Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Dogpark topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs study of Valley Park and Greenbelt as off‑leash dog‑park options, with Valley Park prioritized
Summary
After hours of public testimony for and against a proposed dog park, Hermosa Beach council voted 3–2 to ask staff for comprehensive feasibility studies of Valley Park East (preferred) and the Greenbelt (backup), and to prepare materials for a potential November ballot measure if ordinance changes are required.
Hermosa Beach City Council voted Tuesday to direct staff to prepare comprehensive feasibility analyses for two potential off‑leash dog‑park locations — Valley Park East as the primary option and a section of the Greenbelt as an alternative — and to return with the studies, designs, estimated costs, and proposed funding arrangements.
The decision followed several hours of public comment from neighborhood residents, dog‑park organizers and business representatives. Bark for the Park volunteers described more than 1,400 petition signatures, $80,000 already pledged, a matching grant in negotiation and a willingness by their group to fund predevelopment costs and lead ongoing fundraising. “We’ve raised over $80,000 already and an additional $250,000 in a matching grant,” a Bark for the Park representative told the council during public comment.
Opponents — many of whom live adjacent to the Valley Park site — raised concerns about parking, noise, drainage, and ADA access. “I’m half a block away,” a Valley Park neighbor said. “I don’t think that’s really a consideration,” referencing proximity to homes and pedestrian use; other speakers urged the council to put the matter to a ballot vote.
Staff summarized the commission‑level work and the preliminary feasibility report from Parks & Recreation. The report noted Valley Park East has natural shade, nearby restrooms and parking but also steep grades, drainage and significant ADA upgrades that would likely increase costs; the Greenbelt would likely be easier to make accessible but would require an amendment to Ordinance 89‑1001 and therefore a public vote to permit off‑leash use there. Staff also explained that Bark for the Park has offered to advance design and predevelopment costs and to assume fundraising responsibility for construction and maintenance if the council pursues a site.
After extended debate, Councilmember Keegan moved that staff evaluate both sites and return with a comprehensive feasibility analysis and a path to a ballot measure if required; Councilmembers Francois and Keegan voted with the motion and the measure passed 3–2, with Mayor DeToy and Councilmember Jackson dissenting. Councilmembers requested that any materials submitted externally be circulated to the council for review before final submission.
Next steps: staff will prepare a scope and timeline for the comprehensive feasibility work (including ADA review, grading/drainage, permitting needs, cost estimates, and a proposed maintenance and MOU structure with Bark for the Park) and return to the council for public hearings and potential decisions about ballot placement.
