OPINION: Is Ignoring Resolutions Good Public Policy?

Opponents to the park idea at the in North Beach almost always ignore one salient fact. The idea of the park originated first with Ole Hanson in the 1920’s and later with the City Council in 1970.

Maybe Ole was wrong for wanting a park at North Beach. Just like Frederick Olmstead might have been wrong for building Central Park in New York City. Maybe? Most New Yorkers are very happy about Central Park, just as most of San Clemente would be happy with a park at North Beach.

The anti-park factions in the city are usually supporters of the failed , an idea . Derailing the park is a way of getting back at those who were opposed to Measure A.

In any discussion of a park on the triangle, the “elephant in the room” is the two municipal resolutions that were unanimously passed by City Councils, Resolutions 69-70 and 94-55. So far all the powers that be, City Council, city staff, and the have ignored these resolutions. Ignoring them does not make them go away.

Resolutions are powerful instruments. They are, according to Webster, “a formal expression of opinion or intention made, usually after voting, by a formal organization, a legislature, a club, or other group.” 

When the City Council took the controversial step of acquiring the 10 lots that comprise the parking triangle by eminent domain back in 1969-70 they justified this action by passing Resolution 69-70 that included the following language:

“WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente is anticipating the acquisition of certain property for public improvement for off-street parking, public park and public use...

“WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente determines that the public interest, convenience and necessity require the acquisition of said land for public off-street parking, public park and public use within the City of San Clemente...”

Unlike many political statements the language is clear in this resolution. Parking and a park are considered co-equals and are to be provided for the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

These words are unequivocal and definitive; yet, they have been, and continue to be, ignored.  We may not know why the park was not created at the time of the resolution but there is no doubt about the intent. The landscaping in the parking lot is the beginning of a park that needs completion. 

In order to stop the park, opponents will have to rescind Resolution 69-70, not just ignore it. To further complicate the arguments of the anti-park factions, they will also have to deal with the other elephant in the room, albeit a smaller one, Resolution 94-55. 

This one concerns the two lots on El Camino Real often known as the “Christmas tree” lots.  This property was also acquired by eminent domain for the express purpose of storm drains and parking: 

“Resolution of the City Council of the city of San Clemente, California, determining the public necessity of the acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property located at 1832 North El Camino Real, to accommodate storm drain improvements and Public Parking.”

Once again the City Council’s intention is clear that eminent domain is to be used for storm drains AND public parking. Storm drains were installed but somehow the public parking got lost in the shuffle. 

There is no question that the best use of this property, the use already established by the City Council, is for public parking. Attempts to use it for other purposes like private buildings for commercial projects would be a violation of the resolution. 

Those who favor using these lots for commercial buildings will have to get Resolution 94-55 rescinded. It will not disappear by itself. 

If it is the prevailing view in the city that Resolutions 69-70 and 94-55 were mistakes that need to be rectified, then a full-blown discussion is needed. The current ostrich approach of ignoring their existence will not do.

One tactic park opponents have used is to say “fixing” the Miramar, whatever that means, is most important, so it should be first. This is primarily a delay tactic to stop the park. Other opponents of the park cite expense, homeless people (existent or non-existent), park maintenance, revenues, and the lack of a “wow” factor in the existing plans, as reasons to not have a park. These opponents are mum on the issue of the two resolutions. 

As the months go by and we continue to look at the eyesore that permeates much of North Beach, the opponents of change will take their shots at the park. Not having anything to offer themselves to improve the triangle, they stand in the way of progress for North Beach. Once they have used up all of their ammunition trying to kill the park, the city can return to implementing Resolution 69-70 and Resolution 94-55. 

LAB supporters need to get on board or get out of the way.  It is time to complete the park and create new parking that was promised 41 and 17 years ago in the two adopted resolutions. 

Time’s a wastin’. Let’s get the job done.