The Public Facilities, Recreation, and Infrastructure Commission will meet on Wednesday, February 12 at 6:30 p.m. at the City Hall Community Meeting Room, 8300 Santa Monica Boulevard. Click here for instructions on providing public comment in-person or remotely.
Is West Hollywood’s community outreach process truly inclusive, or is it just a formality? That’s the question many residents are asking as frustrations mount over the city’s plans for William S. Hart Park—specifically its off-leash dog area.
Even setting aside the ongoing debate over synthetic turf, park-goers are raising concerns about the overall redesign. While the new layout will increase the total dog park space, the plan divides it into two separate sections—one for small dogs and another for large dogs—making each individual area smaller than the current shared space. Additionally, the proposal calls for the removal of mature trees that have been growing in the park for decades.
According to some residents, those making these decisions rarely, if ever, set foot in Hart Park.
“None of them have come to the park—nobody from the Planning Commission, nobody from the city, nobody from the City Council has come and actually spent time with anybody in the dog park,” a daily park-goer told WEHO Online in a recent phone call.
Residents also say they aren’t given enough advance notice about key meetings where these proposals are discussed and approved.
“They could have posted this sooner than a week ago. We need more time to get people together to attend. And they really should be posting some notice at the park,” he said.
The experience of participating in these meetings was described as frustrating and disconnected.
“The way it feels right now is like we’re standing up there with elevated people who are our superiors. They listen to us, and then you sit down and have no idea what they think.”
“Right now, we’re just operating in the dark. We get these Public Facilities meetings, and then we’ve got to stop everything and try to get caught up. It does seem like each side is speaking their mind, but it’s not really a dialogue.”
Some residents believe the current structure of public input—limited to three-minute comments at meetings—does not allow for a real discussion.
“We should have a better way of doing input than three minutes of public comment at a meeting. We should be able to sit down with the Planning Commission and actually have a back-and-forth discussion.”
Under current city protocols, council members and commissioners typically do not engage in direct discussions with speakers during public comment. The Brown Act, California’s open meetings law, prohibits real-time deliberation on items that are not formally on the agenda. However, residents argue that the city should create alternative avenues for meaningful community dialogue beyond these rigid public meeting structures.
What do residents want? Among the suggestions from frustrated park-goers:
- Clearer signage at the park announcing upcoming changes and ways to submit feedback.
- In-person engagement from city officials during peak hours at the park, particularly in the afternoons when usage is highest.
- More accessible and interactive public discussions, rather than isolated public comment periods at formal meetings.
“We need a big, solid sign—not a sloppy one—that clearly shows what they’re planning and includes a contact email or public engagement information. But of course, they probably wouldn’t do that, because they really don’t want our public comment,” he speculated.
“I absolutely welcome people from the Public Facilities Commission and the City Council to come during prime hours and see how the park is actually used. I think what they’re not getting is that if they shrink or narrow that park, it will have a major impact—especially for people with bigger dogs.”
As the city moves forward with its Hart Park redesign, these concerns highlight a growing frustration with how decisions are made in West Hollywood. Whether city officials will adjust their outreach efforts to better reflect public sentiment remains to be seen.
To the reporter for the story. It would be great if you didn’t just interview people, but also investigated the matter. I was at the meeting last night, and the parameters were laid out very clearly on what the park was deeded for. What was allowed, who had oversight. How this dog park was never granted a permanent approval (but was in a limbo of temporary use for all the years we’ve had it) and how it had to go through approval by the city of Los Angeles and not just west Hollywood. I think that’s all important information and… Read more »
there are no paid reporters, just volunteers, if you want to sum it up then glad to post. think of this as a community bulletin board and if you have something to add, then add it.
And the community is VERY VERY grateful to all of you. Perhaps we can have some kind of link for community donations to those who work so hard to keep us informed.
Observing our city councils consistent approval of projects despite community opposition reveals that public input often serves as a mere formality. Currently, our at-large city council operates with limited accountability, prioritizing the interests of unions and developers who fund their campaigns. Transitioning to a district-based council, where members reside in and represent specific districts, would enhance accountability and ensure that council members are more attuned to the unique needs of their communities. This change would diminish the influence of special interests and external influencers, leading to more equitable and community-focused decision-making.
Public input is never wanted by this city. Their feeling is it stops the process they believe is correct. Ask yourself why any item going before the planning commission and city council gives the community 5 days to way in on a process which was in the works for months and years behind closed doors. Unfortunately this process will not change with the current management and elected council members. Special interest groups run this city.
The real issue is this — is this a park for people? Or a park for dogs? Almost every argument, other than grass, is about dogs. Are there any parks, anymore, where people can just go and quietly relax, contemplate, read, play? Dog culture is really getting out of hand the past 10 years.I wish I could go to a park and not have to deal with the noise and odours and land-mines
Kings Road Park, Plummer Park, Poinsettia Park, West Hollywood Park.
Relax, dog hater. There’s plenty of green space in the city for you to be miserable.
How come you made a nasty response?
No one who uses the dog park wants these changes. I am at the park every day and it’s just fine, thank you. Whyt “fix” something that’s not broke, especially when that “fix” costs a lot of city money and the result is something no one wants.
If you were at the meeting, listening to the reasoning. The history of the park, the parameters of The Hart family donating it, and what they required of Los Angeles(who owns it) and West Hollywood? my mind was changed somewhat, by hearing all the parameters and logistics. Complaining into the wind isn’t going to get you your goals. There are a couple hard truths, and then some variables. A hard truth is that this dog park was never a permanent fixture, and if you look at the chain-link fence, the non-permanent dog bowls, and the layout it’s pretty clear it… Read more »
The planning commission is continually blind, deaf and mute. Completely useless and ignorant to citizen needs.