Vernon Cunningham, deputy public affairs director for the Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Basin Region, was at last week’s meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to make a presentation about proposed signage at the site of the bureau’s headquarters at the top of Park Street.
And he was not inclined to answer any questions.
And while a string of residents and commission members expressed their displeasure at the reality of the xeriscape design that replaced a once verdant expanse of lawn in front of the building. With one resident referring to it as a “moonscape,” the crux of the problem was, somewhat ironically, contained in the proposed verbiage on a particular sign talking about the xeriscape with proposed wording of, “The Bureau of Reclamation transformed this once ordinary landscape.”
90% finished
The city’s historic preservation consultant, Courtney Mooney of the firm Broadbent, Inc. had many suggestions about the signs. Three full pages of them. In more than one instance, she pointed out that the proposed verbiage was either factually incorrect or “this sentence is confusing.” This despite the fact that Cunningham had described the sign project design as being “90 percent complete.”
The residents who spoke were not concerned about signs.
Brynn deLorimier started out by noting that, “All of the quarter-inch irrigation tubing to the plants and trees are lacking drip valves at their tips, so water just flows out without any regulation. Some plants seem to be missing quarter-inch irrigation tubing altogether. The trees planted are too small, there are not enough trees, and they are not in the right places. They should shade the benches, plazas, and pathways at a minimum once they reach maturity, and half of the benches are not positioned where they will ever be shaded.”
She noted that at least one of the trees is already dead.
“Rock hills”
But the biggest issue was what the resident referred to as the “Rock Hills” noting that those were not in the original design presented to the city and that they retain and radiate a lot of heat.
“I walked up there all throughout summer and, even at night, it was still really hot compared to Wilbur Square right next door,” deLorimier said. “Even in the middle of the night it’s still really hot. Those rocks retain the heat from the sun, so you feel it just radiating even at midnight.”
It was also noted that the mounds of dirt and rocks block the actual view of the building.
Norma Vally, who writes a monthly column about home improvement for the Review, stepped to the podium and spared no words.
“Ain’t no signs going to make that rock wall look any better,” she began. “I mean, not to be disparaging at all to anybody specifically, but the the ugly factor is not going to change because of the signs and I’m also disheartened that we’re not talking about ways that we’re going to make it better.”
Brandon Smith, who owns a house overlooking the once green expanse, said the temperature inside his house had climbed up 12 degrees during the summer since the removal of the grass and cited, “poor implementation of the original design along with just disregard for the historic character of our town.”
He continued saying, “The mounds that everybody seems to have the most contention with are basically bare. They’ve sat there bare now for six months since the project was completed. The biggest plant on those mounds is no taller than my kneecap. Quite frankly, it just doesn’t add up anymore. You guys have to be responsible for this. You didn’t keep in touch with the city. You’ve assassinated the character of our town. It’s time to do something positive about it”
A pimple?
Michelle Carroll said she lives “across the street from this monstrosity.”
“You can’t see the building anymore,” she continued. “We used to have at least a dozen tour buses go by every single day. They would all point to this beautiful greenery and this beautiful building, which is the top of Boulder City, It’s literally at the very top. It’s the most important building, the most significant, the most beautiful and they just literally don’t even stop and look anymore. There’s nothing to be proud of. It denigrates the city, it takes away from everything. It hurts Boulder City. This is one of the most beautiful cities on the planet and now we’ve got this big pimple right at the top of it. Please make it go away.”
Cunningham, after saying he was there to talk about signs, noted that, “Reclamation is committed to durable, long-term, sustainable water conservation.” He went on to note that the plan to remove the turf was in response to the same state law passed in 2021 mandating the removal of ornamental or non-functional turf that drove plans to remove substantial amounts of turf at the Municipal golf course but that the city council chose to ignore recently when they opted for a plan that members conceded would not result in mandated water saving.
Cunningham also made a note that the city knew this was coming at least to some degree. “The memorandum agreement was assigned on Feb. 13 of 2023, acknowledging the undertaking to have an adverse effect on the Boulder City Historic District.”
Cunningham was obviously not keen on taking questions about the issues raised by residents. When asked by the commission chair if he was available for questions, he initially said that he could gather questions and respond later via email.
Commission member Donna O’Shaughnessy raised questions about Cunningham’s contention that the mounds had to be built in order for there to be enough soil to support plants.
“If I remember, there were huge trees there and grass and they didn’t need that 30-foot mound,” she said.
Christopher MacMahon, who is both a member of the commission and the director of the Nevada State Railroad Museum, after pointedly questioning Cunningham about the lack of signage talking about the role played by the railroad, had a quick off-mic exchange with commission chair Blair Davenport.
“Did you want me to talk about the role of the commission that we can’t do anything?” he asked.
“Oh you’re welcome to, sure,” Davenport responded.
And then MacMahon laid out the reality. “I did just want to say for those present in the audience, and for some of my fellow commissioners up here, we’ve had this on the agenda a couple months in a row and this keeps going on. There is nothing this commission can do. The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the federal government and federal laws dictate what happens on federal land. This was upheld in McCullough v Maryland when John Marshall, writing for the court, made it very clear that the federal government can do what it wants on its land and states, and the municipalities chartered by the states, have no authority to supersede that. This commission has no authority to tell the Bureau of Reclamation what to do with their property. Legally, there is no action this commission can take. None.”
Which is all true. But in a possible twist, after the meeting, deLorimier said in an email that she was approached after the meeting by a representative of Rep. Dina Titus, who told her that Titus might be of some assistance.