Anti-growth group opposes agreement

Monday, July 11, 2005 | 10:54 a.m.

A draft agreement between Boulder City and Clark County intended to limit development in the unincorporated Eldorado Valley will instead serve as a blueprint and "open the floodgate" to growth, according to a group opposing development in and around the community.

The opposition from the Coalition to Save the Future of Boulder City, the group that successfully opposed the November and June ballot measures to sell city land for a subdivision near the Boulder Creek Golf Club, is likely to set the tone for public meetings on the agreement later this month.

The characterization of the draft agreement, which continues to be modified, as something that would spur massive development is untrue, said Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, a Boulder City resident. It will have the opposite effect, he said

"What we are attempting to do is restrict development," Woodbury said.

Most of the 18 square miles of Eldorado Valley is zoned low-density residential, which allows one home for every two acres. Some parcels are zoned for industrial development.

The draft agreement allows Boulder City to annex unincorporated Eldorado Valley without opposition from Clark County. It also calls for densities of no greater than one dwelling per 10 acres in remote areas of open space.

The agreement would remain in place for five years and spells out that zoning changes, use permits, and project applications would not be approved without a written recommendation of approval by the Boulder City Council.

Sherman Rattner, co-chair of the coalition, said he doesn't trust the proposed agreement's language to preserve Boulder City's slow-growth character. He said the agreement makes him suspicious when it talks of the interest of the area as best served by "preserving and enhancing the opportunities for future growth and financial stability."

Rattner said he interprets the language of the proposed deal to give Clark County great latitude to amend zoning as it wishes and that Boulder City will wind up providing water and other infrastructure to service it, essentially getting around the city's ordinance restricting growth to 120 homes per year. He said an agreement, which he fears the county will cancel, should state the goal as preserving Eldorado Valley as it is.

"This is a sham," Rattner said. "This is not about stopping development. People need to understand that our current city government and (the) county are doing everything in their power to promote development. This is a sellout of Eldorado Valley."

Boulder City Mayor Bob Ferraro said he has not read any of the agreement drafts but said it's the intent of the council to protect Eldorado Valley. He sounded skeptical of Rattner's depiction of the agreement that is being prepared by county and Boulder City staff.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion," Ferraro said, dismissing suggestions the council is trying to promote development. "This is not the present thinking of the existing council, and I don't think that is going to change."

In May, county commissioners enacted a moratorium that would prevent development in the 18 square miles of Eldorado Valley as part of a strategy to preserve the no-growth character of the city.

The moratorium prevents developers and landowners from seeking zoning changes for up to one year or until the agreement is adopted.

Woodbury said he believes major development can be avoided in the Eldorado Valley. He said the county is unable to stop development, all together, unless it purchases land from private land owners.

"There is no question there will continue to be major pressure for development in all parts of the county, and Eldorado Valley is one of those targets," Woodbury said. "We have to do the best we can to control it."

The proposed agreement grew out of concerns raised by Boulder City officials and residents about potential massive development adjacent to the city's western border. One property owner, Eldorado Valley Development Co., stirred up concern in the community in April when it proposed state legislation enabling the swap of 640 acres east of McCullough Ridge for 1,500 acres of city-owned property further to the west.

Boulder City rejected the proposal, but council members and residents were unsettled because they had no control over what is built just outside the city's borders.