Sell
Research and Tools
Parts & Service
- Auto Parts
- Service & Repair
- Quick Searches
- Auto Repair
- Oil Change
Water park back for second try
By: NICOLE SACK - Staff Writer | ∞
TEMECULA -- Developers of a proposed water park are poised to jump back into the process of seeking approval for the 15-acre project, an effort previously sunk when a Riverside County judge ruled that until an environmental review was completed, the park wouldn't float.
But unlike the first go around with the project, an environmental impact report will be prepared to study any issues that might arise with the construction or operation of the Temecula Splash Canyon Water park, which is proposed for a site on Ynez Road just north of Winchester Road.
Plans call for the park to feature pools, slides and water rides, and it is expected to employ 15 full-time employees and 300 seasonal employees. Construction is estimated to cost $14 million.
The comment period opened Monday for members of the public to submit questions and comment on issues they would like to have addressed by the environmental report. The deadline for submitting written responses to City Hall is April 2.
Christine Damko, an associate planner with the city, said a community meeting has also been scheduled for 6 p.m. March 13 at the Harveston Lakehouse to discuss the proposal with residents of that community, which is just a few hundred yards away from the project site.
Temecula Mayor Mike Naggar said he is pleased Clearwater Waterpark Development, which operates Wild Rivers water park in Irvine, has resubmitted its plans for the project. However, he is disappointed another summer will pass in the city without the water park.
"This will be a place for the youth to hang out, recreate and a place (for them) to work -- and it is something we need," he said.
When representatives from Clearwater submitted plans for the project in spring of 2006, opposition to the project soon surfaced. Homeowners and property owners near the water park site complained the project was inappropriate for the locale.
The Temecula Planning Commission approved the project in October 2006, but within days the decision was appealed by an adjacent property owner.
The next month, the Temecula City Council voted unanimously to deny the appeal and move forward with the park. City leaders hailed the venue as an opportunity to provide more activities for families and children, as well as a way to bring jobs to the area.
However, Maury Alcheck, chief executive officer of Ynez Business Center in Temecula challenged the city's approval of a permit for the park in December 2006.
Alcheck argued that a formal environmental impact report was needed to address the noise and traffic that would result from the project. The suit cited an incomplete environmental analysis as the reason the judge should overturn the city's authorization.
City planners had maintained that a full environmental report was not needed because the project was expected to have little effect on the area.
Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask sided with Alcheck when she ruled in October 2007 that a formal report analyzing the project's traffic and noise would need to be completed before the city could again consider the plans.
Naggar contended the water park was inaccurately portrayed as a theme park in the lawsuit. He said he believes the facility would be an asset for the community, which is trying to find ways to engage its young population with new activities.
He said he believes other building projects, such as an office building or commercial stores, would generate far more traffic than the water park, as the park would be active only from 10 a.m.-8 p.m., six days a week from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The developer previously estimated that from 270,000 to 300,000 visitors would visit the park during its 110-day window of operation.
"This water park will be closed eight months of the year -- and during that time the developer has dedicated the use of the parking lot as a park-and-ride location," Naggar said. "Any other use would generate more traffic. It's a no-brainer."
-- Contact staff writer Nicole Sack at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2616, or nsack@californian.com.
Advertisement
Michele wrote on Mar 5, 2008 8:00 AM:They put one in my mom's town in Idaho...a very small town, and it has been a great asset. It does not create any more traffic than a grocery store. Most kids get dropped off and it would be great for those long hot summers!Chjeck it out...Meridian Idaho.
commuter wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:59 AM:Great, Now I'll never get at Winchester to go home! It already takes 30-45 minutes!
Macs wrote wrote on Mar 5, 2008 1:32 PM:It is economically irresponsible of Mike Naggar to still be pushing a water park upon a residential community.
Why? All of the ranches, farmers, and acreage properties of our entire valley have had their water supply cut by half. That means, ranches, farmers and hundreds of acreage owned home owners have been told by the Rancho and Metropolitan Water Districts that if they do not cut their water consumption by half, they are going to pay large fines and half to pay out rageous rates.
Since the recycled water is going to be given to the Pechanga Reservation's golf course and the rest sent down to San Diego in the Pipeline #6 new project built on Anza Rd., how can a new water park wasting acreage footage of water be a consideration?
I pray one of the wineries or agricultural property owners sue the City Council for such discrimination. Especially when they extended out the number of high density housing projects with the water usage availabilty NOT HERE.
me wrote on Mar 5, 2008 1:46 PM:Excuse me BUT, no water will be "given" to Pechanga golf course or anyone else. It will be sold to.
js wrote on Mar 5, 2008 4:43 PM:I agree with Commuter. Just like the Promenade Mall, there will be people from nearby towns coming to this; it will not be a Temecula-only resource. Winchester is indeed a nightmare these days, I just can't fathom adding more cars to it.
confused wrote on Mar 5, 2008 5:24 PM:What I don't get is why the people who live in Harveston are having such a fit over a Mercedes Benz dealership going in behind their community, but they aren't concerned about this?? I would be more upset about having this thing in my backyard than I would a luxury car dealership....
Why, Mr Naggar, do we NEED a water park? Would our region benefit from something like this? Certainly. But does it need to be in the middle of our town? Stick it in Elsinore. There is plenty of room out there and we can still get to it easily.
Well take it wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:02 PM:Wed love to have it in Elsinore!! Bring it on!
Clear Headed wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:52 PM:The people of Harveston don't have a problem with this project, because its not in their backyard, wise guy. Its a mile down the road in a commercial area. Whereas the Mercedes dealer will actually be across the street from single family homes. Its funny how some people act as though people who live in Harveston are uppity and exclusive. Its just a neighborhood. Temecula in general is pretty nice and the homes in Harveston sell for basically the same price as else where. There are a lot of nicer neighborhoods in this town like Los Ranchitos, Santiago Ranchos, and Meadowview. So why does Harveston get a bad rap for being a pretty community? Did you people ever think about how you would feel if a car dealer was in your backyard? There are plenty of other places for Mercedes to go in this city. Temecula is supposed to be about superior planning and making nice communities. People moved to this city to get away from places like Anahiem and old Orange County that have poor planning like this. And I was actually at Mercedes-Benz in Newport two days ago and it's not in a residential neighborhood like they said, unless you consider a Marriott hotel a residential neighborhood. So again the waterpark is located in an indurial/commercial area so I am fine with that and the proposed dealership is inappropriately zoned next to existing homes.
No Likey Mikey wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:48 AM:Mike Naggar...is this the best you can do? A waterpark? What about more business attraction and real jobs? You're going to have to do better than this to keep your lucrative council seat. Remember, you're only valuable to developer interests while you hold that seat, so hang on and give us something we can hold on to. But not a waterpark!
Living in Temecula wrote on Mar 9, 2008 10:35 AM:I think a water park is a great idea! Our familiy has lived in Temecula for many years we have raised our son here (now almost 19yrs old) and now have a 4 year old. There are no family activities here. How many times can you go to Mulligans? We LOVE Temecula but don't like driving to San Diego or Orange Counties for activities such as a water park. I truly believe that this project will be a great asset for Temecula. Being that it's only open only a few months out of the year, I don't think it will be that big of a deal.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, email addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement