Proposal to develop land near Red Rock Canyon upsets crowd

White Acres, a picturesque swath of cliffs and grassy oak groves next to Red Rock Canyon Open Space took its first step toward development Wednesday night when the owners began the application process to annex the land into the city.

The move came after the owners failed to agree with the city on a price to make the land a city park.

"I want to say the door is still open, any time the city wants to come back," Paul Howard, the developer overseeing the project, told a crowd of 65 people gathered for a meeting required by the annexation application.

If the 43 acres is annexed, it could eventually have 27 houses and 20 townhomes. If it is left as county land, it could have, at most, eight houses.

But almost everyone gathered at the meeting didn't want any houses at all on the rugged hillside.

"Personally, I don't want to see annexation or development," said Don Ellis, a member of Friends of Red Rock Canyon Open Space, noting it has good trails connecting to existing trail networks.

The land has been owned for decades by Bethany Baptist Church. The congregation decided to sell it last year to fund repairs on its aging building. It gave local developers Infinity Land Corp. half the ownership in exchange for developing the land.

At church members' urging, Infinity offered the land to the city first, to purchase as open space.

The city was interested.

In September, they reached a price of $1.37 million. But, Howard said, City Council voted down the deal in a closed-door meeting.

"The price was a little too high for us," said Chris Lieber, director of the city's open space program.

He said the city had paid about $16,000 per acre for Red Rock Canyon, and White Acre's owners were asking $32,000 an acre.

The city's open space fund has $3 million to spend in 2009, but, Lieber said, it has to save money to buy popular Section 16 (next door to both Red Rock and White Acres) before a $1 million matching grant from the state expires in 2010. He would not say how much Section 16 is likely to cost.

"So we can't move forward unless we can get a better value," he said.

At the meeting, citizens lambasted the development plan.

"This was my aunt and uncle's pasture land," said retired teacher Merrilyn Caduff. "I played there as a girl. It is exceedingly beautiful. ... I know if they knew about this plan, they would be devastated."

The crowd erupted in applause.

Howard responded that he and the church, which received the land as a gift from Caduff's family, would rather see open space, but the church needs money.

"This church is old. It needs repairs. These folks have got to have this price," Howard said. "If you agree this needs to occur, you can help us convince City Council."

West-side resident Cyndi Kulp spoke up: "It feels like you're blackmailing us to pressure council so you can get a better price. If the church is struggling and you're getting half, why don't you back down a bit."

The crowd applauded again.

Howard, who said he and the church were "brothers in Christ," vowed, if it came to that, he would.

It is unclear whether the owners will be able to get the land annexed into the city. They must first make a formal application, which is reviewed by the planning commission, then ultimately approved, or not approved, by City Council.

A 2006 city master plan did not include the area as a priority for annexation. It had the area marked "open space," which may reveal the council's preference.

"I understand the city has a lot on its plate with Section 16," Howard said. "But I'm hoping we can work together to do the right thing."