Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves MOU to let nonprofit study dog-park options; Green Belt ballot measure advanced after debate
Summary
Council approved a memorandum of understanding with Bark for the Park to fund feasibility work for a dog park at Valley Park East and a proposed, limited area of the Green Belt; the nonprofit asked for a 10% cap on city staff-cost recovery and pledged to fund detailed design work if council and (possibly) voters authorize future steps.
The Hermosa Beach City Council authorized a memorandum of understanding allowing Bark for the Park to begin feasibility work on two potential dog-park sites: Valley Park East and a limited portion of the Green Belt between Pier Avenue and 11th Street. Bark for the Park representatives told council the group will fund consultants—landscape architects, engineers and arborists—but asked the city to cap its recoverable staff time at 10% of the nonprofit’s current project budget (about $14,000 on a $140,000 plan), with an agreed renegotiation mechanism if more staff time is needed.
The item produced pointed public comment both for and against a Green Belt ballot option. Supporters said the MOU would produce the technical information residents need and noted the work does not obligate the city to build a park; "This MOU does not predetermine the outcome," a Bark for the Park board member said. Opponents and nearby residents cited 1989 ballot results that protected the Green Belt as open space and urged removing the Green Belt option or narrowing ballot language to a clearly defined area. Council approved the MOU with direction to staff—and the transcript shows a later council action to move forward with ballot language for a narrowly designated portion of the Green Belt subject to subsequent voter approval and further environmental and design review.
Staff described the difference between a conceptual design and the comprehensive feasibility study Bark for the Park proposes: the first provides visualization for voters; the latter would include detailed cost estimates, accessibility, ADA compliance, CEQA screening and operations plans. Bark for the Park emphasized that even if a voter measure passes, subsequent environmental review and council approvals would be required before construction.
Next steps: staff will finalize the MOU consistent with council direction, accept the side-letter cap language as negotiated, and return future details about scope, timeline and anticipated costs for the feasibility studies.
