The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/4/2026 Item 4a, Pinard Peg Pinard < To:E-mail Council Website; Shoresman, Michelle; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Boswell, Mike; Marx, Jan Cc:localservices@parks.ca.gov; julie.jenkins@parks.ca.gov; kevin.Glaudel@parks.ca.gov; lydia.Willett@parks.ca.gov; barbara.baker@parks.ca.gov; richard.Rendon@parks.ca.gov Subject:Emerson Park Neighborhood Assoc. request for Council to direct staff to include responses to the following issues in its report for Feb. 4 meeting Dear Mayor and Council Members, As you prepare for the February 4 discussion regarding Emerson Park and the Prop 68–funded project, we respectfully request that the agenda report prepared by staff explicitly respond, in writing, to the factual findings set forth below. These findings are based entirely on City records, grant materials, and documents produced to date. They identify threshold issues of grant disclosure, equity, neighborhood notification, safety, and recreational standards that go to the scope of Council authority and risk, and that cannot be meaningfully evaluated if raised for the first time during public comment. We are not asking Council to prejudge outcomes. We are asking Council to ensure that staff’s report squarely addresses these documented issues, so that Council’s discussion and any direction given on February 4 is informed, constructive, and procedurally sound. We therefore respectfully request that Council direct staff to include responses to the following Findings in the February 4 staff report. We anticipate staff may note that certain contracts are already in place. For clarity, we offer the following context for Council’s consideration: We recognize that certain professional service contracts related to Emerson Park may already be in place. However, such contracts do not obligate the City to proceed with a specific project configuration or scope, particularly where material impacts or grant-consistency issues have not been fully evaluated. Public agencies routinely pause, amend, or re-scope contracts before construction when new information surfaces. Proceeding without addressing these issues would increase City risk rather than reduce it. Consulting with California State Parks at this stage would protect both the City and the grant. Statement of Findings — Emerson Park / Prop 68 Project Finding 1 — Material non-disclosure of functional impacts to State Parks Established Record  While the City’s Prop 68 application disclosed inclusion of a dog park at Emerson Park, a review of the application narrative, drawings, and supporting materials produced to date shows no disclosure that: o Emerson Park contains the only functional, multi-use playing field serving the surrounding densely populated neighborhood, or o approval of the project would result in a net reduction in multi-use active recreation capacity for an already underserved, high-density neighborhood most dependent on the park, or o the proposed configuration would eliminate or render unusable that field, converting it from a flexible, shared active recreation space into a fenced, single-use facility, or o the proposed siting would place a fenced dog park immediately adjacent to children’s active field play, creating foreseeable conflicts involving balls, frisbees, and running children, and raising safety and liability considerations that were not disclosed or evaluated. Requested Staff Response  Identify where these functional impacts were disclosed to State Parks,  Explain how they were evaluated as consistent with Prop 68’s intent to expand and protect access to local, active recreation in underserved communities not diminish them, or 1  Acknowledge that they were not disclosed. Finding 2 — Emerson Park serves an already underserved, high-density neighborhood Established Record  City planning records describe the Emerson area as a high-density residential neighborhood with: o a high proportion of multifamily housing, o limited private yard or on-site open space, o and reliance on shared public recreation.  Utilizing State and National recreation planning standards, no City document produced to date demonstrates that this neighborhood meets or exceeds recommended standards for active recreation acreage.  such neighborhoods are considered underserved for neighborhood-scale active recreation.  Emerson Park’s open field is the only flexible, multi-use active recreation space serving this neighborhood. Requested Staff Response  Identify applicable multi-zoned neighborhood recreation standards and how Emerson Park meets them, or  Acknowledge that no such analysis was conducted. Finding 3 — Dog park inclusion predates neighborhood outreach Established Record  City materials dated January 9, 2021 include a dog park as a defined project element.  These materials predate any neighborhood-wide notification.  The dog park was therefore included prior to, not as a result of, public input. Requested Staff Response  Identify who authorized inclusion of the dog park, when, and on what basis. Finding 4 — Early “public” engagement was targeted, not neighborhood-based Established Record  January 2021 online sessions were later described by the City itself as “targeted” public input, not neighborhood outreach.  Participation was limited, not neighborhood-wide, and conducted on-line at a time when such platforms were not broadly accessible.  One of the few participants who identified herself as a nearby resident raised concerns about: o park maintenance rather than new facilities, o opposition to lighting due to residential impacts, o restroom problems based on experience at Mitchell Park, o difficulty accessing or reading City notice  These comments reflect unmet neighborhood needs, not a request for a dog park. * City records show that these targeted sessions included substantial participation by a leader of the local dog park coalition, who does not reside in the Emerson Park neighborhood. 2 Requested Staff Response  Explain how these on-line sessions constituted a meaningful, neighborhood outreach, or  Acknowledge their targeted nature and limitations. Finding 5 — Later postcard notices did not constitute meaningful neighborhood notification Established Record  Postcards were mailed in 2023, well after the grant application and award.  Address lists show that many postcards were sent to Dana Street and Brizzolara Street, areas outside the Emerson neighborhood, while most affected residents were not notified.  The notices did not clearly disclose that the project would remove the neighborhood’s only playing field. Requested Staff Response  Explain how these notices satisfied the City’s own requirements for meaningful neighborhood notification with project specificity. Finding 6 — Even dog park advocates advised against residential siting Established Record  City records reflect that the primary dog park coalition advocate originally advised that dog parks should not be located in the middle of residential neighborhoods, citing noise, safety and conflicts.  The same advocate strongly supported dog parks at Laguna Lake, specifically because it is not embedded in a residential area.  Despite this guidance, the City selected Emerson Park, which is fully surrounded by residences and involves children’s safety issues.. Requested Staff Response  Explain how Emerson Park satisfies siting criteria given this guidance. Finding 7 — Absence of Parks & Recreation Commission analysis Established Record  No record shows that the Parks & Recreation Commission evaluated: o loss of the only playing field, o neighborhood equity impacts, o recreation standards, o or safety and liability conflicts. Requested Staff Response  Identify any such analysis or acknowledge its absence. In Closing These findings raise issues that go to grant integrity, equity obligations, and Council discretion. We respectfully request that Council ensure staff addresses them explicitly in the February 4 agenda report so that Council’s discussion is informed by the full factual record. 3 We appreciate Council’s consideration of this request. For Council’s convenience, one possible form of direction is included below should members wish to formalize staff guidance in advance of the February 4 discussion: Proposed Motion: Direct staff to return to Council with a revised analysis prior to any further action, explicitly addressing the documented findings regarding Prop 68 disclosure, neighborhood notification, equity impacts, recreation standards, and the loss of the neighborhood’s only multi-use playing field, and to consult with California State Parks regarding these issues before proceeding. Sincerely, Peg Pinard Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo, Chairperson, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Founder, Old Town Neighborhood Association (Emerson Park Neighborhood) Carla Cary, Adian Lenz and Charles Newel Business Owner, Teen Counselor & Representatives of Emerson Park Neighborhood 4