OPINION: Tom Barnes Gets it Wrong about GPAC and North Beach

I'm a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). This post reflects my own opinions and is not an official representation of the GPAC.

. So do many other people in San Clemente. Unfortunately Mr. Barnes makes a lot of falsehoods and poor assertions to support his idea for a park, and ignores many of the realities in North Beach. 

Let's start with with what Mr. Barnes wants you to think: GPAC is pro-LAB--the developer of the project --so the committee can't be trusted to provide the best advice for San Clemente. Apparently, the city council selected the GPAC members after carefully scrutinizing each individual's fervent belief that can do no wrong.

A tyranny of city council members have gotten their way and stacked the deck against North Beach! 

Actually, the GPAC was selected long before Measure A was in motion, and long after Measure W, the first referendum on the LAB project, had passed. In the public interview process for GPAC I was never asked about what I thought about LAB, nor do I recall hearing anyone else asked such a question.

I've attended every GPAC meeting, so I can assure you that the GPAC, a generally collegial group, is almost evenly split about the direction of development in North Beach. Leaders from both sides of Measure A are members of the GPAC. And as important as North Beach is, almost all GPAC discussions over the last year and a half have focused on areas other than North Beach due to the progress of the LAB project up to that time and the pending Measure A referendum.

So when Mr. Barnes claims the GPAC is pro-LAB, he's just making that up.

He also claims that the GPAC prefers to do nothing about North Beach. This is entirely false. The GPAC is on record as unanimously supporting revitalization at North Beach (see the minutes of the May 2 2011 meeting). more than half of the GPAC members voted for development of a park, or preferred a different use, or decided they needed more information before giving a recommendation. 

Mr. Barnes also claims that the July 27 GPAC meeting was about killing a park at North Beach. In fact, a number of GPAC members spoke out in favor of a park, as some members had at previous meetings. A number of other GPAC members had real concerns about building a park: How to pay for it, who would use it, how it might affect our existing parks, does it reflect the vision of North Beach as an entryway into the community, and how it would help revitalize the Miramar.

These are real questions that need to be dealt with. In the meeting I expressed concerns that a number of our existing parks need maintenance and improvement.

And we're a community already blessed with many parks and beaches. Spending money on a new park will take money away from existing park maintenance and improvement. And parks generally don't provide revenue for their own maintenance. So a proposal for a park (or any development for that matter) needs to include some vision for how it will be constructed and maintained. 

I also said in the meeting that if we do create a park, it should be particularly special. It should be a true entryway into the city, not just parking lots pushed out to El Camino Real to make room for a bit more grass. If we create another park in San Clemente, it should be a park where people say, “You live in San Clemente? Hey, that's the city with the amazing place in North Beach...”

I live in North Beach and I see the Ole Hanson area almost every day. There is no lack of space in the current grassy areas. There is no fighting for a spot at one of the park benches during lunchtime (it's a lovely place to eat your lunch and look at the water).

So it's hard to recommend increasing the size of an area that is not over-utilized at the expense of other parks in the city that enjoy more use and need more maintenance. This is a straightforward equation of needs and resources, not an anti-park agenda.

A number of citizens have stepped forward with plans for parks ranging from simple lawns to more elaborate walking paths and cultural buildings. It's wonderful to live in a city where your fellow residents take such care and concern over their community.

But so far, none of the designs spark the kind of interest and uniqueness that North Beach needs and San Clemente deserves. None of the designs includes a word about how it would be paid for and how it would affect other parks in the city. And there is no strategy in any of the designs that will help improve the state of the abandoned Miramar Theater. 

I suppose at this point Mr. Barnes would point out that Ole Hansen wanted a larger park there in 1927 (Ole also stated his desire for an entryway to the city and commercial opportunities in North Beach).

He'd also claim that the City Council in 1970 wanted a park at that location. So his argument is that we should have a park because some people 40 years ago (when a lot of bad decisions were made about San Clemente) said so. And we should have a park because 80 years ago Ole Hanson said we should.

It's 2011 and we're empowered--and responsible for--making our own decisions about what San Clemente should be. We have needs, insights, constraints, and preferences that the City Fathers of generations ago could not be aware of. A decision to build a park or anything else on the Triangle site should be made because we, the citizens of San Clemente today, are making the best decision we can about what we want our city to be.

To make those decisions we need clear thinking and an appreciation for the perspectives of our fellow citizens. Mr. Barnes doesn't help by inventing conspiracies and disparaging the thinking of the residents of modern San Clemente.