COMMENTARY

Thank you for your coverage of the Dunes project balloon celebration

(“Debate growing over Dunes size,” March 4). There are a number of us in

the community with serious concerns about the project. With no public

relations firm, it’s difficult for us to set the record straight.

Ed Selich, chairman of the Planning Commission, characterized views of

the project that I provided as “amateur.” At my first visit to the

commission to comment on the environmental impact report, I presented

images of the current view, my composite view and information about how I

scaled it. After I spoke, I received negative comments. They didn’t hear

what I had said and I had used up my 3.5 minutes so they wouldn’t allow

me to explain.

I’m an engineer and I know it’s best to confirm my work. In addition to

presenting a three-page document with illustrations explaining the

initial method of scaling, I also drew the project to scale, referencing

background objects. This method showed that I was conservative in my

view. I was shocked when the information and images presented over a

number of meetings did not find their way into the report’s response

package.

The Dunes concessionaires gave me more credit when they recognized my

work in presenting more accurate views. Their new one is better and

probably accurate at one location. I rate it a “D+.” I guess it is OK for

them to change the rules rather than to admit that I was even more

correct.

At each of the four meetings I made a clear and respectful request that

information be provided to the public so that they can properly assess

this project. The few seconds of simulation video from a helicopter view

at a commission meeting did not satisfy me. How could this inform the

thousands of people who did not know it was presented?

I was under the impression that the balloon event was designed for both

the commissioners and the public. Why was the public not given advance

notice of the event? Why were the revised plans or the images presented

at the last commission meeting not available in advance of the event? I

offered to help to produce views that could have been placed in the

newspaper so that people could relate the balloons to the project. My

offer remained unanswered.

From 1981 to 1990, the Dunes concessionaires, the city, and the county

bargained to make a project on public land that would be compatible to

the community. Five times they signed an agreement to limit the project

to 275 rooms of a quiet affordable family-style inn. The height limit was

raised to 38.5 feet, and parking was protected for public use of the

beach. Noise was limited to 50 decibels from the project. The “reduced

project” at 470 rooms for lively guests of the 48,000-square-foot

convention center stands 78 feet in height and is listed in the

environmental report as emitting 75 decibels of sound when measured on

the water.

What has changed to warrant an increase? There are more surrounding

communities to be affected and there is more traffic now.

How can the people that purchased houses knowing the settlement agreement

was in place not be protected by it? Have we not learned from the

restaurants on West Coast Highway about noise transmitted over the water?

The only way to be fair to the community is to let them know about the

project and allow time for meaningful comment.

We hear about the revenue, which would be about 1% of the city budget.

Now let us know about the cost to the community so that we can make an

accurate assessment of the impact to our life.

BERT OHLIG

Newport Beach