The road to constructing the Hillview Dog Park just got longer.
Los Altos City Council members voted 4-1 last week to return the Hillview Dog Park project to the pre-design and outreach stage after lengthy discussions about the proposed use of synthetic turf in its design – the decision is expected to cost $75,000. Council previously approved the design work for the Hillview Dog Park.
The decision’s $75,000 price tag – which will be funded from the approved $1 million for the construction of the Hillview and McKenzie dog parks – will be for the hiring of a consultant to put together a potential new design that incorporates community feedback related to amenities, styles and ground cover options, Los Altos City Manager Gabe Engeland said in an email.
“We had anticipated Hillview would cost more than McKenzie but expected to have them both completed within (the $1 million) budget amount. This included design and construction of both locations, with Hillview being completed first,” Engeland stated. “The council approved the design work for the Hillview Dog Park, but last night declined to move forward with construction of the design. Because construction is not moving forward, we will not be issuing a (request for proposal) and cannot provide an estimated cost at this time.”
The construction of McKenzie Dog Park was not affected by city council’s decision.
The topic came back to council after Councilmember Jonathan Weinberg requested at the Aug. 26 city council meeting more discussions about the cover material used at the Hillview Dog Park. He said he was swayed by concerns voiced by members of the public about environmental hazards and sanitation issues with artificial turf and requested more information from staff.
Council had already approved the options and information they received last year related to the dog parks and, prior to last week’s meeting, the project was 95% completed.
City staff initially proposed artificial turf as a cheaper and more sanitary option, but complaints about microplastics, contamination and the city’s dedication to green initiatives made members of the public speak up.
“Our restaurants can’t use plastic, which I thought was a fantastic move made by our city, and I also feel like if we are not allowing that to happen, we should continue to move forward and not cover our ground in plastic either,” Los Altos resident Maria Bautista said during the public comment portion of the meeting. “I actually would like to see a no-artificial turf, no-plastic anywhere, at any time, at any open space in Los Altos – it’s not in character with our city.”
Community pushback against the 15,000-square-foot Hillview Dog Park has been consistent since its inception – in July of last year, residents spoke out against the park because it would require the removal of 16 parking spaces at the nearby library at the city’s civic center.
Weinberg noted the potential smell from the artificial turf city council members were close to approving may have disrupted the quality of life for those who use the civic center’s amenities, like the Bus Barn Theater or the Los Altos Main Library.
Councilmember Sally Meadows cast the only dissenting vote, noting that many of the other potential choices for the dog park have their downfalls.
“Here on council, at least how I view the job, we have so many causes – the community is our cause. I try to be absolute for the best value for the community, or the best decisions of the community and so that’s how I’m approaching this,” Meadows said during the meeting. “I have spent a lot of time on environmental work the past five years, but I approach it from what can we as a city accomplish?”
In an email to the Town Crier, she said she had two major issues with the decision to instruct staff to circle back: that the information shared by members of the public wasn’t related to the specific turf the city was going to use and that the project being sent back to the pre-design phase will simply waste city money.
“The data that advocates claimed showed that artificial turf is the wrong choice was not based on the type of turf we were proposing to use or the maintenance we committed to do in the dog park,” Meadows stated. “Their data was based on older turf such as that used for lawns or playing fields. The proposal for our dog park was for an improved turf specifically manufactured for dog parks to be PFAS free, recyclable, heat reflective and require no chemical cleaning products, according to the manufacturer.”
Councilmember Neysa Fligor supported the decision because she wanted to be as sure as possible that staff had presented the best possible choices, but at the time of voting, she was not.
While staff was instructed to return to conducting outreach and pre-design work, council members ensured that, if after staff again conducted their pre-design research and found that artificial turf was again the best option, it could be brought back to council.
“In reality, there is no perfect material for a dog park, but the pros and cons of each choice are the same as they were a year ago,” Meadows said. “It seems irresponsible to back off a decision that will cost so much time and money without new data to support the change. I did not want to support an action that reversed a 95% complete, construction-ready design, it’s poor governance and sets a terrible precedent for council’s reliability in making decisions.”
