HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-2025 Pinard (Emerson Park Design)
Sent:Friday,
To:Advisory Bodies
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:What was Reviewed in the Emerson Park Design?
(City Clerk: Please provide that each Park and Recreation Commissioner receives a copy of this email)
Dear Parks & Recreation Commissioners,
The City has repeatedly stated that the Emerson Park redesign and grant proposal were “reviewed by the
Parks & Recreation Commission years ago.” Because the City is moving forward with its plans and time
is limited, I am writing to request clarification on what the Commission actually considered when this
project was presented.
I am unable to locate information in the public record indicating that the Commission was provided with
a full analysis of the impacts and how this redesign affects the Old Town neighborhood. For the sake of
transparency to the City Council, the grantor, and the community, it is essential to establish what
information was—and was not—part of the Commission’s deliberations.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Commission provide written clarification on whether the
following issues were ever analyzed, presented, or discussed. If they were, please provide the
documentation and the reasoning behind the Commission’s conclusions. If they were not, please state
that clearly so the Council and the grantor have an accurate record of what was reviewed.
1. Neighborhood Equity and Environmental Justice
Did the Commission discuss how the redesign affects an already under-served neighborhood with
higher density, limited private yards, and lower vehicle ownership?
Was there any evaluation of CEQA’s equity considerations, California’s Environmental Justice
priorities, or the City’s own DEI commitments?
2. Severe Shortage of Open Field Space in Old Town
Was the Commission informed that the National Recreation and Park Association
recommends 1–2 acres of open turf for a neighborhood park, while Emerson has only a small
fraction of that?
Did staff provide any analysis of how the usable area is further reduced by large, yet beneficial
shade trees?
Was there any discussion of the impact of removing half of the remaining turf from the only open
field available within walking distance to the thousands of residents in this neighborhood?
1
3. Safety Conflicts Between a Dog Facility and Children’s Active Play Area
Was the Commission told about the well-documented incompatibility and liability of placing a
fenced dog run directly beside the area where children and teens run, fall, and play?
Did staff brief Commissioners on liability risks such as children reaching through fencing,
contamination from concentrated dog waste, barking impacts, or athletic dogs jumping the
fence?
4. Neighborhood Notification and Process Integrity
Did staff inform the Commission that only residents within 300 feet were notified—a standard
intended for minor construction approvals (such as a room addition), not neighborhood-wide park
changes?
Were Commissioners shown the General Plan’s Neighborhood Wellness policy stating that the
City “shall notify neighborhoods about issues affecting them”? This provision of the law is not a
suggestion, it's a legal requirement.
Because the City continues to cite the Commission’s past review as justification for proceeding, it is
critical that the Commission clarify what was actually evaluated. This request is not a criticism of the
Commission, but rather a concern that staff may not have provided the full information needed at the
time. Providing written confirmation—either documenting the analyses or stating that these issues were
not presented—will give the City Council and the grantor an accurate factual record.
Thank you for your service and for helping resolve these important questions.
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
Former, Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
Chairperson, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
Founder, Old Town Neighborhood Association
Resident, Old Town and Emerson Park Neighborhood
2