Happy New Year and it is time for an important update on Boulder Ridge. You may have seen the recent front page news article in the Mercury News giving everyone an update on the development proposal. Below is more detail.

As we shared with you in November, the Board of Supervisor’s (BOS) hearing ended with a 2 – 2 vote, with Ken Yeager present for the presentation, public comments, and most of discussion, but unfortunately having to leave before the final vote was taken. Although Supervisor Yeager initially stated that the project proposal was rejected (a proposal must win by a majority), after request by Mr. Garcia and his attorney and much discussion by County personnel, it was determined that the issue would return to the BOS for a final vote, since it takes 3 votes to approve or disapprove a project. While the final process has not been confirmed by the County, we believe that there will be no further opportunity at the next hearing for public comment, but that the Supervisors will discuss and take a final vote with all 5 present. Seemingly, the Boulder Ridge development proposal will end up as a 3 – 2 vote, either for or against the proposed development unless one of the four Supervisors who voted change their vote. Obviously, we have been communicating with Ken Yeager’s office to ensure our position is well understood.

We also communicated with you in November that Supervisor Wasserman suggested two important restrictions when he voted for the development proposal. First, he eliminated the swim meets and all the associated noise. Second, he proposed that Boulder Ridge could not sell a separate membership to the Fitness and Swim facility. This second restriction still needs clarification. If, as County has stated, the only reason that they would approve a Fitness and Swim facility on the Hillside is that it is ancillary to a golf course, we want it made clear that only golf members be allowed to use the new facility.

While we remain clear in our position that there should be “no new development” on the Hillside overlooking our homes, we were encouraged by the discussion at the November meeting. Two Supervisors agreed with our position and the two Supervisors that voted to approve the development felt that substantive restrictions where required to justify approval. No matter the final outcome, we are making a difference.

After the meeting, Boulder Ridge’s attorney approached our attorney with a new request. He asked that we agree to participate in a settlement conference between Boulder Ridge and the neighborhood groups. While we are unsure what they could offer that would be acceptable to us, we agreed to listen. On January 14, we held the first meeting. After listening to them and sharing our views, they have agreed to submit a proposal to us. We will review their proposal and update everyone.

The BOS vote is scheduled for February 10.