kathystyles01
May 6, 2022, 7:24:24 AM
Hi Anthony:
I know you are currently fielding several important issues with residents adjacent to the park, all of which I support; I don’t like to pile on, but have been wanting to bring this up for some time: We live right next to the park entrance, and have been especially unhappy with the camp host being situated outside the campground, mostly because of that particular individual’s dogs (apparently there are 3) being caged outside and barking every time someone or something comes down the road or the trail–other animals, people, car noise, you name it. This is a very frequent occurrence, not just occasional. It really makes no sense to have a camp host outside the camp, where they are impacting the neighborhood more than the actual camp. Hope you will entertain the thought of moving this camp host into the park and asking them to find a way to deal with their dogs’ barking issues.
Thanks for your consideration,
Kathy & Robert Styles
Miller, Anthony
Sep 13, 2022, 12:17:21 PM
Good afternoon,
Apologies for the delay, between the holiday weekend and hazardous weather impacts on the mountain and the parks my attention has been elsewhere this past week. Fortunately things are settling down on all fronts.
The short answer to “why” to your question is infrastructure. We made a decision to eliminate one of the two host sites up front (across from site #1) to be able to supply sufficient power downstream to site #36 with that site online. We still needed some upgrades to make site 36 viable on the same circuit as the #1 host site and that took some time to complete via contractors and County Maintenance Supervisors to do so since its larger in scope than what we normally do in house.
While that was in progress, it was a quick sewer repair to get the neighboring camp host site online. The priority assigned to that site was purely based on the internal infrastructure issues we have. In prior emails perhaps I have misunderstood the concerns and explained the benefits of having the host site online in general terms when in reality you seem more concerned with prioritizing the site over other sites. Apologies if that is the case.
We have future plans to get site 64 online as well, but there are significant upgrades/replacements that are years away from getting that site online.
As we continue recruiting, If I have two candidates for the same spot and one has dogs, the other does not-I will take the sites’ location into consideration I would prioritize the one without the dog. That said, I do not have a policy denying candidates the opportunity to volunteer if they have a dog. However, the host is responsible for the behavior of the animal and may be asked to leave if they become a nuisance and are not able to remedy the issues.
You mention increasing the fence line for additional privacy; I would be more than happy to meet and discuss the fence line whether extension would be to a mutual benefit to the public and for your privacy.
It takes time to recruit for these positions and even more time to find the right people. Regardless of the season if we have open sites we are recruiting for the position. I am still recruiting for the referenced campsite. Last month we filled site 36 and I have candidates cleared to move in to the site across from site 1 Sunday 9/18. I am pleased you have had positive interactions with Paige, and I hope you have additional positive interactions with our new hosts, Ranger Martinez and Ranger Aguilera, and existing staff.
Don’t hesitate to reach out, Thank you for your feedback it does help us understand how things are seen outside park boundaries.
| Anthony MillerPark Ranger Supervisor RivCoParks (Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) 4600 Crestmore Road, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509anmi…@rivco.org | (951)-529-5620www.RivCoParks.org #RivCoParks | Facebook | Twitter | Upcoming Events | |||
stacyoates
Sep 14, 2022, 10:21:41 AM
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for responding to my recent email. You have previously answered the question as to why the host site next to us was originally used last fall. I understand the reasoning. I am happy to hear that the host site across from site #1 will be filled this weekend. I guess at this point what I’m really wanting to understand is why the host site next to us will continue to be filled with the addition of two host sites within the park occupied. We went the entire summer with very limited staff as well as one camp host who, thankfully, was present very intermittently. With two separate host sites within the park filled and three rangers now on duty, why is the site next to us remaining active? I have inquired as to this site’s relevance and benefit to the park repeatedly but have yet to get an answer. How is a host site outside of the campground, essentially within the neighborhood instead of park, next door to the full time resident employee, relevant or beneficial? It feels more negatively impactful towards the neighborhood than beneficial to the park. I realize this was set up as a host site decades ago, but when was it actually used as such? We’ve been here for 17 years and have seen it used once for only a couple of months.
I do appreciate your consideration on the issue of dogs at the host site. Other than the complete loss of privacy, the dogs made the largest impact on the quality of our day to day life. I also appreciate your willingness to discuss fencing in regards to the privacy issue. Though that won’t help with the noise factor, replacing fencing would visually provide us with more privacy. We are happy to discuss any of these issues more in depth at any time.
Though we haven’t met all of the new staff, we have had very positive interactions with both Paige and Richie. Their presence is much appreciated.
Thank you,
Stacy Kretsinger
54020 County Park Road