Arguments Rage Over Water Park Growth Plan

For the past 10 years, county officials and developers have been quietly shaping a plan to dramatically expand commercial development at the Raging Waters theme park to include shops, restaurants and a 1,000-seat amphitheater on county parkland.

But the plan--which came before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday--has had a rocky road along the way.

Three environmental impact reports were junked after failing to address significant environmental concerns at the San Dimas attraction, which is within the boundaries of Frank G. Bonelli Regional County Park near the south leg of the 210 Freeway.

And although the proposed project has been downsized significantly--and no longer includes a hotel and apartments--a grass-roots opposition effort has grown into a loud and vocal presence.

Dozens of those opponents went before the board Tuesday to express concerns that the current expansion plan would still cause too much traffic and pollution, as well as destroy well-used hiking trails.

During more than five hours of testimony, the supervisors also heard from supporters of the plan, who said the proposed improvements are needed to accommodate more than 600,000 annual visitors to the theme park.

The expansion would triple the size of Raging Waters to 160 acres. It would include a new eight-acre “entry village,” with 40,000 square feet of shops, eating facilities and office space, as well as new parking lots and additional water attractions.

The supervisors don’t plan to vote on the third and latest expansion plan until early next year.

Meanwhile, another potentially significant hurdle has emerged: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has come forward to say it will oppose the project because of serious adverse impacts on the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher bird, as well as on oak trees, coastal sage scrub, wetlands “and wildlife resources in general.”

Because the county leases 49 acres of its parkland to Raging Waters, a private, for-profit company, it must approve all expansion plans. As such, Raging Waters’ plans to lease an additional 110 acres are included in the county’s proposed new Master Plan for the entire 1,800-acre Bonelli Park that the supervisors would have to approve.

“As proposed,” Fish and Wildlife Field Supervisor Gail C. Kobetich writes in an Oct. 21 letter to the county, “the Master Plan will likely result in the direct loss of native wildlife and their habitats on significant portions of Bonelli Park, with significant indirect and cumulative impacts to native wildlife in this area of Los Angeles County.”

Kobetich accused county Department of Parks and Recreation Director Rodney Cooper of not providing her agency with an opportunity to formally review the latest environmental impact report. What’s more, she said, the county has ignored the federal government’s concerns--expressed repeatedly over the past few years--about potential damage to riparian habitats and wetlands that are important to other wildlife.

For instance, two other endangered birds--the least Bell’s vireo and the southwestern will flycatcher--could be present in the park, but not enough testing has been done to determine if they are there, said Kobetich and Fish and Wildlife biologist Robert James.

Kobetich specifically targeted much of the “entry village” as prime gnatcatcher habitat, including the amphitheater site and almost three acres of planned employee parking lots.

Cooper, in a formal presentation to the board, acknowledged that the county’s efforts in balancing competing interests have been fraught with controversy but said his agency has resolved concerns by both environmentalists and those who advocate the theme park’s expansion.

He also said he plans to meet with federal officials over what he described as their “lack of understanding or consideration of real parks and recreation issues addressed by the proposed Master Plan.”

Raging Waters President Andrew Haworth-Booth said the proposed commercial development has been “minimized” to avoid hurting the environment.

Moreover, he said, Raging Waters would pay the county to beef up its plan to monitor the effect of the expansion on the environment.

Haworth-Jones said more than 20,000 county residents have signed petitions of support for the expansion. During the marathon board session Tuesday, several dozen of them spoke, including teenagers who like the water park and mothers who said it provides their children with a wholesome place to play.

“Raging Waters is so good for the San Dimas community,” said Jeanne Isabel, chairwoman of a local community group. “It gives so much back to the community.”

Other local residents and elected officials, however, were just as vocal in opposition. San Dimas Mayor Curt Morris said that the entire City Council is against the plan, but that council members could support it if commercial development is scaled back and adverse impacts on wildlife are minimized or eliminated.

Mayor Pro Tem Denis Bertone, head of the Coalition to Preserve Bonelli Park, ticked off a long list of problems, from the loss of trails to the precedent of allowing increased commercial development on parkland to potential destruction of endangered birds’ habitats.

Bertone was especially critical of what he called arrogance on the part of Raging Waters and the county in not listening to the concerns of the cities surrounding the park, or the federal government.

“They don’t listen to the public, they don’t listen to us, and obviously, they don’t listen to Fish and Wildlife,” he said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Park Plans

Los Angeles County park officials have proposed expanding Raging Waters from 49 acres to 160 acres. The expansion would include an entry village with shops, eating facilities, office space and a 1,000-seat amphitheater, as well as increased parking and additional water attractions.

1. Raging Waters park

2. Proposed expansion