Updates on South Bay dog issues

So here's some update info on last night's trio of meetings regarding dog- and park-related issues in the South Bay:

• Redondo Beach: Dog owners probably face an uphill battle to get the City Council there to overturn or relax a longtime ban on canines in that city's parks, according to a post this morning on the Daily Breeze Pipeline blog by Kristin Agostoni, our reporter who covered the meeting. Discussion was in response to two petitions calling for a change to the 1979 city ordinance that forbids dogs (leashed or otherwise) in municipal parks other than the designated off-leash dog park on Flagler & 190th. Councilman Bill Brand and Mayor Mike Gin raised the matter which now goes to the the city's Parks and Recreation Commission after a 4-1 vote moving it forward for more study last night. Commissioners will consider changing the rule for Czuleger Park only for now, perhaps as a pilot? But opposition remains strong to changing the citywide law, with Councilman Steve Aspel saying this: "Someone's leaving a thousand turds a day on top of the Esplanade. Ask our public works department." And there was this from Councilman Pat Aust, who cast the only dissenting vote:  "Parks are for people and kids. Zoos are for animals." **********(Read Kristin's follow-up story in Thursday's Daily Breeze.)
• Manhattan Beach: Council members there voted 4-1 to approve (with changes to the original proposal) an $18,200 off-leash dog run at Polliwog Park. It would be the city's third such spot, following similar set-ups at Live Oak and Marine Avenue parks.
• Rancho Palos Verdes: Bruce and Maureen Megowan report a generally positive response to proposals for dog parks at Lower Hesse Park and/or Grandview Park at last night's RPV City Council meeting. (See the full report and recap on Maureen Megowan's blog.) Council members authorized spending $50,000 to hire a designer to flesh out the proposed park designs (which  include other elements besides a dog park), but they stressed that this was only a "first step" and not a commitment to impelment the designs. The Megowans also raised questions about the proposed size of the dog parks (relatively small as drawn, I gather), adding that research shows the most successful (and safest) parks include at least 3 acres -- 2 acres for large dogs and 1 acre for a separate small dog space. There are still homeowner objections to address, however, and none of this will probably be a slam dunk. But other cities on The Hill reportedly are  entertaining proposals to establish a dog park as well, according to the Megowans. (Two suggested dog park sites were turned down by Rolling Hills Estates at a meeting this week, though, I'm told. But discussions continue on the possibility of using part of the PV Landfill area in that city.)

Email mmegowan@cox.net for more information.  

So, nothing firm on any of these proposals yet, but stay tuned.