HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/4/2026 Item 4a, Pinard (7)
Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
From:CityClerk
Sent:Monday, November 24, 2025 11:31 AM
To:Peg Pinard
Cc:Avakian, Greg
Subject:cc Pinard - Clarifications: & FYI: Response to NT Article
BCC: Council All
Peg Pinard,
Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your
concerns and Greg Avakian, Director of Parks and Recreation who is responsible for responding is copied on
this email. Greg or a member of his staff will be following up with you within five business days.
City Clerk’s Office
City Administration
City Clerk's Office
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
From: Peg Pinard <
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 1:53 PM
To: ; E-mail Council Website
<emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Tribune <newsroom@thetribunenews.com>
Subject: Clarifications: & FYI: Response to NT Article
Clarifications: 300’ “Notifications”
The Parks Director keeps citing the 300-foot notice rule, but that standard applies only to small, parcel-specific construction or
development projects — things like garage conversions, additions, or minor land-use entitlements.
This is not a parcel-level permit. It is a neighborhood-impact project that removes half of the only active recreation field in Old Town.
For projects like this, the City’s own General Plan is unmistakably clear. Under Land Use Element Program 2.15 – Neighborhood
Wellness, the City shall:
‘…involve residents early in reviewing proposed public and private projects that could have neighborhood impacts by notifying
residents and property owners and holding meetings in the neighborhoods.’
This policy is far broader than a 300-foot radius and was created specifically to avoid exactly this kind of inadequate outreach. The City
cannot rely on a narrow construction-notice standard when its own General Plan shall require a neighborhood-wide notification and
engagement process for neighborhood-impact decisions.
======================================================================================================
==============================
Clarification: That the Grant Is Not a “Done Deal”
1
The statement that it is “too late” to make any changes to the grant is currently being used to justify alterations at Emerson Park: that
assertion is both inaccurate and inconsistent with how municipal and state grant programs actually function.
In public administration, no grant is ever a completely fixed or untouchable document. Grant-funded projects routinely undergo
clarifications, scope adjustments, timeline modifications, and compliance updates. Agencies at every level—including cities, counties,
and state departments—amend grants when new information, community impacts, or unintended consequences come to light. In fact,
most grant agreements explicitly include amendment procedures because issues inevitably arise after initial submission.
Claiming that a grant cannot be revised simply because it has been submitted—or even awarded—misrepresents standard practice.
Cities regularly:
Request scope modifications
Update project descriptions to reflect community input
Adjust deliverables to comply with CEQA findings or equity requirements
Modify budgets to reflect more accurate field conditions
Submit addenda to correct or clarify earlier assumptions
These changes are normal, expected, and fully permissible. What is not acceptable is presenting the grant as a “done deal” in order to
avoid addressing substantive community concerns.
In this case, the City has now been informed—directly and clearly—that removing half of Old Town’s only active recreation field
imposes long-term harm, conflicts with park standards, and contradicts stated equity goals. These facts must be reflected in the project
scope if the City intends to proceed responsibly and transparently.
Therefore, I request that the City acknowledge the following:
1. That amending or clarifying the grant is both possible and common practice.
2. That new information regarding community impact warrants re-evaluation of the project scope.
3. That the City will not use the grant application as a reason to avoid reconsidering the substantial community harm caused by
reducing the Emerson Park field.
Residents deserve an honest process. Stating that “it’s too late to change the grant” suggests that decisions are being driven by
administrative convenience rather than by public need, equity, or long-term stewardship of scarce community resources.
======================================================================================================
==============================
Clarification of Grant Funded Projects
A factor people don’t see is how strongly cities are pushed toward grant-funded projects. The State often funds things like dog parks
because they’re simple, measurable, and easy to report back on. Cities also receive administrative funding with those grants, which
helps cover staff time—so there’s a built-in incentive to pursue projects that come with money attached.
But that funding model can push cities toward projects that are easy to build rather than projects that meet the actual recreation needs
of the neighborhood. Emerson Park already has far less open turf than national standards recommend for a neighborhood park, and
this field is the only space where kids can run, kick a ball, play soccer, baseball, or just be active. Once you shrink that field, you can’t
get it back. Sacrificing the community’s only active recreation space is short-sighted. You don’t give up the last field a neighborhood has
— not for a grant-driven project, and not for something that permanently limits what future generations can do here.
Emerson already has far less open turf than what national standards recommend for a neighborhood park, and shrinking it further
doesn’t serve the people who actually live here — families with kids, renters without yards, and a dense neighborhood with limited
private outdoor space.
So what the City ‘gets’ is an ‘easy’ project and a chance to say they’re adding a park amenity. What the neighborhood loses is
irreplaceable open space that serves a broader range of people. And that trade-off wasn’t openly discussed with the community
— the City notified only a 300-foot radius and described the project as simple ‘improvements,’ without disclosing that half the
field was to be removed. Old Town residents are now being asked to pay the price for a decision that wasn’t transparently
planned.
2
======================================================================================================
==============================
Clarification of Park & Recreation Directors’s comments to “New Times”
These statements contradict all professional parks-planning standards, the City’s own adopted DEI and equity goals, and the basic
obligation of the Parks and Recreation Department to preserve equitable public access to usable open space.
Below is a point-by-point response demonstrating how the Director’s assertions fail to meet these responsibilities.
Claim: The Emerson Park turf is “in really bad shape” and “not a regulation athletic field.”
The Director acknowledges that the turf is “in really bad shape” and poorly irrigated. But this is not a justification for removing the field—
it is evidence of years of neglected maintenance. Allowing a neighborhood playfield to deteriorate and then using that decay as a
reason to eliminate it is the opposite of responsible stewardship.
Furthermore, Emerson Park is not intended to be a “regulation athletic field.” Neighborhood parks are designed for informal play: kids
practicing soccer, teens running, families recreating, and community members free play. NRPA standards emphasize usable open
turf, not tournament-grade fields.
By presenting maintenance issues and non-regulation size as reasons to eliminate the only neighborhood playfield in Old Town, the
Director undermines his duty to maintain existing recreational assets and preserve functional open space.
Claim: Loss of Emerson turf can be offset by future parks at Righetti and Avila Ranch.
The Director’s assertion that Righetti Community Park or Avila Ranch Park will compensate for the loss of open space at Emerson Park
is fundamentally flawed and contradicts all established park-planning standards, geographic reality, and the City’s equity
commitments.
• These parks are miles away and do not serve Old Town.
Righetti Community Park will be miles from Old Town, serving a lower-density neighborhood with larger yards. Avila Ranch Park
will likewise be across a freeway, serving a suburban neighborhood in a completely different service radius.
Neither satisfies the NRPA definition of a neighborhood park, which is designed to serve residents within a ½-mile walking distance.
• A distant, car-required facility cannot replace a walkable neighborhood park.
Old Town residents—many living in older housing without yards and with lower vehicle access—rely on walkable open space. Righetti
and Avila Ranch are not walkable, not accessible, and not equivalent replacements.
Neighborhood parks serve those who walk.
Community/suburban parks serve those who drive.
They are not interchangeable.
• The proposed replacements increase inequity.
Redirecting a dense, diverse, and less car-dependent neighborhood to rely on parks located miles away in lower-density areas violates:
CalEPA Environmental Justice guidelines
AB 852 EJ expectations
CEQA’s social/environmental equity standards
The City’s own DEI and equity goals
Under these frameworks, a city cannot remove scarce open space from a neighborhood already lacking private green space and claim
that distant, car-dependent suburban parks are adequate replacements.
3
Taking away the only usable turf in Old Town and pointing to distant, car-oriented future parks as replacements is not
planning—it is displacement.
Claim: Off-leash dogs are already using the field, and violations “justify” converting it.
The Director notes that many off-leash dogs use the grassy area “despite municipal and county codes” and that the lack of a fence
makes it unsafe.
What he does not acknowledge is that enforcing those laws is his department’s responsibility. His office sits on the same property,
yet off-leash violations were allowed to continue unchecked for years. That failure of enforcement cannot now be used as justification
for permanently removing open turf.
Moreover, the City has already invested in off-leash facilities elsewhere, ie: the recent improvements at Laguna Lake Dog Park. Instead
of preserving the only flat playfield in Old Town, the Department allowed violations to accumulate and then redesigned the park around
the violators.
Allowing code violations to fester and then redesigning the park to accommodate those violations is backwards park management
and contradicts the Director’s obligation to provide safe, multi-use open space for all users.
Claim: Notification limited to a 300-foot radius was adequate.
The Director’s statement that notice was only required within 300 feet reflects a profound misunderstanding of the project’s scale. A
300-foot notice radius is appropriate for a private homeowner adding a room addition, not for a major reprogramming of a public
neighborhood park serving thousands of residents.
Emerson Park is an entire neighborhood’s asset. Limiting notice to 300 feet excluded the vast majority of its regular users, including
those who walk or bike from farther distances—a serious failure of public engagement.
It also runs counter to the City’s DEI commitments, which require inclusive outreach, particularly to neighborhoods with less access to
private green space and fewer transportation options.
Emerson Park’s open turf is already far below NRPA standards. It serves an older, denser neighborhood with limited private yards.
Removing half of the already-substandard field is not only bad planning—it actively harms the residents who rely on it most.
The Director’s justifications fail to meet professional standards, equity principles, environmental justice requirements, or the
City’s own adopted goals. Old Town deserves the same level of recreational access and respect afforded to less diverse and
lower-density neighborhoods.
4