Letter: BC Rec relocation should be a public process
by Mark Stone, 5th District county supervisor
Mar 11, 2010 | 2038 views | 42 42 comments | 12 12 recommendations | email to a friend | print
EDITOR,

I have received a number of calls from people in Boulder Creek regarding the proposal for the relocation and expansion of the Boulder Creek Park and Recreation District facility that is currently located in a fire district building. Most of the calls were from residents in the neighborhood that has been identified as a possible site. They were very concerned about the impact of a public facility on their quiet residential community off Highway 9.

A couple of weeks ago, Eric Hammer, one of the directors of the BCPRD board, and fire Chief Kevin McClish met with me to inform me of the proposed plans for the new facility. Both the BCPRD and the fire district feel they need to grow and that their shared accommodations are too restrictive. Although the BCPRD is a separately elected board and the county board of supervisors has no authority over its operations, I appreciated being informed about the plans.

At that time, I urged them to be sure to include the community, and especially the neighbors who would be immediately impacted, in the discussions and planning. Hammer promised me the community would be fully engaged in the process and that a full environmental impact report would be completed. An EIR would ensure a thorough public process and would allow the consideration of alternative sites that might be preferable to a residential neighborhood.

Although I have limited authority over the proposed project, I recognize the concerns at this early stage. The initial proposal will have an enormous impact on a neighborhood zoned only for residential use. Apparently, there has been little notice or discussion with the residents who will be immediately affected, and that is not an acceptable public process. 

If the proposal moves forward on this site, the property probably would need to be rezoned by the county. I will look to the community and especially the neighborhood to provide guidance on any such action.

I encourage the residents of Boulder Creek to demand and participate in an open public process that would consider all possible alternatives. Hopefully, the BCPRD will find a new home that will be welcomed by the entire community.

Comments
(42)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Susan Bower
|
December 10, 2010
No, Boulder Creek Rec did not get the grant.

They were denied.
Debbie T
|
November 19, 2010
What is going on with this? Did Boulder Creek Rec get the grant?
New to Issuse
|
September 02, 2010
Can anyone tell me where 12662 Hi. 9 Boulder Creek, CA is. They still don't know what they are even purchasing or they just want to put different address so the public thinks they are not intruding into residental.

FYI- APN(081-215-07)is 12662 Boulder St. not Hi.9

Also abbrevation for highway is Hwy. (not Hi like the board)
Curious Cathy
|
September 02, 2010
Is Boulder Creek Rec moving forward with this land purchase?

Are they looking for other site options?

Will there be an EIR?

http://www.bcrpd.org/newsletters/agenda special meeting Aug 25 2010.pdf

August 25, 2010 agenda

CONFERIENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (GC 54954.5b)

Property Street Address:

12645 Hi. 9 Boulder Creek, CA APN# (081-215-03)

12662 Hi. 9 Boulder Creek, CA (081-215-07)

12685 Hi. 9 Boulder Creek, CA (081-215-10)

151 South St. Boulder Creek, CA (081-215-08)

Agency Negotiator: Christina Horvat

Property Owners: Bello Properties and John Scopazzi

Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment or both
ya right
|
June 01, 2010
The rec center isn't made of money. They just can't provide all that info for free to every Tom Rich Phil or Skip who shows up. Doesn't meant he info isn't there...

So just because your info is free, does not make it accurate... so YES! rise to the occasion and continue to provide what ***you consider*** factual as opposed to what the rec center is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide regardless if you like what it says or not. So then who has the facts? people who chose to provide information that only supports their selfish nimby interests, without a care for what the community as a whole wants or needs, or the rec center, who provides all of the data?

go fish.
Jaimejo
|
May 25, 2010
O.K. yeah right..

How would you get factual information free of charge out to the public then? Tell us?

The rec center will charge you money per page for anything you request... the coalition is trying to put much the information from the rec center that they paid for on the Blog... free of charge to the public!......

Everything on that Blog is the truth! Check for yourself.....

You are the hilarious one!
yeah right
|
May 25, 2010
A blog considered a source of factual information. That's hilarious!
Glad to see it
|
May 01, 2010
Good job BCBCCC - a blog! Great idea. Please keep it up to date and with COMPLETE information. This may be the only resource for factual information, so please rise to the occasion.
jaimejo
|
May 01, 2010
Please visit the Boulder Creek-Brookdale Coalition of Concerned Citizens blog below to view photos/information regarding the homes and community in jeopardy due to the B.C. Rec Center/Community Center planned location.

http://www.bouldercreek-brookdalecoalition.blogspot.com/
I am greg
|
March 30, 2010
ROFL! from reading a few of your posts I could say the same thing to you....brother. ;-)
scrap the idea!
|
March 29, 2010
greg, please take a breath, brother, and take some time before you post something. maybe take a break, give it a few days. you are taking this very personally and it shows in ways perhaps you are not intending.
i am greg
|
March 29, 2010
I have nothing to do with the rec center in any official capacity. I am only another interested partty. I see why people stay anonymous here. There is no possibility of a constructive civil conversation here. I see that you continue to resort to insults and you don't even know who I am.

What kind of "dialog" is this where detractors of this project simply drag the conversation down to such a level.

I suggest to you that you stop saying "we" because I am here to say that there are many of us who are in support of the Board, of improving this town and making it more family friendly and in support of this project. I have spent time in this neighborhood, have friends who live there and are in support of this project. It is inaccurate to state that "nobody" is happy with the board.

This is only pathetic because there is only one side to this issue apparently. And what several dozen families in this wonderful town desire is of no consequence, apparently. That is what is truly pathetic. People who have worked the system properly only to be insulted for trying to do something good in our community.

How is it insulting for a citizen of the community, being accused of not knowing the neighborhood, checking it out and posting observations about it? I spoke the facts. objectively. I don't see anyone else doing it, so I spoke up. I just do not see the problem with putting this center on that lot. alot of people, including me, spent time considering how to minimize the impact of putting a facility on 3/4 of the block- considering the neighbors, parking, traffic, etc. but no, we couldn't have possibly been thoughtful enough, could we? so its much easier to try and insult the likes of me instead. go ahead. It doesn't bother me in the least. I won't stoop to that level.

scrap the idea!
|
March 29, 2010
this is so pathetic. i don't bother reading the banner online until a friend pointed me to this incredible "discussion". greg, I don't know who you are, but if you are a public representative for bc rec center, then you are an embarrassment. you sound petulant and immature. if this is what we see coming from our rec center board persons then no wonder there is so much angst about what is happening. whoever lives in the neighborhood will be impacted, especially the closest. it's insulting to go over there and survey the area and post your comments thus. Scrap the idea, again, i say! especially with this kind of dialog, where are we to go from here? we never seem happy with the rec board, but we vote these people in so we must do what we must in order to be sure the community has a voice which is not compromised by shiteous comments from people who don't even live where the most impact will occur.

"sigh"
I am greg
|
March 29, 2010
At least _I_ have the guts to put my name on here. I don't see you doing the same....

What is your point in that posting? Are you jealous that the BCRPD board actually did all the work over the last few years to get to this point, saved up money for this project in order to improve the community? Simply because it wasn't your idea, perhaps? And you call me the hypocrite?

It is so easy to throw rocks from a distance, especially when you don't have all the information.

I suggest you come down to the rec center and attend a board meeting. First Wednesday of the month. You might be enlightened.
Hypocrisy
|
March 29, 2010
Don't hurl insults, you ignorant people? My, my, my. More hypocrisy from the "give us the money" people.
anonymous 2
|
March 29, 2010
Let us guess, anon, that's your house, eh? And that is worse than renters on either side of you how? Have you actually looked at the plan? the initial plan is virtually the same as now with the exception of the parking lot, which was added to ensure on street parking concerns were met. I know someone whose back yard backs up to a public center and it wasn't that bad.... as long as there's a fence.
anonymous
|
March 29, 2010
And how would you like to be the house on Grove Street that will be exposed to the rec center all along the side and back! It is easy to say great when it is not next door to you!
I am greg
|
March 29, 2010
I have been part of the planning process for this project and I am a bit confused. I am standing in this neighborhood currently and the only property that I see that is directly impacted by this project are the two houses on the corner of Grove and Boulder. If one walks Boulder from Grove, there are two home across the street that have direct exposure to the property in discussion one is even tree sheltered. There is next to nobody directly across the street from it on South street, nor is there on Grove, sans the apartment complex. I am standing here wondering really how bad the plan I have seen on the BC park and rec district web site really would be for this neighborhood. I have seen the financial plans and there is no folly here. This is a well thought out project that probably could have used a bit better communication. As others have said here and elsewhere, this is a good project. can it be better? yes. to say that nobody was notified that this process was ongoing is patently false. I found out about it by reading the local paper, and I joined in in the process because of it. I have attended board meetings in the past and knew that the board eventually wanted to do this, which is why I jumped to participate when I heard about it.

To be calling people Like Eric Hammer a fascist or arrogant is a completely incorrect characterization of the man. To imply that the current group of board members is not intelligent, honest or energized is just sheer nonsense. Comments like that are made by ignorant people who find it easier to hurl insults than to face a board member and speak to them in a civil discussion.

I too am embarrassed by some of the comments and insults being made under the cover of a false moniker.
I agree
|
March 29, 2010
Scrap the idea is right. This is a clueless mess and a financial folly. And people - a Boulder Creek Rec board election is coming up. Find an intelligent, honest, energized group to run.
more of the same BS
|
March 29, 2010
S crap, you truly have no clue what is going on around you, do you? The rec center does affect the many. Just not the noisy few here.

Have you taken a look at the fire house recently? what they have to do to get all of their equipment into that cramped space? This concept is a win-win for both parties.


We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at pbeditor@pressbanner.com.