Parks Rec

Proposed Dog Park at Hayward Park

Summary not yet generated for this topic.

Community sentiment

Supportive (2)Opposed (3)

At a glance

Public comments
5
Last 30 days
0

Last discussed Aug 27, 2026.

Public comments (5)

SupportiveMike GibbsAug 27, 2026

Recapped seven months of work on the dog park effort: Hayward emerged as the preferred site, funding is in hand, a pedestrian survey showed heavy dog traffic, and no deed restriction could be found. Urged the board to put an up-or-down vote on the September agenda.

Recreation Board — August 27, 2026 · 4:19 →
OpposedKelly HardenAug 27, 2026

Criticized the three-hour park usage survey and said the site is too small for both a trail and a dog park without removing trees. Opposes any dog park next to homes, says a deed restricting the land to hiking and non-motorized biking exists, and asked why locations are being discussed before the needs assessment is done.

Recreation Board — August 27, 2026 · 8:18 →
OpposedKelly HardenApr 23, 2026

Lives about 100 feet from the proposed site and urged an alternative location, citing noise, sanitation, parking losses, and property value harm; asked for noise, traffic, and environmental studies before any approval.

Recreation Board — April 23, 2026 · 32:55 →
SupportiveMike GibbsApr 23, 2026

Explained the donor covers all construction and maintenance, the design is by a licensed architect, Hayward Lumber's manager supports it, and PG Dog Owner Group would monitor rules; shared a story of a dog killed off-leash at Silomar to show the need.

Recreation Board — April 23, 2026 · 36:34 →
OpposedUnidentified ResidentApr 23, 2026

Invoked the city charter's provision that Pacific Grove is primarily a city of homes and argued the Hayward site is not the right place, urging consideration of residents.

Recreation Board — April 23, 2026 · 40:31 →