you for considering my feelings.

Thanks for your service to the city,
Betty Christopher
1300 Holly Ave.

From: Yoav Agmon
To: Public Comment
Subject: Oposition to having Herritage Oak Park as a location for a Dog-park (agenda Item # 7) Date: Sunday, January 9, 2022 11:57:51 PM
City Council Members:

This letter presents my strong objection to the consideration of creating a dog park at the Heritage Oak location.

We have lived across from the park for over 35 years, our children were born and raised here.

The south part of the park and its access to the Permanente Creek serves as a small monument to the (historical) rural nature of Los Altos and is constantly enjoyed by many of the active residents (including dog owners), a glimpse of how it used to be before all these urban developments. Any proposed change to this area risks forever destroying a nice reminder of Los Altos history.

Now for less emotional and nostalgic reasons:

It is obvious that establishing such a fenced dog park with all its intended activities, right in a very close proximity to our homes will cause us unacceptable harm on multiple fronts and occasions.

The relevant report indicates other possible locations where the issue of negative impact to residential homes don't exist.

Thus, If the Heritage Oak location will be selected despite all the opposition of the neighborhood, it will appear as Los Altos City council intentionally decided that hurting us is OK.

I hope that our elected representatives will decide in favor of selecting a location that does not impact its local residents, and we are not forced to continue our fight against a Dog-Park right next to our homes.

Thank you for your consideration,
Yoav Agmon
1359 McKenzie ave Los Altos
From: Henry More-New
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 - 01/11/2022.

Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 2:32:06 AM
AGAINST Establishment of Permanent Dog
Parks
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
My wife and I live in South Los Altos and we walk our dog almost daily through McKenzie Park, enjoying the green grass and the exceptional heritage live oaks and redwoods, particularly the spectacular old live oak next to Fremont which must be centuries older than the City of Los Altos itself. We do NOT take our dog to any dog parks for reasons of general canine safety. Exercise for dogs is far better controlled in one’s own backyard, and where safety is really not an issue provided one’s fences are maintained.

Why would the City Council vote to sequester a significant portion of McKenzie Park for the enjoyment of only about 250 dog-park-using residents (the City’s PARC’s estimate) from a total city population of almost 40,000? For the benefit of less than 1% of the residents?
Why would the City Council risk the lives of our heritage trees from overwatering under their canopies?
Why would the City Council vote to turn a quiet and tranquil space for contemplation and enjoyment into a smelly and ugly eyesore? Why would the City Council vote to put any dog parks in areas of predominantly single-family homes with their own yards? If the City Council is determined to build a dog park, should it not be located nearer to those parts of the City of Los Altos that contain a larger number of residents who lack gardens and yards? Perhaps near El Camino Real and Downtown Los Altos?
Why wouldn’t the City Council vote to put one large central dog park conveniently downtown with excellent access to water and parking, and far from residential houses? Why would this not be in the unused space East of the City Council offices, North of the Library, West of the LACY building and South of the City Council parking lot? The City Council would then have the benefit of constant feedback on the rightness of their decision and on the success of their judgemental skills – all this without destroying the quality of life of a large number of residents of Los Altos.

Yours sincerely,
Henry & Adelle
Henry and Adelle More
1436 Miramonte Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94024-5601
From: Tomer Agmon
To: Public Comment
Subject: Objection to Dog Park at Heritage Oaks Park
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:54:16 AM
This email is in regards to the Dog Park proposal within Heritage Oaks Park.

As a long time resident, born and raised in this house right across the street from Heritage Oaks Park, I have seen this park at all its uses. From children walking and biking through it in the morning to get to school, and back in the afternoon, to families hosting weekend park cookouts, elementary school soccer teams training on the grass, young mothers and fathers pushing strollers, toddlers learning to ride their first tricycles, to yes indeed, people walking and playing with their dogs. First and foremost is the familial aspect. This park has long been a safe haven for all the families in this and the surrounding neighborhoods. It has been a go-through detour for anyone in the area taking a walk and a comforting place of rest for anyone driving by who had had a long stressful day and simply needed to park and nap a little (Including the local postmen, delivery drivers, and utility workers who need a short break before returning to the grind of the day). Not to mention the many household cats who enjoy exploring the region (I personally have two).

A designated dog park would be detrimental to the area. No longer would the park be a safe haven for children, families, walkers, and hard working essential workers, but instead it would become a single purpose use area. When families come by with their dogs, under control and in limited numbers, this park remains relatively safe for all involved. With a dog-park designation, this would no longer be the case.

There could be no stray kids, no wandering cats, no young families with babies in strollers. I love dogs, we all do, but there is no disputing the fact that if left unchecked, there are some wild ones at heart. This is not their fault, they never asked to be domesticated for their hunting ability and later criticized for this very same aspect. But it is undeniable, dogs can be dangerous. I have already had one cat mauled to death within the outskirts of that very park, and would like to prevent all possibilities of this happening again. And in an area such as this, so very dependent on the safety of small children and a haven for the families in the multiple nearby neighborhoods, a dog park would be unacceptable. Simply put, it is a bad idea at this particular location.

Thank You for your consideration,
-Tomer Agmon
From: Medini Gore
To: Public Comment
Subject: Objection to dog park at Heritage Oaks
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:16:36 AM
City Council Members:

This letter represents my strong objection to the consideration of creating a dog park at the Heritage Oaks location.

We have lived in the neighborhood close to Heritage Oaks Park for over 26 years and have enjoyed the open space and rural feel. Making a dog park at the Heritage Oaks park will become a nuisance to everyone in the neighborhood with increased traffic and noise. Several homes directly face the park and will be heavily impacted.

To consider this location for a dog park especially when other locations in the city can potentially be used is disregarding the harm and inconvenience to the neighborhood. I sincerely hope the city council members will take this into consideration while making the final decision.

Sincerely,
Medini Gore
1415 Oakhurst Avenue
From: Lara McGurk
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022” Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:24:13 AM
Honorable City Council:

I strongly support the off-leash program at Hillview. This program is important to me because I'm a local resident, live near Hillview and would like a place to take my dog that is walking distance. As a los altos tax payer I feel we should have atleast one, fenced in dog park for residents.

Sincerely,
Lara
Resident of Los Altos!
Lara McGurk
From: Martin Saso
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Martin Saso Subject: Public Comment Item #7 Jan. 11, 2022
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:34:50 AM
To the City Council Members,
With regards to and based on the data within the current Staff Report regarding the first two choices for fenced-in dog parks, I have the following comments for you to please consider and, respectfully, act on...

First, I read that the first two choices for fenced-in dog parks are the Civic Center Soccer Field East and McKenzie Park West.

Second, Heritage Oaks Park is listed as an alternative to McKenzie Park West.

Given the above, based on the following data, Heritage Oaks Park would continue be an inappropriate alternative and a "Safety Issue" for those that live nearby on McKenzie Ave and the surrounding areas for the following reasons:

There is inadequate parking for the "increase" in the volume of cars that these "dog owners" would bring to McKenzie Ave.

It is logical that they would then "park" their cars in front of the homes and, as we have all witnessed in the past, have their unleashed dogs run freely with the threat of having them run into the home owner's yards (Safety Issue). Recall previous such events were reported last year.

Respectfully, the Heritage Oaks Park area you are considering as a back-up to McKenzie Park West is only some 50 feet from the homes on McKenzie Ave, this is clearly inadequate and another "Safety Issue".

There is no mention of how any violations or correction actions will be enforced and by whom. I read in the recent Staff report that McKenzie Park West has no residential impact which again, based on the known data, is not the case for Heritage Oaks Park given the form factor of the Park, the proximity to the residents and their homes and the limited parking area.

Clearly there will be "Residential Impact" and numerous "SAFETY issues" with Heritage Oaks Park.

Based on the data within your report, indeed any efforts to have Heritage Oaks Park be an alternative to McKenzie Park West would be an inappropriate choice and a disaster as the aforementioned "SAFETY" concerns would indeed occur.

Respectfully, in our world of Silicon Valley, "bad designs" are not successful and are "stopped" before going forward into production.

Based on the data you and others have shared, Heritage Oaks Park is not the answer nor a "back-up solution" for your fenced-in dog park idea.

We respectfully ask that the City Council do not vote in favor of putting a fenced-in dog park at Heritage Oaks Park.

Thank you,
Martin Saso
Home Owner
McKenzie Ave.

Los Altos, Ca
From:

To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected];
Subject: Public Comment Item #7 Jan. 11, 2022
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:42:19 AM
To the City Council Members,
With regards to and based on the data within the current Staff Report regarding the first two choices for fenced-in dog parks, I have the following comments for you to please consider and, respectfully, act on...

First, I read that the first two choices for fenced-in dog parks are the Civic Center Soccer Field East and McKenzie Park West.

Second, Heritage Oaks Park is listed as an alternative to McKenzie Park West.

There is inadequate parking for the "increase" in the volume of cars that these "dog owners" would bring to McKenzie Ave.

Clearly there will be "Residential Impact" and numerous "SAFETY issues" with Heritage Oaks Park.

Respectfully, in our world of Silicon Valley, "bad designs" are not successful and are "stopped" before going forward into production.

Based on the data you and others have shared, Heritage Oaks Park is not the answer nor a "back-up solution" for your fenced-in dog park idea.

We respectfully ask that the City Council do not vote in favor of putting a fenced-in dog park at Heritage Oaks Park.

Thank you,
Martin Saso
Home Owner
McKenzie Ave.

Los Altos, Ca
From: Noa Grant
To: Public Comment
Subject: Off-Leash Dog Park on City Council Agenda for Jan 11 2022 Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:18:51 AM
Dear council member,
We read the thoughtful staff report that analyzes the different potential locations for an off leash dog park, and to the most part we agree with the recommendations. With one exception. The report sees minimal residential impact for such park at heritage oaks park, whereas we see this as a direct and significant impact on our neighborhood.

We have been living in Los Altos for the past twenty some years. We cherish our town, and appreciate the safety, friendliness, and sense of community, among many other qualities that our town offers.

We would like to first voice our safety concerns. We have three young children in our household, twin 7 years old boys and a 9 years old girl, who love biking to the park, playing on the playground, and having picnics on the grass. We are obviously concerned for their safety with this proposal.

For many years we had been playing soccer at Heritage Oaks Park, both recreationally with friends and family and taking part in Coach Ken’s classes. We would like to continue using the park recreationally, and are concerned that an off leash park would introduce unscooped poop, spoiling the experience for all park goers and making the park unsuitable for our family's activities. And though we LOVE dogs and have had dogs over the years, we don’t want unleashed dogs chasing us or our soccer balls.

We love the natural setting that this park uniquely offers, bordering with Permanente Creek.

We are concerned that off leash dogs would chase away wildlife that habitats in this magnificent surrounding. It would be so much better for this little piece of nature if you found a more suitable fenced off area to house the off leash initiative.

We are also concerned with the obvious nuisances, traffic, noise, and parking. Heritage oaks is a very small neighborhood park that is adjacent to residences and simply doesn't have the capacity to take on more activities.

Accordingly, we believe that the nearby McKenzie park is a far more suitable location for a fenced off dog park that would not be negatively affecting an entire park and residential neighborhood.

We urge you to take us impacted residents into account as you're considering the designated locations for an off-leash dog park. Let's prioritize the people of our town, safety, and our property value.

Thank you for your consideration.

Noa Grant and Guy Gecht
1380 McKenzie Avenue
Los Altos
--
All the best,
Noa Grant
From: Gillie Roth
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Establishment of permanent dog parks
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:20:09 AM
Dear City Council,
As a resident on McKenzie Avenue, I have several concerns that come to mind regarding the suggestion of developing a fenced dog park at Heritage Oaks Park. I believe that McKenzie Park West is a great candidate for this dog park, as is currently proposed.

On McKenzie Avenue and Heritage Oaks park we already see a parking shortage on days that the park is used for parties and sports activities, so there is not sufficient parking for an additional use of the park on the most popular days (weekends and holidays).

As I'm sure many people can relate to during the Pandemic, we spend a lot of time in our house and backyard now that we work from home. Specifically, our office windows face the park and we are concerned that the noise of the dogs playing as well as their owners raising their voices to get their dogs to listen will alter our quality of life. We chose to live here with the understanding that we live near a quiet neighborhood park and replacing this with a loud dog recreation area would completely change our living environment.

I believe that McKenzie Park is a much better option with it's parking availability as well as having no residential houses near the proposed location. This location already has the noise of foothill expressway nearby, and the additional dog park seems like it would be less of a change in that environment.

Thanks,
Gillie Roth
January 10, 2022
Dear City Councilmembers,
I am writing with regard to the Dog Park proposal that is Agenda Item #7 for the 1/11/22 meeting.

I am very glad that, based on the pilot project at Hillview, both Council and staff concluded that FENCED-IN dog parks will work better for everyone than unfenced off-leash hours. I support the staff recommendation for fenced-in dog parks, because such facilities will ensure greater safety and less disturbance to other park users, cyclists, pedestrians, and neighbors.

I also support the staff recommendation regarding placement of the dog park in south Los Altos at McKenzie Park West, because that location will have the least negative impact on nearby residents. Although it may not be ideal, because it removes green space, it is the “least bad” location, as staff concluded.

The staff report suggests that Heritage Oaks Park would be an acceptable alternate location for the dog park, but there are two reasons why I don’t think even the undeveloped section of Heritage Oaks Park would be an acceptable location.

Noise: The Hillview pilot program demonstrated clearly that when many dogs are gathered in one location, there is a lot of barking and people shouting to each other and their dogs, which disturbs nearby residents. The location proposed by staff for the dog park in the undeveloped area of Heritage Oaks Park is certainly preferable to using the grassy area that is highly utilized as a sports field and by other park users. But, it is extremely close to residences, and therefore would create constant disturbance for them.

Parking: There is NOT sufficient parking at Heritage Oaks for an additional use. A fenced-in dog park would generate significant traffic and need for parking by those who would drive their dogs to the dog park. Heritage Oaks is a very heavily used park, and there are times when nearly every parking space adjacent to it (both paved and the dirt spaces closer to where the dog park would be located) are already filled. Also, all available spaces in front of residences on McKenzie Avenue are also used at certain times, including cars parked in our driveways, in front of our mailboxes, and right next to the park.

I have done head counts at Heritage Oaks Park, McKenzie Park, and Marymeade Park on several occasions. It is common for there to be 30-40 people at Heritage Oaks in the afternoons and on weekends, due to the soccer programs, volleyball games, playgrounds, and well-used picnic areas. Not counting the tennis courts, there are often only 4-10 people at McKenzie Park and at Marymeade Park at the same times that Heritage Oaks is already very heavily utilized.

In short, I support the staff recommendation and urge you to vote accordingly.

Thank you,
Jane Clayton
Public Comment Agenda Item #7 - January 11, 2022
Dear City Council Members and Staff,
I am sad that the vast majority of dog owners now waiting over a decade for off-leash hours at our neighborhood parks may perceive they have been stabbed in the back by this city council.

Creating one or two dedicated fenced dog parks is a band aid that may satisfy the needs of a small number of dog owners at the expense of the many that will rarely if ever use them.

And, either the Staff or Council have somehow ignored the recent two years of PARC community input which showed that the vast majority of dog owners want off-leash hours and not a dedicated dog park.

Dedicated fenced dog parks may make a much smaller number of dog owners happy but does nothing for the vast majority of us because these tiny places are too small for exercise and are a breeding ground for dog diseases. Moreover, dedicated fenced dog parks take away open shared spaces best left alone.

Ironically, PARC members including then Commissioner Weinberg voted unanimously against dedicated fenced dog parks – especially at McKenzie. And, neither location serves anyone that lives in South Los Altos.

Neither of the two locations meets best practices for either design or size. Indeed, the minimum size for small dogs is ½ acre and for large dogs 1 acre – ideally 2 acres if possible. And, dog parks will not stop dogs from barking or dog incidents or digging holes [unless artificial grass or something similar]. Indeed, having all day use of a fenced in dog park may cause as many or moree complaints than having limited off-leash hours.

A better solution that also provides ample space for dog owners and their pets is to share our tiny neighborhood park lands by adopting limited off-leash hours instead. All that is needed to resolve many of the concerns is to provide fencing like at Lincoln Park around park perimeters and playgrounds where they exist.

Some say it is hopeless for this council to ever listen to residents but nevertheless I ask you to abort the creation of dedicated fenced dog parks and adopt off-leash hours instead. If we finally get off-leash hours I may no longer have to travel to another town to socialize with friends and play with my dog.

Frank Martin
From: Haluk Ozdemir
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please: No Wuff Wuff at Heritage Oaks Park
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:41:40 PM
I am disillusioned with the repeat request, albeit slightly modified, for a dog park in the Heritage Oaks Park; this park is used by very young residents of our peaceful city as well as adults and it should remain so – we do not want this park to go to the dogs, as it were. I urge all city council members to vote NO so that this proposal does not comeback clouded in a creative camouflage , and allow the city save the associated costs of staff and the $100,000 earmarked for this effort. As far as I know, Mountain View allows Los Altos dog owners to use the Cuesta Park’s dedicated dog path for this purpose (as well as others). Let’s keep Los Altos parks for the people.

Regards,
Haluk Ozdemir
1311 McKenzie Avenue, just across Heritage Oaks Park
From: Linda White <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Casey Richardson <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item #7 January 11, 2022 Dear Los Altos City Council Members,
I am writing to oppose replacing a section of McKenzie Park (by the tennis courts) with a fenced-in dog park.

In 2020 I submitted a petition to the City of Los Altos Parks and Recreation Committee when I was speaking at a public meeting regarding the fenced-in dog park agenda topic. That petition had close to sixty signatures opposing a fenced-in dog park at the McKenzie Park location. I collected those signatures by going door to door and discussing the pros and cons of replacing this open park with a fenced-in dog park. I focused my efforts in the neighborhoods close to the proposed dog park site at McKenzie Park. The signatures were gathered on Golden Way, Clinton Rd., Mora Drive, Altos Oaks, Springer Rd, and Fremont Ave. Close to half of the signatures that I collected were from dog owners who valued McKenzie Park as it is and expressed frustration with Los Altos officials trying to take away what little park space we have.

I would hope that this information has been shared with the current council members.

McKenzie Park is a valuable asset that the City of Los Altos should be proud and grateful to have. Beyond its monetary value it is a valuable community asset that provides a quiet respite for residents of all ages and abilities. It is a restorative spot where people who work in our community can eat lunch and rest before returning to serving our neighborhoods, it is a rest stop for seniors who live in the surrounding neighborhoods out for a walk, bicyclists gather here before and after their rides to socialize, families can play tennis while their children play, do homework, or have lunch, the list can go on and on. McKenzie Park is home to a small forest of beautiful redwood trees, a heritage oak tree, public art, low grassy knolls, picnic tables and park benches. This small piece of land provides natural resources that attract a variety of birds, insects, and wildlife that in turn provide a natural landscape that is enjoyed and treasured by all who discover this amazingly beautiful park. What more can you ask for from a public park??
All of these features are available and open to everyone, even dog owners.

Currently, people of all ages, all abilities, all backgrounds, and financial status can use this park. Why would the City of Los Altos want to fence off this beautiful open space, endanger the health (and possible destroy) the natural environment, shut out a large portion of residents and visitors in exchange for a dog park that only serves a limited number of residents that want a place for their dogs to run. I like dogs, and I am a former dog owner but this plan for a fenced-in dog park at this location makes no sense when you compare these two options. From a monetary perspective the city would be taking a beautiful piece of valuable land with incredible assets and turn it into a patch of land where dogs can pee and poo. Does this make any sense at all??
Our Los Altos community leaders should be protecting our limited open spaces and parks. It would be a wise investment for our city and for future generations.

Sincerely, Linda White
928 Clinton Rd.

Los Altos, Ca.
94024
From: Bill Sheppard
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 - Jan 11, 2022
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 3:04:32 PM
Dear City Council,
I am emailing to express my strong support for an enclosed dog park at McKenzie as recommended in the staff report. This proposal would make use of an area which is now largely unused, and it's far enough from any homes that noise is unlikely to be an issue. There are many, many dogs (and dog owners!) in our neighborhood. The pilot program at Hillview clearly demonstrated the demand within Los Altos for dog parks. The proposed dog park at the Community Center can be easily justified, but isn't sufficient to serve residents of south Los Altos. The proposal for a dog park at McKenzie would greatly benefit our community with little downside.

Please vote to approve this proposal.

Bill Sheppard
1457 Miramonte Ave
Los Altos
From: Barbara Adey
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Fenced-In Dog Park Objection
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 4:38:16 PM
Attachments: item 3c - dog park subcommittee recommendations.pdf To the Los Altos City Council,
This correspondence relates to item 7 on the agenda for the January 11, 2022 council meeting, Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks. I strongly oppose the establishment of a fenced-in dog park at McKenzie Park for the reasons below.

Parks and Recreation Committee analysis - I append to this correspondence, the dog park subcommittee report from May 2020 which specifically ruled out McKenzie Park as a possible location.

Park Space For All - The McKenzie Park West location includes a play structure. It is also used by patients, families, and staff at the neighboring Los Altos Sub-Acute and Rehabilitative Care facility. Are children and wheelchair-bound Los Altans truly of lesser importance than a fenced-in dog park?
Environmental Considerations - Fenced-in dog parks generate concentrated urine and feces which must be flushed out with excess water. As a result, the proposed dog park would damage heritage oaks and redwood trees.

Traffic Impact - A dog park at the proposed location will result in parallel parking on Fremont Avenue, which will impede bicyclists and pose a safety hazard for everyone.

For all these reasons, not least the conclusion of the Council's own Parks and Recreation subcommittee, I urge the council to forbear from establishing a fenced-in dog park at McKenzie Park.

Barbara Ade
1 DATE: May 20, 2020
AGENDA ITEM # 3c

City of Los Altos
Parks and Recreation Commission
Special Meeting: May 20, 20202
Dog Park Subcommittee Report and Recommendations
Report Date: Thursday, May 14, 2020
To: Park and Recreation Commission
From: Commissioners Stuart Eckmann, Teresa Morris, and Scott Spielman Subject: Dog Park Subcommittee Report and Recommendations Background
On February 13, 2019, the Los Altos City Council tasked the Los Altos Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) with conducting comprehensive public outreach in order to determine resident interest for a fenced-in dog park, as well as for off-leash dog hours in public parks. The current Mayor, Jan Pepper, later requested to the Subcommittee, that the process be divided into two proposals: one for a dedicated fenced-in dog park and the other for a shared space, off-leash pilot program. The design of the workshops and the recommendations in this report are consistent with those requests.

The issue of dog parks in Los Altos has been a subject of discussion within the leadership of this City for nearly ten years. In an attempt to thoroughly assess the issue PARC appointed a Dog Dark Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to explore ways to conduct thorough public outreach and analysis.

The Subcommittee was formed in August 2019 and consisted of Stuart Eckmann and Scott Spielman. In February of 2020, Teresa Morris was added to the Subcommittee. This report and its recommendation is the product of the collective views of the Subcommittee.

In addition to the current subcommittee efforts there was a previous dog park PARC subcommittee.

That Subcommittee consisted of Mike Ellerin, Tanya Lindermeier and Grace Lilygren. There was also a 2018 Dog Park survey.

City Council also requested that the PARC work with City staff to conduct the public workshops.

The Subcommittee commends the work of staff, particularly Donne Legge and Trevor Marsden, as well as the rest of the recreation staff. They were invaluable in conducting the workshops, compiling the data from the workshops and collecting public inputs through petitions, surveys and emailed correspondence between August 2019 and February 2020. The Subcommittee appreciates the efforts of residents in the information they gathered and provided, as well.

PARC, along with staff, did extensive public outreach. Mailings were sent to residents that live within 1000 feet of each of the proposed dog park sites. Other outreach efforts included:
• Signs in all parks (not just the parks under consideration for dog parks) • Paid ad and press release in Town Crier
• Flyers distributed and posted through the city
• Facebook
2 DATE: May 20, 2020
AGENDA ITEM # 3c

• Instagram
• Nextdoor.com
• Neighborhood leaders were sent informational emails
The Subcommittee recommendations are based to a large extent on the dog park workshops.

However, all input from residents were considered, including surveys, petitions, emails, letters and public comments at PARC meetings were assessed.

In February 2020, PARC and City Staff conducted 4 dog park workshops over a period of two days.

The first set of two were conducted on a Wednesday evening at the Garden House in Shoup Park.

The other set of two workshops were held two weeks later on a Saturday morning at Grant Park.

Details of the workshops and the additional resident input are contained in the staff report.

Additional Information that contributed to the recommendations in this report:

According to Palo Animal Control, there are over 3,800 licensed dogs in the city of Los Altos. Given that there are 10,700 residences in the city, between 35 and 40% of the homes in the city have dogs. (The range given is imprecise because some homes have multiple dogs and some dog owners do not have licenses for their dogs.)
Los Altos has limited parkland (45.2 acres) and limited parks, of which perhaps 8 or 9 provide the conditions to support areas for dogs. The parks are heavily used for sports and other activities and this presents scheduling challenges. As a result of having fewer parks and less open space, it is a challenge to find ideal hours for any type of Dog Park in the city.

Neighboring cities, including Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale have dog parks.

Residents of Los Altos frequently drive to other cites to use the dog parks in those cities.

Given this background and information, the following are the recommendations of the dog park subcommittee.

Proposal for a Dedicated Fenced-in Dog Park
McKenzie Park Location Discussion:

Initially, staff recommended that McKenzie Park be considered for a fenced-in dog park. The Subcommittee noted that there were some problems in recommending that site:

to dogs, are abundant in the months of April and May in this park. Although all parks in Los Altos face this potential infestation issue, it is a particular issue for the McKenzie Park site because the proposed fenced-in dog park would be located directly under the trees that are most infested with the caterpillars. Furthermore, a fenced-in dog park at this location would remove resident access to a play structure as well as public benches and picnic tables. Finally, and importantly, the data from the workshops do not support having a fenced-in dog park at this site.

Therefore, given these considerations and the negative impacts that would result from making a portion of thee park a fenced-in dog park site, the Subcommittee does not recommend a fence-in dog park at this location. Furthermore, the recent financial constraints on the City budget, as a direct result of the Corona virus, also gives reason to reject a fenced-in dog park at McKenzie Park.

Lincoln Park Location Discussion
Subsequently, and in response to the direction from City Council for PARC to recommend a site for a fenced-in dog park, the subcommittee decided to consider one other option for a location. An evaluation was made of South Lincoln Park, an approximate 22,000 square foot area that was mostly unused and had low traffic volume and ample parking. Drawbacks to this alternative became evident. It made no sense to dedicate a large part of this park to a fenced-in dog park. It would be giving up too much open space. A smaller area of about 7,000 divided into two areas – one for small dogs and one for large dogs was considered. This still results in removing a third of the park from general public uses.

The City was provided with an additional source of input via a large petition in support of a fencedin dog park at south Lincoln Park. However, those residents did not participate in any significant degree in the workshops, during PARC meetings or via writing to advocate for a dog park at south Lincoln Park. Therefore, the Subcommittee does not recommend proceeding with a fenced-in dog park at this location.

The City of Los Altos conducted a survey in 2018. The outcome of that survey had a number of participants in favor of a fenced-in dog park. However, the survey was not scientific in its methodology. Unlike the workshops, it lacked controls to allow for the separation of resident versus non-resident input. In addition, there was no control for duplication of voting.

Based on the workshops, there is consistent opposition to a dedicated fenced-in park in Los Altos.

One other data point was a City sponsored survey, conducted in 2018. It found that respondents preferred Lincoln Park between Edith and University (33%) for a fenced-in dog park. This survey also revealed desires for fenced-in parks at Grant, Hillview and Heritage Oaks Parks However, based on the significant resident input through the dog park workshops results, the Subcommittee does not recommend that location or any others for a fenced-in dog park in Los Altos. 4 DATE: May 20, 2020
AGENDA ITEM # 3c

Proposal for Off-Leash sites at two locations as a pilot program Staff recommended two sites for off-leash hours that would be shared with other resident uses.

PARC chose to support staff recommendations. The Subcommittee supports the concept of shared space, given that there is limited park space in our city. These two sites are: The Hillview Baseball Field and Heritage Oaks Park.

This would be a pilot program for a specific timeframe. The Subcommittee recommends 6-9 months in duration after the program begins. The 6-9-month period is exclusive of any closure due to any field maintenance. At the end of that timeframe, an updated report is recommended to City Council by current PARC subcommittee members and staff to determine if the pilot program should be extended or implemented permanently.

The Hillview Baseball Field Location Discussion
This site has a number of time limitations. It is used for baseball 7 months of the year and it is closed, as all parks in Los Altos are, for 2-1/2 months of the year, per staff, for field maintenance.

However, the Subcommittee recommends this location because it received strong support in the dog park workshops. The Hillview Baseball Field is currently available weekday mornings and after baseball activities in the weekday evenings. It is also currently available on weekend evenings.

The Subcommittee recommends that dog owners be limited to the grass area and not allow their dogs to run on the infield to preserve the infield’s condition. Appropriate signage needs to include this restriction.

Furthermore, the Subcommittee recommends that morning weekday hours continue until 10 am on the days the Field is not being used (refer to hour and timetable below). The hours below will not interfere with other activities in the park and will allow people who prefer to walk later, or who have school drop off conflicts to enjoy the location more fully.

Recommended hours for the off-leash use of Hillview Baseball Field are as follows:

Any adjustments deemed necessary by staff, to hours for the park schedule should be done in conjunction with the dog park Subcommittee.

Morning Hours
Days Months Off-Leash hours
Start
Off-Leash Hours
End
M, T, Th, Fr Feb thru Jul 7:00AM 10:00AM
Sun, Wed, Sat Feb Thru Jul 7:00AM 9:00AM
Sun-Sat1 Aug thru Jan 7:00AM 10:00AM

1. Except 7:00-9:00AM on Wed, Aug thru Oct
5 DATE: May 20, 2020
AGENDA ITEM # 3c

Afternoon/Evening hours
Days Months Off-Leash hours
Start
Off-Leash Hours
End
Sat, Sun Feb thru Jul 5:00PM Sunset
Sat, Sun Aug thru Jan 4:00PM Sunset
Mon-Fri Feb thru Oct 7:00PM Sunset
Mon-Fri Nov thru Jan 4:00PM Sunset
Heritage Oaks Park Location Discussion
The second location that staff recommended as an off-leash hours site is Heritage Oaks Park. PARC supports this recommendation.

Off leash dogs should be prohibited within 25 feet, or whatever distance staff recommends, of the picnic table areas.

Dogs must be restricted from the creek area adjacent to the park.

The Subcommittee strongly recommends that these restrictions be clearly displayed on the main signage and strictly enforced by Animal Control and Los Altos Police.

Hours recommended for Heritage Oaks Park
Any adjustments deemed necessary by staff, to hours for the park schedule should be done in conjunction with the dog park Subcommittee.

Morning Hours:

Days Months Off-Leash hours
Start
Off-Leash Hours
End
Sun-Fri Sept thru Jun 7:00AM 10:00AM
Sat Sept thru Jun 7:00AM 9:00AM
Mon-Fri July thru Aug 7:00AM 9:00AM
Sat-Sun July thru Aug 7:00AM 10:00AM
Afternoon/Evening hours
Days Months Off-Leash Hours
Start
Off-Leash Hours
End
Mon-Fri January thru
December
5:30PM Sunset
Sun-Sat Apr thru Oct 5:30PM Sunset
Sun-Sat Nov thru Mar 4:00PM Sunset
6 DATE: May 20, 2020
AGENDA ITEM # 3c

Comments about Hours for Off- Leash Hours Locations:

As noted above, Heritage Oaks and Hillview, like most parks in Los Altos, are well used. Therefore, providing a balance between the scheduled activities and consistent hours is a challenge. One option is to have the same set hours for both parks that are more limited and the other is to offer as many hours for off leash dog owners possible. The Subcommittee chose the latter.

Resident Concerns
Heritage Oaks Park has a particular challenge in that it is directly adjacent to a row of houses.

Hillview Baseball Field is similar. PARC received comments during the workshop and via the submitted comment cards, that residents adjacent to Heritage Oaks Park are concerned about the noise level. Taking this into account, PARC recommends that morning hours at this park and the Hillview Baseball Field do not begin until 7 am. It is our recommendation that the needs and desires of dog owners be balanced with the needs of residents and that all parties share the precious parkland that we have in our city. The Subcommittee recommends that any noise issues be considered as part of the post off-leash trial period discussion.

Monitoring and Evaluation for off-leash locations
Monitoring and evaluation is necessary.

The Subcommittee recommends the following procedures for public comment:

1. Allow the public to submit an email via a City address for emails and hard copy letters to be sent or dropped off with comments.

2. Set up an online comment form that requires name and address in order to fill out the form.

Comments with names and addresses will be considered for evaluation for the pilot program. Comments will also be accepted via mail and walk in.

3. The submitted comments will be compiled reviewed by both staff and the Subcommittee.

Animal Control and Los Altos Police will patrol off-leash locations to ensure people are following the rules.

City staff and the Subcommittee will also monitor reports from Animal Control and Los Altos Police Department.

In addition, the Subcommittee suggests that dog owners organize to form a group of Los Altos residents to monitor the dog issues at the parks and to report them to the Subcommittee.

Dog owners and residents should report all incidents.

Staff should report to the Subcommittee any concerns they might have on a monthly basis.

Note: This is not to be considered a complete list. Moving forward, staff and the Subcommittee will work together to provide a complete list.
7 DATE: May 20, 2020
AGENDA ITEM # 3c

Dog Owner Responsibilities
• Dog owners will pick up after their dogs, keep their dogs in the designated areas, report any incidents, and avoid tearing up the grass, particularly on wet days. • Dog owners must control the noise both they and their dogs generate, particularly before 8 am but also be aware of excess noise at all times.
• Dog owners need to be aware that this is a trial program and could be suspended if they do not take proper care of the parks.
• Dog owners must keep their dogs out of the nearby creek and yards and designated children’s’ play areas.
• Dog owners must abide by the hours and all rules provided by signage • All dogs must licensed
• Dogs must be under voice control
• Limit of two dogs per human companion
• All dogs must have an ID tag and collar, or harness and owner must be in possession of a leash.
• Hours for dogs must be strictly honored
• Incidents must be reported per signage instructions
Note: This list may be expanded per staff and the Subcommittee.

Per the October 16, 2019 Staff Report, the estimate for the off-leash parks for signage, dog bags, etc. is $7,100 per park.

Review of the Data from the Workshops
Data collected from the workshops, shows some support for fenced-in dog parks, as well as some opposition to off-leash hours. Comment cards from the workshops are consistent with these sentiments as well.

Support for fenced–in dog parks at one or both of the suggested locations, either Lincoln Park or McKenzie Park, was 38.9% of the 288 respondents. Specific to McKenzie, the support was 10.1% and for Lincoln Park the support was 6.6%. Conversely, an additional 8.3% responded no to the chosen locations but yes, to fenced-in elsewhere in Los Altos. Opposition to the suggested fenced-in locations was a majority at 52.8%.

Off-leash hours results showed the majority of respondents, 63% of the 284 respondents, support off-leash hours at one or both of the locations. Conversely, opposition to off-leash Hillview Baseball Field and Heritage Oaks Park was 9.5%. In addition, 27.5% completely opposed off leash hours at any park in Los Altos.
8 DATE: May 20, 2020
AGENDA ITEM # 3c

For complete workshop statistics, see the Dog Park Workshop Results Staff Report (3a).

Note: The number of workshop participants represents about 1% of the Los Altos population.

How long should the pilot program run?
The Subcommittee believes that 6-9 months should be sufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The 6-9-month period is exclusive of any closure due to any field maintenance.

The COVID-19 Virus - The COVID-19 virus has created uncertainty with respect to the timing of the implementation of the pilot off-leash program. It appears that it may be possible for dogs to be infected with the COVID virus and cause the infection of other dogs or humans. This needs to be factored into the timing of the pilot program, as do the same social distancing requirements already in place. It is crucial for PARC, as well as all staff, to stay abreast of the news regarding transmission via human to animal and animal to human as we move forward. If at any point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends closing off leash hours down, the City of Los Altos should act swiftly and decisively to do so. The City should consult, as necessary, with the Santa Clara County health Department as well.

COVID-19 Considerations - Public Health Issues.

The selection of potential sites for off-leash and fenced-in areas, as well as the City workshops, were all done prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, shelter-in-place orders, and guidelines for social distancing. The CDC have indicated that dogs and cats may become infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, and they are currently advising people to refrain from letting their pets interact with people or other animals outside their own households.

More recent information from Stanford University indicates that the COVID-19 virus can be in solid waste. The risk of dogs getting COVID-19 may be minimal, but it does exist. Whatever risks that exist may also be increased in legal off-leash parks.

Addendum

1. CDC Guidelines
Recent CDC guidelines are included as an addendum to this report, and the Subcommittee may provide updates as needed. As a result of this new information, there could be potential public health issues from sharing areas where dogs urinate and defecate with individuals and families who picnic on the same turf, and whose children play sports on that turf. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/animals.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#COVID-19-and-Animals https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/pets.html 9 DATE: May 20, 2020
AGENDA ITEM # 3c

2. A Potential Alternative Site at Heritage Oaks Park
Subsequent to public workshop input and the implementation of COVID-19 advisories and the shelter-in-place order, the Subcommittee discussed how and where another off-leash area could be implemented. If council feels that solid and liquid waste is a risk for the general public in the Covid19 era an alternative might be to use the undeveloped area of Heritage Oaks Park. However, we believe that most participants in the workshop would have assumed the area to be used would be the grassy area of Heritage Oaks Park. Therefore, this section is separated from the rest of the report. In addition, there is potential that any individual who uses any dog designated area (off leash or fenced-in) is always at risk of exposure to additional dog related diseases.

Potential advantages of having a dedicated off leash area in Heritage Oaks Park include: Minimizing risk for both dogs and humans of contaminating shared turf with dog urine and solid waste; the potential for broader hours of operation; and the potential for better compliance with ADA issues, where a solid substrate would better facilitate wheelchair access.

Potential disadvantages: The close proximity to residential properties; and potential negative impact to a watershed area at the adjacent creek. Furthermore, this would require significantly more capital investment to enable this area to be safe and attractive to both dogs and dog owners. Additionally, this has not been reviewed by staff nor presented to the public and this would take significant time and analysis.

Sharing our discussions of this potential site is not meant to bypass any public input from public discussions, but rather to convey an organically-derived idea.

3. Future Additional Needs for Dog Areas
A) All Bay Area communities are facing housing challenges. The State of California is mandating additional housing units, and the City of Los Altos is addressing this with Accessory Dwelling Units and higher-density multifamily development. Sometimes developers are seeking variances in allowable square footage and setback requirements and incorporating as many units as allowed in order to maximize their returns on investments.

Dogs are, and will continue to be, part of the social and emotional fabric of families. The confluence of higher-density living, an overall decrease in per capita yard size, and the desire for families to include a companion animal, mitigate together to add pressures on our finite park space. As result of the higher density and developer maximization, it would behoove The City of Los Altos to require that all future high density development in Los Altos provide park space, including a play space for dogs, as well as a separate play space for children. The dog park in Mountain View at San Antonio Village is a prime example of such a park incorporated into a high-density housing development.

B) If the dog park off leash program is a success, consider creating additional off leash parks per the results of the dog park workshop.

From: carol little
To: Public Comment
Subject: Dog Parks
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 5:45:16 PM
January 10, 2022
Los Altos City Council
Item Number 7
Dear City Council Members,
There are some consistent facts in Los Altos with regard to potential off leash or fenced in dog park solutions. The biggest is continual illegal off leash use of all parks (some more than others) in Los Altos. Another big consideration is that most residents do not want off leash use, or fenced in dog parks in their parks if it means losing open space/green space (per comments and ballot results during outreach and public comment at PARC meetings), and they do not want the parks to become overrun in a manner that makes it less friendly to residents first and to general use. Additionally, residents, if they live close to the parks become even less favorable of having fenced in dog parks in a park (per the PARC workshop results).

Also, there are limited opportunities to place any feature that generates activity or noise well away from homes. Almost every park has homes along its perimeter.

I am perplexed by the fact that Council is trying to move forward with off leash despite the fact that the PARC workshop results provided results in opposition and despite resident feedback against them. Also, why are we not having a pilot program for any potential fenced in dog park? We had a pilot for off leash and we earned that at least a perimeter fence was need and that the field would be torn up after months of dogs and their owners using it. We need a resident driven location to be determined. If we do not do this, why did we bother with the workshops and public outreach? We can do better than this and we were doing better than this when we did the workshops and ran the pilot program.

We will not be resolving a single problem by putting a fenced in dog park in any park in Los Altos. If one revisits the outcome of the PARC dog park workshops and outreach, they will find that almost 53% of residents who responded via ballots during the workshop process opposed a fenced in dog park in any park in Los Altos. Those numbers can be a little deceptive though. Per a staff report 35-40% of Los Altos households own a dog (Staff report for 5/20/20 PARC meeting - agenda item 3c: p. 19 of PDF). Therefore, logically, if 60-65% of the households don't own a dog, 60-65% of residents probably wouldn't want a dog park. As with all statistics, it is how you look at the numbers that determines your opinion.

And yet, there is an effort by this City Council to put not only one but two to three fenced in locations in Los Altos. Further, PARC agreed there should be no fenced in Dog Park until future housing developments could add them to their locations, or until additional parkland is acquired by the Los Altos. This idea of adding more fenced in locations, as opposed to completing the dog park pilot program and revisiting best next steps for off leash and fenced in dog parks in Los Altos flies in the face of common sense.

Park locations specifically: When I review the maps and chart regarding the suggested locations, I feel there is some missing information and then some that is subjective to the viewer. I will address a couple I am most familiar with.

If Staff and Council revisit the results of many PARC meetings that focused on dog parks, they will find that there were petitions and letters aplenty in opposition to off leash and fenced in McKenzie and Heritage Oaks Parks. They both had significant opposition to fenced in or off leash activity in those parks. The petition totals, and letter totals in opposition, were higher than the numbers received via outreach efforts by PARC and staff during workshops and surveys. That means two things, we did to capture the neighborhood well with outreach efforts and if we had we would have had very different numbers at the end of the outreach efforts.

Lessons were learned that need to be applied to any decisions and they are not being applied here and now. They need to be.

I also recall there was a potential covenant that might prevent an alteration to McKenzie Park, but that would need to be explored with the help of the resident who made the comment. He can be found via public comments, and maybe a letter for at least one to three PARC meetings.

Heritage Oaks Park gets much closer to homes as one enters the less developed end of the park. There are homes on each side of that area and they are closer than they appear on the map. That means more homes will be impacted by the noise associated with a dog park.

In addition, there is a creek that runs along the entire park. The creek is part of our watershed.

The less developed area, and the area being suggested per the map, is too close to the creek to be good for the creek. Keeping dogs off of the creek and urine and feces (either directly or via run off) out of the creek is crucial to helping to maintain the health of the creek. The same is true for maintaining the trees and bushes along the creek. By allowing dogs and humans to trample the area as they come and go to the fenced area, or as a result of owners allowing off leash as opposed to using the fenced area, the creek will be negatively impacted. As The Santa Clara Water district begins to plant more plants along the creek we will need to be even better stewards of the creek area. What will we do, fence the entire length of the creek? I certainly hope not.

Noise jumps and echoes off of Permanente Creek. That amplifies the noise from all locations along the creek, including at the park throughout the surrounding areas. An example of this is when there have been concerts in Heritage oaks and people as far away as Fremont and Oakhurst can fairly clearly hear the music.

There is most definitely conflict with other park uses at Heritage Oaks Park. The area proposed is along a bike/walking path. Placing a fenced in dog park along that area would create at the very least, a detour for folks on bikes and walking through.

McKenzie Park has many people resting and chatting at the picnic tables at the front of the park. Parking is limited not solely due to Los Altos Maintenance activity, but also due to employees from the medical businesses along the adjoining street. Also, if McKenzie is chosen as a pickle ball location, there will not be enough space for both pickle ball parking and dog park parking. Additionally, if the McKenzie West area is chosen, it is more likely to be viewed as a destination location and that can become a crowd and noise issue for a small neighborhood park over time.

Additionally, a professional arborist must be consulted regarding the trees at McKenzie to determine what impact dozens of dog’s urine and feces will, day after day, have on the heritage trees at the park. Also, what about human activity as they walk and compact the earth around the trees? We need to understand what will happen. The trees define that park in both the west and east end.

I will add that selfishly, as a PARC member that is on the JEDI subcommittee, I was hoping the McKenzie West area might become an inclusive musical feature area, and I am pretty sure there were rumblings about adult fitness in that area as well. Perhaps resident doing outreach to learn what residents want at McKenzie West would be wise. Perhaps even wiser is to wait for adding something such as a fenced in dog park to any of our parks until a complete parks plan is undertaken.

Rosita has a large off leash contingency that meets on the field on a regular basis. Putting a fenced in area might allow some to change their behavior, but most will likely simply shift to an open portion of the park. Therefore, consider a small area to the right of the parking lot and along Rosita Avenue near that seems better suited for a small fenced in Dog Park, or even just limited off leash activity, than the proposed area. However, there will be impact on neighbors.

Of course, we know that despite large lot sizes, all parks have homes and residents that will be affected by the noise of an added fenced in Dog Park. That is why most residents do not want them in “their” parks.

Consider the facts and base changes on the facts:
·
Hillview and Rosita rise to the top for which parks have the most off leash dog activity.

Lincoln Park does as well.
·
If one considers the workshop results, it is clear no fenced in is what residents prefer. ·
Illegal off leash use is a reality in Los Altos parks and fenced in dog parks will not change that situation.
·
Resident input is valuable and needs to be considered and included in any decisions regarding what happens at the parks.
·
Residents need to have a say in how park in lieu money is spent. Do they want a fenced in dog park? Do they want pickle ball? Do they want basketball? The decision belongs to residents.
·
All of the workshop details and results should be part of the criteria when determining the best location for, or against an off leash or fenced in dog option in Los Altos parks.

Los Altos residents want to have a place for their dogs to run off leash and to mingle. ·
·Los Altans do not want to lose any green space to accommodate dog parks. This was a consistent sentiment for both dog and non-dog owners when reviewing the workshop comments.
·
The total cost is likely to be much higher than is predicted so get all of the facts, such as what will the fence look like and so on, before moving ahead.

It is time to stop and plan as to how to determine the next best step regarding dog activity in Los Altos Parks.

Some suggestions:

1.Move forward with the large dog run with the fencing around it at Hillview. The pilot program there made it clear that a fence was needed and that people wanted to be there with their dogs.

2.Have another outreach cycle to determine what residents wand with regard to off leash versus fenced in versus status quo. Status quo equals off leash hours in all parks, as is illegally happening now, but changing to allow for legal activity for limited times of the day. In that outreach, present the outcome of the pilot program, the cost of proposed fenced in areas, what the areas would look like and any other pertinent details. The outreach ought to include all people who attended the previous workshops plus as many additional people as we can manage to get involved. In other words, we need to build on what we have done and continue to work with residents to find a solution. We all have more experience and knowledge now.

If Council decides to choose an option provided by staff at this time, they must recognize that by using the limited criteria found in the Parks Plan as the sole criteria to base their decisions on, they are disregarding resident input found during previous public outreach and input. I feel that perpetuates an oft cited feeling from residents of why bother providing input when it is disregarded. I am 100% certain that is not a message we want to generate in our city.

My Requests:

Council ask PARC, or at the very least ask staff, to revisit and incorporate the workshop and public outreach results as part of the criteria for choosing a potential fenced in location. By not using the many components available, there is a presumed disregard and perceived authoritarian approach to the suggested locations and actions.

Please be sure, that no matter what is decided, to include additional limits such as amount of people who can gather and levels of noise allowed.

Please consider only Hillview Soccer Field as a place to put the first fenced in Dog Park in Los Altos. We are so very close to a solution. Let’s not rush ahead and make a mistake by dictating where another dog park should go. Getting the job done doesn’t mean rushing ahead simply to take the task off of the plate. We’ve made significant progress over the past couple of years, why not continue to make progress in an organized and thoughtful manner? Why is there a rush at this point?
Thank you for considering my input.

Teresa Morris
From: Joe Beninato
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:08:38 PM
Hello City Council and Staff,
I am a 22 year Los Altos resident, and don’t own a dog. But I believe we should have fenced in dog parks in Los Altos for the obvious reasons including the safety of those who don’t own dogs and want to use park facilities.

With regards to the current PDF staff report, I have a few thoughts and suggestions:
1) The Hillview Soccer field seems like it could be a great location as it is generally unused space, and won’t be displacing another program. However, the document lists the area as 80’ x 100’ and there is no way it is that large. It may be 80 x 30’ or 100 x 30’, but it is smaller than described in the document.
2) We visit Rosita Park frequently and there is already a defacto off leash gathering there many times per week. It’s a real issue as my family members have been charged by aggressive dogs many times while trying to use the park for running or other activities. I would normally be supportive of a fenced in location there for safety reasons. However, I would be concerned about the proposed location of a dog park at Rosita as this field is used heavily by the youth sports community, and the location shown would eliminate a big portion of the baseball field outfield as well as probably 2 ad hoc soccer fields based upon the drawing. Understanding how this space is utilized by the soccer programs, and maybe putting a smaller square dog park in the upper right corner on the drawing so as to have minimal impact on the youth sports programs (deep center field for baseball and only impacting 1 ad hoc soccer field) might be appropriate.
3) I am in support of multiple dog parks for dog owners in Los Altos. However, I would strongly suggest that putting in two dog parks simultaneously would be a mistake. Why not start with one at Hillview or another location, gather feedback over 3-6 months, learn from what happened there, and than roll out a second location based upon those learnings? That would seem to be a logistically and financially prudent approach vs. putting in two locations right away.

Thank you for considering.

Joe
…………………………
Joe Beninato
From: Julien Roth
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 7: Permanent Dog Parks
Date: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:20:49 PM
To whom it concerns,
As a resident of Los Altos, I would like to voice my support for the creation of a permanent, fenced dog park in both North and South Los Altos. However, this support would be dependent on the location of these parks not adversely affecting the quality of life of any community members living near the proposed sites. To this end, and in respect to the park in South Los Altos, I believe McKenzie Park West is the most ideal location, followed by McKenzie Park East or Grant Park.

The indicated space at Heritage Oaks Park does not seem feasible as it spreads over some of the creek and steep creek banks. As such, I imagine the park would need to be moved significantly east and therefore would be very close to the houses on McKenzie Ave. This proximity would disrupt the quality of life of residents (noise, traffic, decreased parking).

While Grant Park is heavily used for other programming, Heritage Oaks Park also sees quite a bit of activity on the weekends (soccer, birthday parties, BBQ) which already cause high degrees of congestion and limited parking. Marymeade Park, given it's small size and how large the planned dog park is, would seemingly become mostly a dog park which does not seem appropriate. To mitigate some of the concerns at McKenzie Park East, I would recommend decreasing the proposed size of the park and shifting it further West. That being said, McKenzie Park West is far enough from residential areas that it does not pose any problems. I have rarely seen anyone use McKenzie Park West (the park space; the tennis courts seem to get regular use), so replacing the grass with a dog park fits well.

Best,
Julien Roth
--
Julien G. Roth
Doctoral Candidate
Stanford University - School of Medicine
City of Los Altos 2022 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar January 3, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

January 18, 2022 COUNCIL RETREAT Part 1 of 2
January 22. 2022 COUNCIL RETREAT Part 2 of 2
January 25, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Financials (?)
2021 STEM Winner(s) from the City of Los Altos, who participated in the Santa Clara County 2021 Synopsys Championship Science Fair, held in March of 2021. The Santa Clara Valley Science and Engineering Fair Association (SCVSEFA) is again asking the Mayor and City Council to recognize these students at a City Council Meeting.

Special Item
Correction to the FY-21/22 Fee Schedule to the 1/25/22 CC agenda. PH JS

1.3.2022
February 8, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Legislative Subcommittee Update(?)
February 22, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
March 1 , 2022 SPECIAL MEETING -- COMMISSION INTERVIEWS March 8, 2021 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
January 3, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

Construction Contract Award: Fremont Avenue Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation Project, TS-01055 (1)
March 22, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Community Center Construction Monthly Update
April 12, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
April 26, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
May 3, 2022 Joint Meeting w/Commissions
May 10, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
3rd Quarter Report
May 24, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
June 14, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-XX approving the Report of Sewer Service Charges and directing the Filing of Charges for Collection by the Tax Collector
2 Printed Public
Hearing -
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
January 3, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.
- not less than 10
days - published
once a week for
two consecutive
weeks 5/11/2022
& 5/18/2022
June 28, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
June 28, 2022
July 12, 2022

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
August 23, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
August 30, 2022 Commission Interviews
September 6, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
September 20, 2022* REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Year End tentative report – September (if needed)
October 11, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
October 25, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
November 1, 2021 Joint w/Commisisons
November 15, 2022 * REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
1st Quarter report FY 2021/2022
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
January 3, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

November 29, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
December 6, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
CAFR and Year End – 1st meeting December
December 13, 2022 Special meeting REORG.

Future Agenda Topics To Be Scheduled….

Expansion of Scope of Housing Element Outreach Subcommittee Other Dog Park Options- Mtn View Collaborative – Ltr to Mayor of MV STUDY SESSION for Community Center Operational Implementation Plan Study Session - Community Center post construction review (Tent.) STUDY SESSION - Maintenance of Tree Canopy- Tree Protection Ordinance – Landscaping Policy Planting Poliuct Planting list
Discussion regarding anti-bias training - Diversity and Empathy Training x Council Int.
policy on use of City land by non-profits.

City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
January 3, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

Los Altos EOC Design Review
Proposed City policy that modifies the environmental analysis standard for circulation impacts from a Level of Service (LOS) analysis to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis.

Public Hearing GP
COVID Safe Meeting Protocols TBD
Council Strategic Priorities Implementation Plan (Tent.) info on Cuesta speed tables
Council Financial Subcommittee Recommendations: Discuss recommendations of the Council Financial Subcommittee regarding reporting of City financial information (Vice Mayor Enander) Museum's plans for a new main exhibition in our permanent 2nd floor gallery BMR waitlist process proposal by Alta Housing
5150 El Camino Road - Modification Public Hearing?
League of California Cities – Role and Representation Presentation/Disc ussion
Council
Initiated
See Me Flags ES
Pavement Management Program Update – 2019 Pavement Condition Index - The staff recommends Scenario 5 – Increase Current PCI to 75 by 2026
Discussion Item JS ES
440 First Street Design Review CD
4350 El Camino Real Design Review CD
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
January 3, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

Healthy Cities Initiative Rec
Housing Impact vs. Housing in-Lieu Discussion CD
BAT/Neighborhood Watch program expansion PD/CMO
Complete Streets Master Plan ES
Comprehensive multi-modal traffic study (analysis of recent projects projected parking, trip generation, & traffic impacts to actuals; ECR impacts should include adjacent streets) ES
Off-street EV charging stations in front of homes – include in Reach Codes; refer to Environmental Commission?
Planning
Schedule Joint Los Altos/Los Altos Hills Council meeting (6-9 months: August – October)
San Francisco PUC permit ES
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087

MEMORANDUM
DATE: 1/11/22
TO: Councilmembers
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: COUNCIL Q&A FOR THE JAN 11, 22 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR

MEETING
Study Session: This is a pre-application meeting designed for discussion and feedback. Specific answers may not be known until application.
• How is the number of units justified? The report as distributed does not really walk through the application of Density Bonus Law thoroughly. Please explain how density bonus is applied on this project? Please explain if the waiver requested is discretionary for the City Council?
The project site is within ½-mile of a major transit stop. Government Code Section 65915(f)(3)(D)(ii) states that if a 100% affordable project is within 1/2- mile of a major transit stop, the city “shall not impose any maximum controls on density.” Instead, density is controlled by the city’s development standards, and the applicant is not entitled to any reduction of development standards except for an automatic 33-foot height increase, parking reductions, and up to four concessions. The city may grant additional reductions in development standards in its discretion.
• Please explain the legal basis for the number of incentives that have been claimed.

See Government Code Section 65915(d)(2)(D): “Four incentives or concessions for [100% affordable projects]. If the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, the applicant shall also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet.” • Please explain why the application includes 2' between floors. That is more than what we've typically seen. Also, please explain the distance from top plate to roof deck.

This question was referred to the applicant. Please see Exhibit A and B below. • Please explain the location of the driveway. If the driveway was on the other side the greater height/mass would be pushed toward El Camino and away from the residential areas. Is there really enough room in the common open space to compensate for the lower amount of private open space? And why allow it so proximate to the front lot line f fffffffROW?
This question was referred to the applicant. Please see Exhibit A and B below. • Is the parking really adequate, how will it be enforced, and what can be done to prevent overflow parking into the neighborhood?
This question was referred to the applicant, but please see Government Code Section 65915(p)(3):
“[I]f a development consists solely of rental units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, with an affordable cost to lower income families . . ., then, upon the request of the developer, a city … shall not impose vehicular parking standards if the development … is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development.”
Please also see the definition of “unobstructed access” in Section 65915(p)(2)(B), which generally includes the absence of impediments such as freeways, rivers, and mountains.

Please see Exhibit A and B below.
- Page 5, item 10: Last line in the second ¶, add in the word “as” in the last line so it reads “. . . the committee’s status as opposed to an ad hoc committee.” • Page 6: Immediately before item 13 there is a floating period that should be deleted. • Establish Quorum: Meadows with an ’s'
Noted
Agenda Item 2: (Alta Contract Amendment)
• Due to budget constraints, I would like to understand why option C is so expensive that Alta provided for Agenda item 2. Can we negotiate Option C to not include the cost of a study session?
Staff has recommended option C so that a further round of edits could address the many thoughtful comments we received on the Complete Streets Master Plan, from the public and the City Council.

Alta has prepared the cost estimate with flexibility in mind, so that items may be selected in various different formats. Staff will only use the elements of the contract that are deemed necessary as the document is updated. As an example, Staff may choose to apply options A, B, or C; or alternatively may choose various items independently from the list of “Optional Tasks” in the attachment.

Optional tasks may also be added to options A or B. The additional study session was requested by the City Council which is why this specific element was included in the contract amendment.

Ultimately, staff will only use the elements of the contract amendment that are necessary to make the changes and edits directed by the City Council.

Agenda Item 3: (Bellecci Contract Amendment)
• Why weren’t the services covered in this amendment a part of the scope of work in the original contract?
The original contract is an on-call contract to provide consultant support for various engineering services on an as-needed basis. At the time the original contract was approved, it was not yet known Minutes:

that an additional level of consultant support and associated funding would be required. Additional inspection services, beyond what was initially anticipated, resulted from an unexpected City of Los Altos Engineering Services Department staff resignation.

For the storm drain repair services, Bellecci & Associates started the preliminary design for the repair of the storm drain outfall at 1266 Montclaire Way under the agreement for the various engineering tasks for fiscal year 2020-21. At the start, the project was supposed to be an interim fix to alleviate the outfall failure so that it would last for another 10 to 15 years until the City finds additional money to perform a permanent fix. However, the regulatory agencies are no longer issuing permits for interim or emergency repair projects. These comments were recently received from the regulatory agencies and therefore required a much more complicated process for obtaining permits. Additional funds are now being requested to extend Bellecci’s services during FY 2021-22 to complete the final design and address the comments from the various regulatory agencies that reviewed the preliminary design and will issue the required permits for construction in 2022. Tasks include, but are not limited to, topographic survey and design services required by regulatory agencies such as Valley Water, Regional Water Quality Control Board, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. • Is there a breakdown as to how the $120,090 figure was calculated by the vendor? Yes – Please see the provided storm drain and inspection services cost breakdown below. 100% of the $63,008 for inspection services will be pulled from the salary savings, and 100% of the cost proposal for the stormwater outfall repair at 1266 Montclaire Way will be pulled from the operating budget professional services fund.

• Has the City looked to see whether there are alternative vendors who could make competing bids for their services?
The selection of vendors for engineering professional services is based upon qualifications, not solely on price per state law and the City’s Purchasing Policy. A previous solicitation process for on-call services based upon qualification occurred in which the vendor was selected and entered into a contract.
• We have previously approved a contract for Bellecci and Associates. In 2021 we have extended twice the amount of contracts with this organization than in previous years can you explain why?
The initial contract amount for FY 2021-22 is in the same amount as previous years—i.e., $70,000. However, the original contract is a 3-year on-call contract to provide consultant support for various engineering services on an as-needed basis. At the time the original contract was approved, it was not yet known what the upcoming year’s as-needed services would be and, accordingly, the amount of associated funding that would be required. The additional consultant support services required under Amendment No. 1 address two unexpected needs:

1. Augmented construction inspection support to backfill the loss of the City’s Engineering Inspector in October, and

2. Emergency design work to repair the unexpected failure of the outfall of a storm culvert located under the private property at 1266 Montclaire Way.

Staff assigned the preliminary design work and permitting to Bellecci under the original $70,000 FY-20/21 contract. Now that the various regulatory agencies have reviewed that design, staff is proposing Amendment No. 1 so Bellecci can finalize the design and address the regulators’ comments and permit conditions so the repair can be bid out in 2022.

Agenda Item 4; (Summer Intern Program):
• Will we be able to catch up with the timeline and have interns this summer? Yes, we can expedite the drafting of the job announcements and advertise for 5-6 weeks the variety of summer internship opportunities.

• Please provide a breakdown of how the $30,000 will be spent each year. $20 an hour x 20 hours a week = $400 x 10 weeks = $5,000 per intern salary Goal is to sponsor about 5-6 interns per summer = $5,000 x 6 interns = $30,000 a year. • Will the interns be paid? Will they earn college credit? Both? It will be a paid internship. For now, we have not established any college credit. Something we can consider exploring in the future.
• Who will recruit the interns? If there is a competitive process, who selects the interns? How many interns will work with the City each year?
HR will partner with the hiring manager interested in hosting an intern. We will develop a job announcement based on the assignment. Prospective intern candidates will complete an application and respond to some preliminary screening questions. Selected candidates will participate in a competitive selections process that will consist of a panel interview. Each department will have the opportunity to host an intern. We will aim to have up to 6 summer interns a year.
• Is there a residency requirement for the interns?
No there is not.
• What will the interns do?
The assignment will vary depending on the department. HR will work closely with the hiring manager to establish an assignment that offers interns exposure to local government and an overall positive experience. We will aim to create a mutually beneficial relationship between the intern and the hosting department.
• Will the internship program be subject to the City’s regular hiring practices? Will there be a preference for applicants from traditionally disenfranchised or underserved communities?
Yes, the internship program is subject to the City’s civil service recruitment selection process conducted in a fair, competitive and impartial manner. We do not identify preferences for disenfranchised or underserved communities.

Agenda Items 6 (Rental fee waiver request):
• Does the city keep a record of all fee reduction/waiver requests? If not, can staff please start to keep one? I think the Council and the public will benefit from seeing who requests a waiver/reduction, for which facility, whether the request was granted, etc.

City staff is currently developing a form to track requests for fee reductions and waivers.

Agenda Items 7 (Dog Park):
• Many of the parking spaces at McKenzie West are used by employers of the medical offices on Altos Oaks. Is there a plan to enforce parking restrictions to move those cars from the McKenzie parking lot?
The City Council currently does not limit the parking hours in any park. Vehicles are allowed to park for up to 72 hours continuously, and after this time, the car is considered abandoned. Los

Altos has several parks that are heavily programmed or have multiple amenities, and parking restrictions have not been enacted. The City Council could direct staff to look at parking restrictions in all City parks, including McKenzie Park, and determine if restrictions should be enacted.

Over the past month staff has completed informal parking surveys of the McKenzie parking lot at different days and times. Parking was available during each survey visit. If the dog park is approved, staff will work to move employee parking into the MSC area and free up additional parking.
• Is there a danger to the large tree at McKenzie if a fenced in dog park is located at that site?
No, the dog park will not create a danger to the trees. Initially staff will have to change maintenance to ensure the trees are properly cared for. Staff consulted an arborist who reported potential impacts to the tree can be mitigated through design. The permanent design of the dog park will take the health of the trees into account.
• Will a fenced in dog park at McKenzie West affect the tennis courts in any way? No. The dog park will not change the use of the tennis courts. However, the activity in the dog park will lead to more noise and use in the general area. The addition of the pickleball striping will have a larger impact on the courts, and potentially parking availability, than the dog park. • Where will the climbing structure at McKenzie West be relocated if a fenced-in dog park is located there?
The climbing structure is a rarely used amenity. It is possible the structure will be relocated within McKenzie Park or at another location. It is also possible it will be removed and stored and not replaced.
• Please provide the proposal that provides the details of what the $100k will cover to create the enclosed dog parks.

There is no proposal that provides details for the cost estimate provided by staff. The dog park sites have not been approved and design work will not begin until the City Council has authorized a permanent location.

The $100,000, if approved, will be used to purchase and install fencing, create separate entrance areas, purchase and construct/install shade elements, place signage, and to make other improvements that may be site specific, such as bringing in and installing seating outside of the fenced area at the proposed Hillview site.
• The staff report and presentation list the Hillview Proposed Site (Soccer Field East) as having dimensions of 80’ x 100’ ft. I understand the drawings are not to scale, but the measurements to evaluate the proposal should be close to the final proposed design.

What are the expected dimensions of this proposed site? The staff report and presentation incorrectly shows the proposed dimensions as 80’ x 100’ ft. (8,000 sq. ft.) The actual proposed maximum dimensions are approximately 35’ x 180’ ft.(6,300

sq. ft.). The configuration shown in the presentation accurately represents the location and placement, but is not to scale.
330 Distel: PC/CC Study Session Questions and Responses January 11, 2022

1. Based on our objective standards why are there no setbacks on the upper floors? Response: Concession requested due to impact to density/units.

2. The objective standards state that the courtyard should be open to the front. Is this another waiver / concession request?
Response: Waiver requested. Our massing is focused towards Distel and further from the single family homes to provide more privacy for our single family neighbors and a more protected courtyard.

3. The currently requesting a rear setback of zero. Is it lawful when it is another property’s side yard? Response: Setback on all sides, including rear is a minimum of ±10ft.

4. Why is 2 feet needed between each floor? Other developments have 1 foot between each floor.

Response: The project is being envisioned as being modular with the multiple benefits including faster construction and less noise to the surrounding area. Modular units are essentially a 6-sided box with a floor and ceiling framed into it. The two feet is to account for the floor of one module and the roof of another. If the project were site built, the floor to floor would be 1’-3” instead of 2’-0” with a delta of 9”.

5. Between the plate and the roof, why is 5 feet proposed? Response: To account for roof drainage and guardrail. This would be to the highest point and accounts for variation in the roof parapet height.

6. Why is 9 feet rather than 8 foot ceilings proposed?
Response: This housing product type- multifamily residential- has nominal 9ft ceilings. In addition, as we are designing for modular, the typical floor to floor height is 11ft which equates to a 9ft ceiling. Anything less than this dimension would have a financial impact as factories are set up for 9’ ceilings.

7. Why are there not at least 1 bicycle spot for each unit? Response: At this time we are meeting City code, which from our understanding is:
• 1 Class I (Bike Locker) for every 3 units (30 required) • 1 Class II (Bike Rack) for every 15 units (6 required) We are looking into providing more as we develop the design further.

8. It doesn’t look like there are any extra handicapped parking stalls. Please explain.

Response: Three (3) accessible surface stalls are provided. Per code 2% of assigned stalls are required, which are two (2) stalls. One additional stall is provided as an accessible, EVSE (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment) charging stall.

9. How many EV charging stations are there?
Response: 10% or Nine (9) EV stalls capable of supporting future EV (EVSE) are provided. Per Calgreen

4.106.4.2 New multifamily dwelling requirement. Los Altos reach code requirements will be met for the type of electrical required. Ie. Level 1, Level 2 per Ordinances No. 2020-470B and 2020-471.

ǆŚŝďŝƚ

10. Is there only 1 set of elevators in the building for this many units? Why is there not a freight sized elevator?
Response: Freight elevators are atypical in this type of building. One will be deemed a service elevator for move-in. At a minimum, one will be sized for a gurney. Two elevators for a building this size is a good rule of thumb and would be standard. This allows for one to be in service and another operating.

11. What kind of generator will there be and where will it be located? How will it be powered since no gas is being installed.

Response: From our understanding, Per City of Los Altos reach codes, an “All-electric building” is a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building. In order to meet the requirement of no gas plumbing, the generator will have onsite storage as required. We are running generator to maintain fire and life-safety, emergency lighting, and annunciation and will meet City and State requirements as the project proceeds.

Location will be determined as we get further in the project timeline, and will be coordinated with the City of Los Altos Building and Fire dept.

12. Who will be monitoring the applicants to make sure a qualified lessee (s) is the only one living in the unit?
Response: EAH to manage and monitor.

13. It appears on the information below demonstrates that the height of each floor can be 10 feet total and not 12 feet. Can this approach be used for this building to reduce the height so we can respect neighboring residential communities.

Response: The project is being envisioned as being modular which has benefits. Modular units are essentially a 6-sided box with a floor and ceiling framed into it. The two feet is to account for the floor of one module and the roof of another. Our floor-to-floor height is 11ft. This is typical for modular to get to a 9ft plate height with some areas at 8ft where we need to accommodate mechanical. Note that the ground level is 16 ft floor to floor to accommodate for the mechanized parking system, MEP, and floor/ceiling assembly.
330 Distel: Density Bonus, Concessions, Waivers
Allowed by Density Bonus Law
Density (DU/acre) 38du/acre 90 Units = 103 du/acre Density Bonus Law 14.5.080 (LAMC)Height 45ft + 33ft = 78ft permitted 64ft, 5 stories Density Bonus Law Concession Standard Proposed Notes Code Section
Setback, Front Yard 25ft min. depth, 50% of which shall be landscaped
10ft setback 10ft setback provided. 25ft setback would decrease building area and unit count

14.5.090 (LAMC)
Stepback Street Side: Minimum 10 feet from ground
floor façade above 45 feet in height
Requesting no stepback Not stepping back on 4th and 5th floor. Need building area to get to 90 units.

14.50.170_1B. Obj. Standards
Open Space 50SF; An average of fifty (50) square feet
of private open space shall be provided for the total number of dwelling units within a project.

Approximately 25 sf average / unit requested
10ft Public Utility Easement has to be clear to sky so we are unable to provide cantilevering balconies along the Distel frontage. Juliette balconies are provided on Distel. Providing decks within the units would require a decrese in unit area and impact unit count. Private open space provided on all decks except for those facing Distel.

14.50.150 (LAMC)
Waiver Standard Proposed Notes
Quantity of building entrances
A minimum one entrance shall be provided per 150 linear feet along El Camino Real and per primary façade bay along all other rights of way Requesting one point of entry via lobby provided for security/visibility, one garage entry, and one exit for multipurpose room. 4 primary facades = 4 entrances 14.50.170_2B. Obj.

Standards
Interior Courtyard Partially visible from the street and linked to the street by a clear accessible path of travel.

Requesting visibility from back parking lot, no access from exterior to courtyard Raised courtyard on level 2 not visible from Distel, may be visible from El Camino. Raised courtyard to provide additional parking. Also creates privacy for single family neighbor and residents. Removing a leg of the building to

14.50.170_5A. Obj. Standards
Materials Base. For multistory elements, the base of
the building shall be defined by a distinct
material selected from among the following:

Stone, brick, concrete, CMU, or stucco ("base material").

Requesting approval of wood as a distinct material.

Intent achieved. Wood serves as distinct material. Wood and storefront glazing proposed at the base.

14.66.280_DA Obj. Standards
([KLELW%
City of Los Altos 2022 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar January 3, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

Special Item
Correction to the FY-21/22 Fee Schedule to the 1/25/22 CC agenda. PH JS

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

November 29, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
December 6, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
CAFR and Year End – 1st meeting December
December 13, 2022 Special meeting REORG.

Future Agenda Topics To Be Scheduled….

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

AMENDED

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2021
Held Via Video/Teleconference Per California Executive Order N-29-20.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Enander called the meeting to order.

ESTABLISH QUORUM

Present: Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadows, Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, and Weinberg

Absent: None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Diya Venuprakash, of Girl Scout Troop 60078, led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes made. City Manager Engeland provided an explanation on the removal of Agenda Item #12.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Duncan MacMillan, Jon Baer, and Scott Spielman (with time ceded from Janet Corrigan and Terri Couture) provided comments.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 2 of 7 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. City Council Minutes: Approve the Minutes of the November 30, 2021, and December 7, 2021, Regular City Council Meetings (A. Chelemengos)

3. 2022 City Council Meeting Schedule: Adopt 2022 City Council meeting schedule and receive 2022 Commission meeting schedules (A. Chelemengos)

Trese)

5. Professional Services Agreement - Access Control System for Police Department:

7. Purchasing Policy Update: Review and adopt the revised purchasing policy and adopt Resolution No. 2021-60 Establishing Certain Monetary Limits For Purposes Of Purchasing (J. Furtado)

9. CALPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability Paydown: Adopt Resolution No. 2021-62 approving the transfer of $5 million to CALPERS to pay down the City’s unfunded accrued liability. (J. Furtado)

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 3 of 7 ends

Both Council Member Fligor and Weinberg requested that Consent Calendar Item # 10 2022 City Council Assignments, be remove from the Consent Calendar.

In addition, Council Member Weinberg requested that Consent Calendar Item 6 be acted on separately.

Mayor Enander announced the Consent Calendar Item number 2 would be heard immediately following the Consent Calendar and that Consent Calendar Item number 10 would be considered following Agenda Item number 11.

Council Member Fligor moved to approve Consent Calendar Items 1, 3-5 and 7, 8, 9 and 10A.

The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander NOES: Council Member Weinberg
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Mayor Enander called for public comment.

Terri Couture provided comments
Council discussion commenced.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 4 of 7 ends

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None

DISCUSSION ITEMS

AssistantCity Attorney Ramakrishnan provided anoverview of the proposed Objective Standards.

Council discussion commenced and various minor edits, clarifications, and typographical corrections were made.

At 8:58 p.m., Mayor Enander called for a brief recess. At 9:10 p.m., Mayor Enander reconvened the meeting.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 5 of 7 ends

The motion was seconded by Council Member Weinberg and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Council Member Weinberg stated that, with Council Member Fligor’s agreement, he would like to request that he be assigned as the City representative to the City/CUSD/FUSD School Issues Subcommittee and Council Member Fligor be assigned to the City/LASD Schools Issues Subcommittee. Council Member Fligor was agreeable to the requested change, as was Mayor Enander, Council Member Weinberg also expressed concern with the Legislative Subcommittee assignments and the committee’s standing status as opposed to an ad hoc committee.

Mayor Enander expressed her desire and anticipation to serve on the Santa Clara County Cities Association – Board of Directors and noted the position being traditionally filled by the Mayor.

Council discussion commenced.

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 6 of 7 ends

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Deputy City Manger Maginot provided a staff report and answered questions from the Council.

Mayor Enander called for public comments. The following individuals commented: Gary Hedden, Roberta Phillips, Elizabeth Ward (Executive Director at Los Altos History Museum), and Jeanine Valdez.

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
.

Minutes
December 14, 2021
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 7 of 7 ends

14. Tentative Council Calendar: Conduct Quarterly Review of Tentative Council Calendar and provide direction to staff.

City Clerk Chelemengos provide a brief report and offered to answer questions.

The Council reviewed the Tentative Calendar and identified items to be removed and clarified.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
• None

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Council Member Weinberg, with support from Council Member Meadows and Fligor requested that the matter of BMR Incentives as well as a discussion regarding a letter to be sent from the City Council to Assemblymember Berman and Senator Becker requesting clarification of certain SB 9 mandates and related issues created to the discussion at the upcoming Council retreat.

There was also a majority of the Council that supported an item on a future agenda to discuss expansion of the Housing Element Outreach Subcommittee

ADJOURNMENT
At 11:14 p.m., Mayor Enander adjourned the meeting.
____________________________
Anita Enander MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Andrea M. Chelemengos MMC, CITY CLERK

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item # 2
Reviewed By:

City Council Project Award on May 12, 2020, Agenda Item #5 Fiscal Impact:

Amendment #2 will expand the total contract value to $179,426.

Environmental Review:

Summary:

Additional service is required to conduct a comprehensive update to the Complete Streets Master Plan (CSMP) as well as return for an additional future Study Session requested by the Council.

Additional work scope is funded through CIP TS-01052, Annual Bicycle / Pedestrian Access Improvements.

A contract in the amount of $165,426 was approved between the City of Los Altos and Alta Planning + Design on May 12, 2020 at a City Council Meeting.

Amendment #1 extended the project schedule and was approved by the City Manager in November 2021.

Proposed Amendment Options
To accommodate the suggested edits to the Draft Complete Streets Master Plan, Alta presents three options for the City to consider with respective fee implications.

ATTACHMENT 1

Please note that none of these options includes a fee for another round of revisions following a second City Council Study Session. Additional contingency may be considered.

Table 1. The proposed scope of work modifications
Option Task Name Original Deliverables Modified Scope of Work Fee A

No Change

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Los Altos
Option Task Name Original Deliverables Modified Scope of Work Fee B

Proposed Timeline
Option A
February 2022 Alta makes revisions and delivers Final Draft to City Staff ATTACHMENT 1

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Los Altos
March 2022 Alta presents Final Plan to City Council for adoption Options B or C
January 2022 Notice to Proceed with Options B
March 2022 Alta delivers Revised Draft Plan to City Staff April 2022 Alta presents Revised Draft Plan to City Council Study Session June 2022 Alta presents Final Plan to City Council for adoption From: Jim Wing
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 02-MEETING DATE 01-11-2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:37:20 AM
Los Altos Mayor Enander and Distinguished Council Members, Subject: Council 01-11-22 Meeting Agenda Item 2, Professional Services Agreement for CSMP
Please continue this agenda item and request Staff to add items to make Draft CSMP holistic by adding following traffic congestion items.

Traffic impact on neighborhoods caused by increased number of housing units.

This item has been requested by two Council Members, CSC members, and public.

Thank you for your consideration!
Jim Wing, Milverton Road, Los Altos

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item # 3
Reviewed By:

None
Initiated by:

Staff
Previous Council Consideration:

None
Fiscal Impact:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:

None
Summary:
• This Amendment No. 1 would provide additional funds for general daily construction inspection services and design services for the repair of a storm drain outfall.

Subject: Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Bellecci & Associates, Inc. for Various Engineering Tasks, FY 2021-2022 January 11, 2022 Page 2
Staff Recommendation:

The City is in need of day-to-day inspection services because the City’s Engineering Inspector resigned in October 2021.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

1. Summer Internship Program Outline
Initiated by:

City Council Sub-Committee
Previous Council Consideration:

Council Meeting on October 12, 2021
Fiscal Impact:

Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
• Does the Council wish to support an annual Los Altos Summer Internship Program.

Staff Recommendation:

Move to approve the program outlined in the Los Altos Summer Internship Program and its implementation.

Recommendation
Move to approve the program outlined in the Los Altos Summer Internship Program and its implementation, including increasing the current Fiscal Year budget by $30,000.

Purpose & Objectives
The program is intended to contribute towards the regional talent pipeline. The primary objectives are to:

1. expose students to local government

2. find and develop emerging talentor future employees

3. add capacity to Los Altos.

This is done by attracting talent and providing opportunities for students through internships.

Secondary objectives (and benefits) include:

1. Increasing development opportunities for staff and mentoring the next generation of leaders.

Program Components
The program consists of the following elements:

1. Advertising/Posting internship opportunities on a variety of job boards and centralized posting with Next Gen.

2. Welcome and onboard all Los Altos Interns every summer

3. Providing students with an internship for 3 months or longer

4. Host intern learning forums in partnership with Next Gen Intern definition: A time-bound and supervised role where individuals in school or intransition, work on project-based/hands-on projects as an extension of education and learning.

ATTACHMENT 1
City of Los Altos
Summer Internship Program
Timeline
The general program timeline is as follows:

October/November – City of Los Altos partners with the Next Gen Regional Internship Program Coordinators to kick-off they year.

March/April – Review, screen, interview and extend internship offers.

Intern Hiring Managers
Provide interns with meaningful work; encourage them to attend the learning forums; provide training, coaching, and feedback; recognize interns’ efforts and contributions

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item # 5
Reviewed By:

1. Resolution of The City Council Of The City Of Los Altos Declaring The Existence Of A Local Emergency Due To The Covid-19 Pandemic
Initiated by:

Staff
Previous Council Consideration:

March 12, 2020 (Declaration of Emergency); March 17, 2020; August 24, 2021; October 12, 2021; November 9, 2021; December 7, 2021
Fiscal Impact:

None. However, a local emergency declaration is a prerequisite for requesting state or federal assistance.

Environmental Review:

The threat posed by COVID-19 continues to pose a serious risk to the public health and safety of the City of Los Altos.

AB 361 applies to local agencies until January 1, 2024.

Recommendation
The staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution extending the declaration of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Los Altos that:

2. Said local emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until terminated by the City Council of the City of Los Altos.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrea Chelemengos, MMC, CITY CLERK

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

DISCUSSION ITEM
AGENDA ITEM # 6
Reviewed By:

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

DISCUSSION ITEM
Agenda Item # 7
Reviewed By:

1. Proposed Dog Park Location Map

2. Recommended North and South Locations

3. Proposed Dog Park Locations

4. Proposed Dog Park Location Notes
Initiated by:

City Council
Previous Council Consideration:

February 12, 2019; November 10, 2020; February 9, 2021; February 23, 202; September 21, 2021; and October 26, 2021.

Fiscal Impact:

Improvements will be necessary at each dog park location and will come forward as part of the normal budget process.

Environmental Review:

Should Council wish to consider a third fenced-in dog park, staff recommends Heritage Oaks before Rosita Park.

If approved by Council, staff will return with changes to the City’s Municipal Code, policies and procedures, and appropriate findings as required.

1. McKenzie Park West

2. Heritage Oaks Park

3. Civic Center - Soccer Field East

4. Rosita Park

5. Marymeade Park

6. Grant Park

7. Civic Center – Hillview Baseball Field

8. Civic Center - Community Center East

Based on geography as a primary filter, the nine locations are ranked as follows:

North Los Altos:

1. Civic Center - Soccer Field East

2. Rosita Park

3. Civic Center - Hillview Baseball Field

4. Civic Center - Community Center East
South Los Altos:

1. McKenzie Park West

2. Heritage Oaks Park

3. Marymeade Park

4. Grant Park

In north Los Altos there are four proposed dog park areas, spread over two locations.

Should Council wish to consider a third fenced-in dog park, staff recommends Heritage Oaks before Rosita Park.

If approved by Council, staff will return with changes to the City’s Municipal Code, policies and procedures, and appropriate findings as required.

Subject: Establishment of Permanent Dog Parks
January 11, 2022 Page 6

W PORTOLA AVE
LEGEND
■ PROPOSED DOG PARK LOCATIONS

EXISTING PARKS
0 LOS ALTOS NORTH
0 LOS ALTOS SOUTH - CITY LIMIT - CREEKS
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

PROPOSED DOG PARK

Marymeade Park 1) Some direct residential impact; 2) Access to shade, seating, water, and restrooms; 3) Additional parking would have to be explored - parking on site is not sufficient.

Grant Park 1) Some direct residential impact; 2) Access to water, restrooms, seating, shade, and parking; 3) Park is heavily programmed and may reduce flexible open use.

From: iris Avidan
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT–AGENDA ITEM # 7 - January 11, 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 9:48:33 AM
Honorable City Council: