HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/4/2026 Item 4a, Herrmann, K.
Ken Herrmann <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Emerson Park Project
advisorybodies@slocity.org. February 3 2026
To: San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Commission.
Cc: San Luis Obispo City Council
It has come to my attention that you will be holding a meeting to discuss the Reconstruction of Emerson Park, to include the addition of a
fenced Dog Park. This addition is a mistake.
(Item 4a February 4 2026, STAFF “PRESENTION” ON THE CURRENT DESIGN FOR EMERSON PARK BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT)
There is an often stated illusion that dogs, and their owners, need a publicly funded fenced Dog Park, this is wrong.
There is NO duty for the City to provide, at unusual expense, a designated area for dogs and their owners.
Dogs need engagement with their owners, which can include training and play, and can take place anywhere, whether off-leash or on.
It is always advised that all dogs learn to interact, peacefully, with others but they do not need expansive time with other dogs as long as they
have quality engagement with their people.
If an owner does not provide that space, and time, to engage with their dog, they should likely not have one to begin with.
Those that prefer / demand a fenced dog park also often reject, and never visit, an unfenced area for the simple reason that they recognize
(internally?) that they have little to no control of their own dogs. (They do not trust that their dog won’t run away, or respond to a call-back.)
Fenced Dog Parks also give a crutch to dog owners, that may already have little to no control of their dogs, by allowing their charges to run
“free” while the owners, often, ignore their charges to engage with the “Coffee Klatch”.
This leads to less “picking up” and also more chance for the dogs to misbehave, for their engagement then comes primarily from interaction
with other wild-animals, not their people.
Unfenced “Off leash” areas, such as that once existing at Laguna Lake Park, naturally have a more attentive group of dog owners giving
greater supervision to a better behaved/ controlled dog population.
The insistence on separate small and large dog areas is also more a function of insecurity in controlling the engagement between dogs based
on personalities, rather than the comparative argument of, “One should never allow First Graders to play amongst a High School football
game”.
The insistence that different sized dogs must be separated, thoroughly ignores the enjoyment of seeing a Great Dane rolling and playing with
his friends… all being Jack Russell, Corgi and smaller. I have been there, and seen that.
The question is not ‘big dogs vs small dogs’, the issue is knowing who gets along with whom - an owner responsibility.
This is not to say that all dog interactions can be all flowers and lovely music, for just as not all people get along, the same can be said for dogs.
So don’t go - take a dog - where it will be uncomfortable.
Have you seen that dogs and their owners sometimes look / act alike?
When a Golden Retriever is being obnoxious, look to the owner - there may be a problem there as well.
Being that People are, supposedly, the most civilized and ”in control” it is often true that near 90% of bad interactions with a dog can be more
directly attributed to the DOG OWNERS, not the dogs.
It is the responsibility of dog owners to know their dogs personality and manage their interactions - all interactions - to promotes good times for
all.
1
Dog regulations imposed by the City including leash laws and area closures, to protect wildlife or public health, are justifiable, providing
developed recreation areas for dogs are not.
As an intellectual exercise, please investigate (online) what professional dog trainers say about bringing your dog to a Dog Park. They are
routinely NOT complimentary.
…and SLO wants to build one, (another)? WHY?
Other matters:
1) Emerson Park is the only large public green space and playing field in / near the downtown core of San Luis Obispo. WHY are you planning
on cutting it nearly IN HALF, for dogs, if at all?
Have the designers of this project ever spent any time witnessing how the Emerson field area is currently used, by a wide variety of users, and
often at the same time, facilitated greatly by its size?
Additionally: a “chipped” dog area, by camouflage, does not promote consistent “pick-ups” (and see above) leading to a smelly environment
and an attendant dust production issue…. in a residential neighborhood. Gravel can result in more injuries to dogs, and, grass in confined
/fenced areas becomes mud, due to concentrated four-pawed rototiller activities.
Note: Laguna Lake Dog Park FAILS in ground textures and (soft) space for dog exercise (running) activities. > not enough green (of a durable
species), and too much rough-scape.
In Short: the City is wrong in designating, and producing, a Dog Park at Emerson Park for any number of reasons. Misguided virtue signaling,
quieting irresponsible squeaky wheels, or adding to ones resume’ are NOT good reasons to build a Dog Park.
It is the responsibility of Private owners to manage the care of their dog family members.
Those dog owners that use Emerson Park for this reason are already well served by it.
2) The Emerson Park plan appears to include a group of single stall restrooms. uhh…
Can we go back in time to when the City Parking Lot on the 1100 block of Broad Street (across from the Big Sky restaurant) had a brick and art
covered building consisting of user lockable single stall restrooms?
This facility was a management nightmare for all (Maintenance, Policing, etc,) and spent much of its lifespan CLOSED due to these issues. The
homeless / transient population often occupied and repeatedly damaged this very visible building.
It would be advisable, in a quiet Park, to have a more open facility that reduces the potential for “residential occupation” and therefore, damage
to the units.
(while the Johnson Park Restrooms should have been replaced a decade ago to fulfill ADA requirements, their basic design is much less likely
to become “inhabited”.)
Finally, while living within a three block distance from, in this case, Emerson Park there seems to be little to no notification to neighbors of up-
coming neighborhood changes.
When surveys are posted they also appear DESIGNED to not allow negative feedback. (eg. The 2023 Emerson Park survey, which I saw when
it came out). Is there a reason that it appears The City does not want neighbor input or educated critiques? (“Zoom” meetings ARE NOT a
reliable replacement for in-person meetings)
In closing I find, again, that the City of SLO often makes decisions about new things based on: quieting squeaky wheels; to “keep up with the
Joneses”; or just because it can, rather than through a broader insight into what issues actually need to be addressed, how best to address
them, and the costs (not just financial) that they may encumber.
For instance: I can stand in one place in the City and point to a handful of expensive decisions resulting in public safety and maintenance
issues that, with a modicum of thought, need not to have happened.
The City operates through the use of other peoples money (Taxes).
It would be nice if SLO City, more responsibly, took care of the basics first (streets, sidewalks, parks > Infrastructure) rather than trying to make
a perfect Disneyland to gain pats on the back (the “Brass Plaque syndrome”) from those that might never have to live with the consequences.
I have been a pedestrian, cyclist, commercial driver and Facilities Maintenance professional in and about San Luis Obispo for over 40 years.
My family and I raised Guide Dogs for the Blind, without food bribes, and I personally managed a minimally fenced off-leash area for over four
years.
2
An entirely valid, achievable and best answer to a Dog Park at Emerson Park is, NO.
Ken Herrmann
3