HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/4/2026 Item 4a, Lossing
Cinde Lossing <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Attn: Parks & Rec Commission- Concerns Regarding Proposed Dog Park in Emerson
Park
Dear Parks & Recreation Commission,
I am writing as a long-time resident of this neighborhood who lives just one block from Emerson Park. I
appreciate the work your department does to provide recreational opportunities for our community, but I feel
strongly compelled to share my concerns regarding the proposed addition of a dog park at this location.
My first concern is parking. Parking in this area is already extremely limited. In many cases, residents cannot
even park on their own street. Adding a destination dog park would significantly increase traffic and parking
demand in the surrounding neighborhood. While I understand that the new parking structure will be opening
soon, it does not realistically solve the problem. Many visitors choose to park in nearby residential streets to
avoid heavy parking fees, which would further compound an already difficult situation for those of us who live
here.
My second concern is the impact this would have on the character and use of the park itself. This is a very
small neighborhood park in an older residential area. It is a quiet, welcoming space where people come to
read, picnic, sunbathe, and spend time with their grandchildren. During soccer season, young children use the
open grass to practice. Replacing a significant portion of this limited green space with a dog park would
fundamentally change how the park is used and enjoyed. It would take away the very activities that neighbors
have relied on and cherished for many years.
Finally, I question whether this proposal truly serves the dog-owning community in a meaningful way. Our city
already has outstanding, well-designed dog parks such as Laguna Dog Park and El Chorro, which are
spacious, thoughtfully planned, and well equipped for both small and large dogs. In contrast, dividing this small
neighborhood park into even smaller sections for different dog sizes would likely leave room for only one or two
dogs on each side. This would create a vastly inferior dog park while simultaneously diminishing a beloved
neighborhood space that currently serves many residents.
In my view, this proposal would significantly harm an existing neighborhood park while offering limited benefit
to dog owners who already have access to far superior facilities elsewhere. I respectfully ask that you
reconsider this plan and explore alternative locations that would better serve the dog-owning community
without sacrificing a small park that means so much to its surrounding neighbors.
Thank you for your time and for considering the perspective of those of us who live here and use this park
daily.
Sincerely,
Cinde Lossing
1