Hermosa Beach advisory commission backs feasibility study, eyes Green Belt referendum for dog park

The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission voted 5–0 on March 3 to tell the Hermosa Beach City Council it believes an off‑leash dog park is feasible and to request additional study of specific locations, including Valley Park East, and the possibility of placing a Green Belt referendum on the November ballot.

Brian Souza, speaking for parks staff, presented a feasibility report summarizing a subcommittee’s site visits and best‑practice research. Souza said staff examined candidate locations — the Green Belt, Edith Rodaway Friendship Park, Bicentennial Park, the beach between Hirondo Street and First Street, and Valley Park East — and listed basic amenities the city would need to provide, including a double‑gated entry, 4–6‑foot fencing, a potable water source, waste stations and ADA access. “Staff has completed its review of the proposal including evaluation of potential locations within Hermosa Beach,” Souza said, and noted the Green Belt’s OS‑1 open‑space designation means “any amendment to allow an off‑leash dog park area on the Green Belt would require public electoral vote.”

Representatives from Bark for a Park — identified in the meeting as Carla and other board members — described fundraising commitments and design options. The group told commissioners it had raised about $70,000 in pledges and reported an anonymous matching grant that could leverage roughly $250,000 in additional funds; the group said it would cover predevelopment costs if council approved a site and that the city would assume ongoing maintenance afterward under an agreement. “We’ve gone into this knowing we are a resource‑scarce city,” a Bark for a Park representative said, describing the group’s fundraising and contingency plans.

Commissioners pressed staff and the group for technical details. They asked why sites such as the Community Center East lawn, the water tower parcel and Noble Park were ruled out (programming conflicts, deed or zoning restrictions and insufficient space were cited), and they probed ADA and grading implications at Valley Park East. Staff said detailed grading, access and final design would require public works review and likely a consultant. On the beach option, staff warned that a Coastal Commission review and environmental and sanitation studies would probably be required.

Public commenters voiced both support and practical questions. Jack Levy, speaking for Bark for a Park’s board, said the organization was committed to advancing the project and could revisit Valley Park if the commission asked. An online commenter, Tony Higgins, urged the commission to consider how many dogs a proposed 5,000–10,000 square‑foot park would reasonably serve, a point commissioners flagged for later design study.

Debate among commissioners focused on tradeoffs: Valley Park’s popularity and parking access weighed against possible extensive grading and ADA upgrades; Bicentennial and Edith Rodaway offer amenities but sit nearer residences; the Green Belt is centrally located and would likely require a ballot measure because of prior voter protections. Commissioner Maroney moved a three‑part recommendation asking council to (1) find a dog park feasible (excluding the beach), (2) direct staff to further evaluate Valley Park with public works and possible consultants to resolve ADA questions, and (3) pursue placing a referendum on the November ballot to allow a Green Belt dog park. The motion passed 5–0.

Next steps set out in the meeting record: staff will include additional ADA, square‑footage and resident‑proximity details in the council report, Bark for a Park will continue fundraising and the commission’s recommendation will be presented to City Council at its April 14 meeting. If council directs further work, public works and, potentially, a consultant will be engaged to produce a comprehensive design and cost estimate for any selected site.

Votes at a glance: the consent calendar approval of prior meeting minutes passed 5–0 earlier in the meeting; the dog‑park recommendation motion passed 5–0 in tonight’s vote. The council hearing is scheduled for April 14, 2026.