The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/02/2023 Pinard, non-agenda correspondence Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Sunday, July 16, 2023 1:42 PM To:Peg; E-mail Council Website Cc:Dave Congalton; Sandra Rowley; Tribune; KSBY TV; news@newtimesslo.com; Dave Congalton Subject:RE: Save the Emerson Ball Field Good afternoon Peg, Thank you for providing this feedback to council, sharing your thoughts on the design concepts for Emerson Park. With this email I am copying the all-council email address that also includes many key city staff, so that they can take note of your letter and direct your thoughts to the Parks and Rec Department staff. Also, I note that the public survey to provide feedback on the design concepts is still open for two more days on Open City th Hall. It closes on the 18, so you still have a few more days to give feedback there. Here’s the link: https://communityfeedback.opengov.com/portals/sanluisobispoca/forum_home?active_issue_id=8158&phase= Open Thank you again, Michelle Shoresman pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mshoresm@slocity.org C 805.888.1973 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Peg < Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2023 1:09 PM To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Cc: Dave Congalton <dave.congalton@gmail.com>; Sandra Rowley <macsar99@yahoo.com>; Tribune <newsroom@thetribunenews.com>; KSBY TV <news@ksby.com>; news@newtimesslo.com; Dave Congalton <dave@920kvec.com> Subject: Save the Emerson Ball Field This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. 1 July 16, 2023 Mayor and City Council Members, I am very concerned about the city’s proposed development plans for Emerson Park’s Field. This is the only playing field within walking distance for our older neighborhoods. It serves thousands of kids in all age groups and many of the areas youth soccer teams. Local teens also play rugby and softball there. What is rather unbelievable is that, due to the limited nature of ‘input’, when the city received feedback that some residents would like a dog park, that the city staff chose to take the room away from the one sector of our community that needs room to run the most! The physical and mental health of our teens is critical and should be a primary focus - especially right now as we are seeing the fallout of the years of isolation from covid. We have been witnessing the bottling-up of emotions and the rather fragile mental states that have resulted - and you want to take away the one area for thousands of kids to responsibly interact and ‘run it off’? So, when the next school shooting occurs and people wonder why kids are ‘acting out’ what are you going to say? "Well, we thought it was a good idea to take away their only field running area? Even though we have a big dog park at Laguna Lake we thought taking away the only playing field space from local kids was a good thing to do?”! This plan does not adhere to any of the National or State Park Standards for recreational space for the number of people in this neighborhood (and for the full range of ages) that neighborhood recreation areas are supposed to serve. We were designated severely ‘under-served’ when the school was closed and yet, since then our neighborhood population has more than doubled! There is a huge gap in the feedback you got - and that is that you didn’t hear from the thousands of youngsters who use that field for vigorous and active play. There would be NO PLACE left in our neighborhood for all ages of our kids to be active. The city's description that, what little fragment would be left "could accommodate Art classes, yoga, etc". is an abregation of your responsibility to meet the needs of the whole age spectrum. Besides, the activities the city mentioned could all be done at Mitchell Park (where there is no ball field). Teens need space for vigorous activities, team participations and free play. No where, in any recreation guideline does it say to put the needs of all ages of children dead last. The city has Laguna Lake dog park - that already has more room in it for dogs to run around than you have at Emerson for our children to run. Our kids don’t drive…they don’t have that option…this is the ONLY PLAYING FIELD WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE FOR OUR KIDS. The city’s carefully selected ‘input’ was mostly to those who monitor the city’s website - and not from the kids who play with the various teams (or their parents and coaches) or kids who actually use the park. Please note that the city also did not send any notice to the entire neighborhood that this park is supposed to serve.* I live only a block from Emerson and did not receive any notice nor did any of my neighbors - and I’ve checked with quite a few of them. The city also avoided noticing the neighborhood organizations specifically formed to ‘get the word out’. I’ve asked what the city’s neighborhood liason person did to help the neighborhood understand the issues, but received no answer. When your surveys asked what people ‘wanted’, where did the city disclose that it would need to take away the one playing field available for all of our young soccer, rugby, and baseball players and spontaneous free-play area for teens? Eight and nine year olds, etc. can walk to Emerson - and I thought that walkability was 2 supposed to be a primary goal of the city?! If you want a dog park at Emerson, then take up the damn parking lot! Which, noticeably by the way, shows that the city cares more for allowing room for parking each of its vehicles than it does for each of its thousands of kids. Where is there any semblance of honesty or sanity here? State Parks staff says that you could amend your plan, especially in light of the fact that grant recipients are coming in over-bid. She also said that there are often revisions to plans due not only to lack of funds, but also (and especially) from additional input that a local agency might not have had before. You can still do the right thing by our kids and leave our neighborhood’s only ballfield out of the mix. Go ahead and improve the tot-lot area, but also improve the field’s exisitng grounds, and add fencing in order to keep the dog poop off where kids are supposed to play. Sincerely, Peg Pinard Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo Founder, Old Town Neighborhood Association ...and very concerned parent and grandparent for our kids’ future * Apparently only people immediately adjacent to the park received any notice. The city did not follow its own General Plan. The city’s General Plan requires: "2.15 Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans To help residents preserve and enhance their neighborhoods, the City will:... Involve residents early in reviewing proposed public and private projects that could have neighborhood impacts, by notifying residents and property owners and holding meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods.” 3