HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/4/2026 Item 4a, Pinard, L.
Leo Pinard <
To:Advisory Bodies
Cc:E-mail Council Website; McDonald, Whitney; Dietrick, Christine; CityClerk
Subject:Regarding consistency of the Emerson Park Prop 68 applications
Attachments:2019 Original Emerson Grant.pages; 2019 Original Emerson Grant.pages
Attention: Parks and Recreation Commissioners-Emerson Park
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing after reviewing the City’s certified Proposition 68 materials related to Emerson Park and the
project now before you.
In 2019, the City formally certified that Emerson Park served a neighborhood with a critical lack of park
space and that the purpose of investment there was to expand recreational access. That finding was
based on the City’s own documented planning analysis.
The current proposal would fence off and convert a substantial portion of the park’s only open,
adaptable playfield — the space used by children for informal, unstructured recreation and the very type
of space identified as being in short supply.
This inconsistency has now been clearly identified for the Commission’s consideration. If the project
proceeds with the single-use dog park included, the Commission’s recommendation would affirm that
reversal and place it squarely in the administrative record.
By contrast, removing the dog park component would allow the project to move forward in a manner
consistent with the City’s prior certified findings and legal representations regarding park scarcity,
equity, and access. State grant programs treat approval based on materially inaccurate or misleading
certified statements as a serious compliance issue, with potential consequences for the funded project
and future grant eligibility.
For reference, the relevant certified findings from the City’s 2019 submittal are attached.
I am writing to urge careful consideration of how the Commission wishes its action to be understood in
light of the City’s own record — and to note that alignment with the City’s certified representations
remains possible.
Leo Pinard
1