Residents doubt Dunes benefits

Noaki Schwartz

NEWPORT BEACH -- Residents opposed to the proposed expansion of the

Newport Dunes resort held their ground at a recent meeting, despite Dunes

officials’ arguments about the economic benefits of a high-end resort in

their community.

“I don’t know about traffic studies, but I know about gridlock,”

slow-growth activist Tom Hyans said after Wednesday’s Speak Up Newport

meeting. “I’m not a farmer, but I know about fertilizer.”

The $100-million project calls for 400 hotel rooms and 100 time-share

units at the Newport Dunes recreational vehicle site. That is a

substantial change from the prior proposal of a 275-room family-style

motel, which was approved 15 years ago.

In an effort to address some of the community’s objections, Dunes

representatives have been meeting with residents for a year and a half,

said project manager Tim Quinn.

Nearly 150 community members attended the Speak Up meeting, at which

Dunes officials released a study touting the benefits to surrounding

property values. Urban development consultant Louis H. Masotti said he

had researched a number of cases and found that such projects do increase

the value of nearby homes. He cited the example of the Ritz Carlton in

Laguna Niguel, where in some cases the property values exceeded $2

million.

“The experts on my panel agreed that there is no reason why that should

not be possible at the Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort Hotel,” Masotti

said.

Dunes officials also estimate that the hotel would bring in $1.3 million

to the city in net revenue. They also argued that the high-end tourists

the hotel would draw would spend as much as $25 million at local

businesses.

Still, all of these arguments were not enough to persuade residents to

embrace the proposed hotel, largely because their concern remained

focused on the proposed hotel’s effect on the environment.

“There are inaccuracies in the [environmental report],” charged Susan

Caustin, an environmental activist. “If there are these inaccuracies, why

should I believe anything in this report and about the project?”

Caustin pointed out that the report showed little increase in traffic,

despite the increased size of the project. She also questioned how it

could be possible that in some areas traffic was actually supposed to

decrease.

Planning commissioners Mike Kranzley and Ed Sullich, who also attended

the meeting, said that they were interested in her comments and would

consider them as they review the project.