Parks Rec

Dog park at Rip Van Winkle

Summary not yet generated for this topic.

Community sentiment

Supportive (1)Opposed (16)

At a glance

Public comments
18
Last 30 days
0

Last discussed May 28, 2026.

Public comments (18)

OpposedEdmund ReedMay 28, 2026

Opposed the fenced dog park, saying fences would ruin the scenery, block a main walking trail and deer route, and could lead to losing the whole park to dogs.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 13:45 →
OpposedSean EllerbyMay 28, 2026

Asked the board to rescind Rip Van Winkle from consideration, calling it inappropriate for a fenced park in a forest, and asked about the regional park district's role.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 15:01 →
OpposedVeggie FieldsMay 28, 2026

A 17-year Glen resident thanked the donor but said she and her neighbors are universally against the dog park, citing parking, congestion, noise, and proximity to the playground and ballfield.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 18:37 →
OpposedMarty DunnMay 28, 2026

Speaking for herself and her dog Pixie, urged the board to leave the park alone because it's beloved and works well as it is.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 20:57 →
OpposedDan RipleyMay 28, 2026

A daily user for eight years asked the park stay as is, noting it's a school walking route, and suggested donor money go to trash receptacles instead of a fence.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 21:31 →
OpposedGary DavisMay 28, 2026

Gave a short comment: the town already has a fabulous unfenced dog park at Rip Van Winkle, so don't fix what isn't broken.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 25:47 →
OpposedMark TrevilleMay 28, 2026

A retired contractor and Heritage Society president warned fences fail and cost money to repair, and said the park's happy dogs and people shouldn't be disrupted.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 26:59 →
OpposedUnidentified ResidentMay 28, 2026

Read a friend's statement criticizing parking on Congress Avenue, tree clearing, and the board's track record, calling the forest cherished and urging the board not to change it.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 28:00 →
OpposedMika OkimuraMay 28, 2026

Said the park is a lifeline that helped her find community, and worries a fenced park would change how everyone uses it.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 29:43 →
OpposedKatieMay 28, 2026

A 30-year resident who has seen fenced dog parks in Portugal argue that cramming dogs into small spaces changes their behavior, and called the idea insanely bad.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 30:38 →
OpposedTom LindbergMay 28, 2026

A longtime dog owner said his dogs do better unfenced, and warned that even a small fence footprint fragments the already-fragmented, rare Monterey pine forest.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 34:25 →
OpposedMary Kay PowellMay 28, 2026

Noted much of the forest is Pebble Beach land outside city jurisdiction and asked whether the city can bear liability for unvaccinated dogs in an enclosed area.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 39:04 →
OpposedKatie TrevaleMay 28, 2026

A nearly 50-year resident and former nature walk leader said the natural area was created with Pebble Beach cooperation and that visitors praise it — the city doesn't need another dog park or liability.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 42:03 →
OpposedRobert ThorntonMay 28, 2026

Said fenced dog parks are unhealthy for dogs — veterinarians see them as a business source — and urged not fixing what isn't broken.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 43:23 →
MixedGary FogisMay 28, 2026

Lives across from the park and loves its magic; opposed Rip Van Winkle but suggested Hayward's dimensions might actually fit a dog park.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 46:56 →
OpposedUnidentified ResidentMay 28, 2026

Called Rip Van Winkle protected open space, flagging infrastructure gaps — no water, parking limits, erosion runoff toward the marine sanctuary — and asked the board to protect the forest and pick a site with existing infrastructure.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 49:30 →
OpposedUnidentified ResidentMay 28, 2026

Revealed a deed restriction on the park from the Pebble Beach Company — no tree removal and no development — dating back decades and confirmed during a past fire-road dispute.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 1:00:50 →
SupportiveMike GibbsMay 28, 2026

The donor's emissary made the case for the park: shared-use hours already exist, the site is under half an acre, surveys of 150+ people were overwhelmingly positive, and seniors and disabled residents could finally use it.

Recreation Board — May 28, 2026 · 1:04:19 →