MAILBAG - Dec. 23, 1999

In a court of law, we are required to tell the whole truth and nothing

but the truth. But in the court of public opinion, a developer may

present the facts as he wishes, whether it’s the truth or not.

Tim Quinn, who is managing the Newport Dunes Hotel project, recently

wrote an article presenting the facts about the proposed hotel as he sees

them (“Laying out facts about Newport Dunes resort,” Dec. 14). However, a

developer’s presentation of a project on paper does not always pan out as

described.

Take the case of Fletcher Jones Motorcars. The pre-development

information presented by consultants LSA Associates did not accurately

reflect the reality of the finished project. Once a project is built,

there is no penalty for presenting inaccurate, insufficient or misleading

information, but only the echoes of verbal recriminations being heard

faintly in the collective consciousness: “We didn’t know that it would

look like that.”

The picture painted by Quinn is reverberating in my consciousness,

because his picture is so different from what I believe to be the case.

The first red flag is that LSA is the firm preparing the Dunes

environmental impact report. Remember, LSA also prepared the Fletcher

Jones report. Based on a prior development agreement, the Dunes is

currently approved for a 275-room family inn with three restaurants.

Tim Quinn is instead promoting the development of a 400-room hotel; an

adjacent time-share resort with 100, two-bedroom units; and 41,000 square

feet of convention space.

Let me focus primarily on a review of the traffic study for the Dunes,

since increased traffic will be the effect most Newport residents will

notice. Traffic from the hotel and convention center will use the

intersection of Bayside and East Coast Highway as the only point of

access. This intersection is critical for Newport residents who need to

drive from one side of the bay to the other. The only alternative route

is to drive entirely around the bay, and those of us who recall the old

Coast Highway bridge remember the horrific traffic delays that actually

made this an attractive alternative.

Quinn admits that the proposed hotel will add to traffic, but then

reassures us that since check-in and check-out times are not during peak

traffic times, there will be very little impact on rush-hour traffic. The

fallacy of this argument is that hotel guests don’t just stay in their

rooms once they are checked in. They go to the beach, go shopping, go out

to dinner and they get into their cars and drive every time they go

anywhere. Now add the traffic generated by the 41,000 square feet of

conference space. Will those people be traveling during peak hours? Both

Quinn and LSA fail to clearly address these issues, although they add up

to a very significant addition to traffic in this congested intersection.

So, what type of information has been provided to the public by the

traffic study? The original traffic study simply said that this

intersection already was so impacted that more cars would not make a

significant difference. To their credit, the City Council gave LSA an “F”

on this report and sent them back to try again. This time, LSA’s report

was that there would be an impact, but Quinn says it will be minimal and

should not prevent the construction of the hotel.

LSA projects that the already approved 275-room family-oriented inn would

generate 4,000 trips per day through the Bayside and Coast Highway

intersection. But they then state that the additional 125 rooms,

potentially 200 time-share units and 41,000 square feet of conference

space of the proposed four-star, business-class hotel will generate only

800 more trips per day. The truly frightening thing about this report is

that our Planning Department seems to believe it. I don’t think this

study passes the smell test, and Newport Beach’s Environmental Quality

Affairs Committee agrees with me.

The committee roundly condemned LSA’s traffic study and pointed out

numerous inaccuracies and unanswered questions in the environmental

report. Members raised additional questions about excess noise traveling

over water and the height of the hotel at 75 feet (standing taller than

the nearby cliffs at Castaways). They concluded that the original

family-style inn would be the best development choice for the Dunes.

Let’s not sacrifice our quality of life in Newport Beach. A decision will

ultimately be made by the City Council and the citizens of our city, but

that decision should be made with a clear understanding of the true

cumulative impacts this development will have.

I, for one, would just like to be able to drive home from work, visit a

friend on Balboa Island or a restaurant in Corona del Mar without having

to fight traffic to get there.

BOB CAUSTIN

Founding director, Defend The Bay

Conflicting reporting on respect

Your reporting and editorializing on respect are confusing. You report

that Corona del Mar High School has innovated a policy to have zero

tolerance for disrespect for school employees. In the same article, the

school board president is quoted commending the effort but disclaiming

any responsibility of the district to require other schools to follow, as

such a policy must come from the community involved. Then you report on

the school board’s policy which embraces the rights of gays to have a

club and quote the superintendent as saying district policies respect

everybody.

Who is the Rodney Dangerfield in this scenario and when did disrespect

for school employees become tolerable?

THOMAS E. KOLANOSKI

Costa Mesa