Debate ran high through Monday night and into the early morning hours of Tuesday in a special City Council meeting regarding the Playa Del Norte project. Just before 2 a.m. Tuesday, following nine hours of presentations and input from more than 70 speakers, San Clemente’s City Council decided it was time to move forward with both a 55-year lease/sale and revitalization of land in North Beach.

With the community polarized on the plan and facing off from different corners on the subject, the approval of the project rested on a defining 3-2 vote as the decision to move forward with LAB Holdings $18 million project ultimately came down to a “yes” vote by Mayor Jim Dahl.

After four years of planning and constant retooling of the project with Costa Mesa’s LAB Holdings, the Playa Del Norte project is a nearly 50,000 square-foot commercial development that will offer new restaurants, office space, and places to shop on the Triangle Site that is an area mostly used for public parking. The development will also extend into two other nearby plots owned by the city—the Marblehead site and a lot that runs next to El Camino Real.

“I think this project is more of a vision and a partnership than a dollar deal,” Mayor Dahl said at Monday’s meeting. “It’s got heart and soul. We’ve missed a lot of real opportunities in this city in the last 30 to 40 years. However, I wholeheartedly support the project and think it’s time to move forward.”

Opponents said the project was too big and not right for the beach-front area. “The views of the Ole Hanson Beach Club are being hijacked by this project,” said Ricardo Nicol, who two weeks ago proposed an alternative “green” plan that created a park in the area.

But council members Lori Donchak and Joe Anderson also supported development of Playa Del Norte.

“This project offers a substantial community benefit and a build-up where small businesses can thrive,” Donchak said. “It maintains more than 40 percent of open spaces and is now one-third of the original proposed size. Plus, this particular partnership with LAB Holdings is one of incredible accommodation. I also like how the project takes a substantial burden off the pier bowl and how it will ultimately be of an incalculable benefit to surrounding businesses.”

“We selected LAB [Holdings] because they offered a smaller project that they downsized,” Anderson said. “It’s pedestrian friendly, offers adequate parking and a beautiful entrance to the city with new and impressive public views. It’s also going to bring about more catalytic energies in the North Beach area, and it’s not just a fast-buck build-and-flip operation.”

Both council members Bob Baker and Wayne Eggleston were against the development of the project, citing it was too risky to build in the current economic climate and really disrupts something that does not need fixing within the community.

“While other cities are being conservative with their money we are doing the exact opposite,” Eggleston said. “This plan is not the original plan people voted on with Measure W and we really need to focus on what’s broken and fix it, not what’s not broken. We need to focus on places like the Miramar [Theater] and uniting this community. We have to figure out what our priorities are because this is a slippery slope we are going down. The project is a substantial risk in this type of market and we as a city do not have a lot of success at completing projects.”

Though Baker saw nothing wrong with the developer, he too said the project was not a right fit for the community.

“Is LAB paying for parking? No. Are we getting fair market value for the property?

No. Fair market value for the property is $9.1 million and we’re also going to have our taxpayers pay $4.1 million in developers costs,” Baker said. “This whole thing is about money to me, and we’re selling this property at the worst possible time.”

After several appraisals, a $1 million to $2 million figure was reached regarding the amount of money the city may end up receiving from LAB Holdings in the sale of the property.

When Tuesday’s approval was finally announced, LAB’s Shaheen Sadeghi seemed exhausted and relieved.

“We’re obviously thrilled,” Sadeghi said. “I think everyone that’s for this project is excited that we’ve reached this point. To get here has been pretty grueling. I think that once people feel it and see the amenities it has to offer when it’s built they’re going to like it even more. And for the people that didn’t see this vision and were against it, I think they’ll eventually come around.”

Business owners near the site also had mixed emotions. For example, Ichibiri Japanese Restaurant owner Yuji Yamada expressed concerns as to how his business would ever entice customers at its 1814 North El Camino Real location with the future construction.

“My business has gone down 30 percent in this economy,” Yamada said. “I’m worried it will fail, not bringing in the customers we need because of the surrounding construction.”

Jayce Springer, a representative for the restaurant also honed in on the problems that may arise due to construction and on two other points.

“People will begin to use our restaurant for overflow parking in the end and I think it’s going to be really difficult for people to cross PCH in order to get to North Beach,” Springer said.

However, some in the community feel this project is on point with what San Clemente needs in offering a better option for a gateway to the town.

“Council members, I urge you not to get caught up in overanalyzing this thing,” Jim Everett said. “This town needs this project and those who voted for it still support it 100 percent. I even think if we had to do it all over again, Measure W would win today.”

There was even a light-hearted approach from one in the audience who wanted to see the project pass. Brenda Kinsman offered her own rousing rendition of musician Joni Mitchell’s classic “Big Yellow Taxi,” singing “We want paradise, they want a parking lot.”

Project critic Charles Mann even submitted a 22-page letter that offered legal challenges to the project’s environmental-impact report. City Attorney Jeff Oderman then went on to review the document, but did not find any objections that would dull the project.

Even with the Tuesday’s vote, the project faces more scrutiny. A second reading of ordinances will be reviewed during the regular City Council meeting slated for August 17. Also, the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) has yet to be worked out, while final approval for the project must still be garnered from the California Coastal Commission.

One day removed from the decision, Dahl reflected on another issue that offered both positive and negative input from the community. “The Marblehead project was the same kind of situation,” Dahl said. “It took a long time to decide on and definitely divided the community. But we moved on and these things are never without controversy. Either way, we as council members all try to make the wisest decisions for the community, and though we may differ in our opinions, at the end of the day we’re still all friends.”