Thursday, October 13, 2016

Leo Mullen neighbors object to late night lights

No Lights Please:
Dear Fellow Encinitas Ranch Homeowners,

As you may know, the Encinitas Express Soccer Club has been pressuring the City to install permanent field lighting at Leo Mullen Park to facilitate regular night usage.

Leo Mullen Park, the baseball and soccer field adjacent to the Cambria at Encinitas Ranch homes and Target was created and designated as a day-use only facility. The city planners knew that Cambria homes would require a delicate balance between the surrounding commercial properties and parks. They made the wise decision to NOT allow night hours or field lighting at Leo Mullen. Recently, without explanation, the City removed the “Day-Use” signage from Leo Mullen.

[...]

The Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan clearly states (section 3.3.1 C/7) that if a maintenance district is created, the owners have the right to decide on all lighting issues at Leo Mullen. A maintenance district WAS created seventeen years ago and you pay for it. You can see it on your annual tax summary as the Zone H Assessment. Therefore, lighting Leo Mullen is currently our decision, not the City’s.

The Encinitas City Council seems to support the lighting of the park and could vote to modify the ERSP and approve 30' towers on the soccer field in the coming weeks!
Click on over to read the whole thing.

Would Leo Mullen lighting be so important to the soccer league if the city hadn't made a backroom deal with the YMCA to give away one of the four Ecke Park fields?

36 comments:

  1. I sympathize with the neighbors concerns about permanent lighting at Leo Mullen.

    I have seen little of that concern from those neighbors showing up when it counted at council or planning commission when they could have made a difference.

    I spoke to one of these neighbors this past summer and tried to impart the feeling that without he and his neighbors taking time to participate democratically, they have gotten what they have.

    Soccer Express has shown up in significant numbers and made sure they were heard.

    They were.

    You and your neighbors were nowhere to be seen when you could have made a difference.

    In the meantime, Soccer Express has inserted their plant on a city commission to help them along.

    The only way any particular group can exert the influence you seek with the city, is to participate in the discussion before your opposition has gained a foothold.

    Many of us are on your side about any permanent lighting being allowed at Leo Mullen, but without you and your neighbors stepping up, you will lose out on any choice.

    The city, at the least, listens to those who take the time to express their concerns.


    Soccer Express has made their case. You and your neighbors have not.

    I hope this constructive criticism will be taken as it is meant to be. Come on down and let the city hear from you and as many of your neighbors as you can muster, before it is too late, if it isn't already. Peace out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Temporary lights have been in use for 12 years. The soccer club has stated at previous council meetings that they are not looking to increase usage.

      The people who oppose lights at Mullen need to re-evaluate their motives. If we can't have lights next to a lighted Target parking lot and a drainage channel ...

      Delete
    2. Our motives are we don't want headlight level lights shining into the rear of our homes. That is how it has been with the temp lights and preliminary Musco studies show same levels projected from 30' lights.

      Target lights don't face us. Night street lights face directly down and are well shielded.

      Delete
    3. THE SOCCER CLUB DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO THE FIELD. OTHER GROUPS WILL USE THE FIELD AND THE CITY PROJECTED THE INCREASE IN USAGE AT 400%.

      Delete
    4. You are misinformed (or should I capitalize it, MISINFORMED). The city's 400% increase estimate was solely due to the field being open year round (no longer closes for the grass to recover) and also open when it rains. The city gives permits for field use, with preferences for local groups that benefit our community. They can also restrict usage. Just because the field will have lights does not mean the lights will be on.

      Delete
  2. Isn't the entire Target parking lot lighted?

    And they aren't lighting the baseball field, so the nearest house is what, 200 yards from the nearest light?

    And, standing on the field, how many houses can you see direct line of sight? 6? 7?

    Maybe they don't show up because it's not a big deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a really big deal. It affects about 10 homes and looking directly into the high intensity temp lights has been really bad. We have to squint in our backyards when in use or looking out any rear facing windows. You are right that we should have been more organized. But just because we waited to complain, doesn't mean it is not an unfair situation for us.

      Delete
    2. That's why the permanent lights should be welcomed by those homeowners. They will have hoods that direct the light downward onto the field.

      Delete
  3. With a requirement in place that the maintenance district taxpayers have control o ER whether or not lights go in, why is the City supporting anything in advance of the tax district deciding?

    And why should said district taxpayers have to "show concern" over a protection that should be ironclad?

    Typical Shaffer approach, 9:55 - blame residents for not policing city staff to ensure they follow the rules and do their job.

    Why does your "sympathy" ring so hollow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have control "over" - auto spell :(.

      You know what I mean.

      Delete
  4. Lights at Leo Mullen park are an action item at next Wednesday's council meeting, which coincides with the last presidential debate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The lights keep the bums skittling...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. best response yet...let's keep the bums on the move and leave the lights on.

      Delete
  6. The Express soccer club has been operating temporary lights at Leo Mullen in the fall and winter for the last 12 years with the Cambria homeowners permission. The permanent lights will be the same height and probably better lighting control than the temporary ones. Why is this all of a sudden a problem? People are irresponsibly putting out a lot of misinformation to scare residents. Time to get the facts straight. Do we not want the kids in Encinitas to participate in youth sports? There should be no difference in a homeowners experience with permanent lights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is this all of a sudden a problem? For the first time in 12 years the residents of the community were made aware of the fact the the HOA board was approving the temporary light use at Leo Mullen Park. The residents don't want temporary or permanent lights on the field. Therefore, temporary status was denied.

      What misinformation? The $1.2M budget for the construction of one soccer field. The fact that Encinitas Express will pay the city $20K for the next 10 years if lights are approved? The fact the city council decided not to renew the lease with the YMCA for the shared use of the Ecke athletic fields.

      "there should be no difference" I'm not sure if you're a lighting expert or not, but your assumption is just that. I would challenge you to prove that there will be "no difference" if permanent lighting is erected.

      Delete
    2. So the residents didn't realize there were lights on the field for 12 years... Hmm.

      Delete
    3. The misinformation is that there may be 60' lights and that the field usage pattern would change from what it has been for more than a decade.

      The facts are that the soccer club has never asked for more than 30' lights, and the club has stated that it will use the lights for training during the fall/winter months only (no games, no late nights, no change in usage).

      Delete
    4. Clearly, the residents knew that the lights were on, but they tolerated the nuisance. Once the residents determined that it was up to them to make the decision; they decided against.

      Just because the club is stating its intentions does not mean that their intentions will change. It very well could be that the soccer club usage would not change. But who's is to say that it won't change in the future? From a planning standpoint, why wouldn't the soccer club increase usage of a beautiful new turf field? Encinitas has a shortage of recreational parks and fields. Why don't you ask the city council to zone and build more athletic fields instead of luxury condos? Why did the city council terminate their lease with the YMCA for the use of athletic fields? Why is one soccer field critical to the operation of the soccer club?

      Delete
    5. Lighted soccer fields are critical to providing space for the number of kids playing soccer in the fall/winter months. That's why the club has been paying for temporary lights at Mullen for 12 years.

      There have been ZERO complaints for 12 years. Not until non-residents went door-to-door spreading misinformation (60' lights, extended hours) has it become an issue.

      Delete
    6. We absolutely knew temporary lights were being used. Hard to not notice high beam headlights shining into all your rear windows and backyards. What we didn't know was our HOA had been giving permission. ALSO... The Parks and Recs department realized in January they weren't even allowed to ask for permission as lights at Leo Mullen are strictly prohibited. (See the 1/13/16 City Council Agenda Report by Parks and Rec Commisioner, Lisa Rudolph)

      Delete
    7. NO MISINFORMATION WAS SPREAD...

      The city calculated expanded usage with lights at 400%

      We always knew Glen Sabine said only 30' lights could be allowed without a vote. BUT PRIOR TO THAT... The city had Musco do two lighting studies, one for 70' lights and the other for 30' lights at Leo Mullen.

      In other instances of lower lights being installed, getting variances to increase height are common and much more easily attained.

      Delete
    8. Wrong. Musco did not do two light studies, nevermind one.

      Any increase above 30' in Encinitas requires a vote of the people (thankfully) because of Prop A. So, no, no variance can be given.

      Delete
    9. Musco actually did three lighting plan reports. For 30' and 70' lights. They are public record and you can request them from Kathy Hollywood at City of Encinitas. They show totally unacceptable light spill from the 30' lights to wetlands and adjacent homes.

      Delete
  7. If the homeowners have approved the lights for 12 years, and the league is asking for those lights to be permanent, at the same height, seasonally applied and at the same hours as have been previously approved why is this a problem? Lights will turn off at 9, they will be on the lower field. Target is lit up at the same hours. Our community is growing, there are more kids. We don't have a lighted field and we need to provide access for kids who want to play sports and for families to keep kids involved and off the streets. Research demonstrates how important organized sports are for youth. They are surrounded by like-minded kids and positive role models for coaches. Kids involved in organized sports are less likely to get involved in drugs or criminal activity. The soccer league is not asking for more than 30' which has been approved on a temporary basis for over a decade. For kids in middle and high school, with their after school sports, studies and obligations, the only time they can practice is when it is dark. Why, as a community, would be want to limit an access for youth to be involved in something healthy and productive when it has been an option for 12 years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The homeowners no longer approve of the lights.

      Target is light up beyond 9PM, the light output from street/parking lights are significantly less intense than the lighting required for an athletic field. I don't think this comparison is valid, unless diffuse street lighting is used to illuminate the field.

      The soccer club currently utilizes 15 soccer fields. Are you saying that this is insufficient amount of of space to participate in athletic activities? Unfortunately, Encinitas is relatively small and space is limited. Parks where built in close proximity to housing developments. There are obvious reasons why several of the Encinats parks do not have lighting.

      Delete
    2. I'm a homeowner and I approve.

      Delete
    3. There is no guarantee lights will always turn off at 9pm. Remember the soccer club isn't exclusive to the field so other groups will have additional usage and soon Baseball Field will also be lit as the ruling will not separate Baseball Section from Soccer Section.

      Let us know how we can compromise your serenity? Are you seriously ok with having high intensity lights flooding the rear of your homes?

      We were told by the city lights could never be allowed at Leo Mullen and some of us made purchasing decisions based upon this.

      Sorry you feel we are being unreasonable and ask that you think how you would react if a neighbor installed a light on an adjacent home to you that shined directly into your home with over 5000 candela.

      By the way, city ordinances strictly prohibit sustained high intensity lights shining into residences. why is this the exception?

      Delete
    4. City creates rules that ban lighting.

      City trying to change rules to allow lighting.

      People argue new rules that could limit lighting would not be changed.

      Who cares if it screws with just 8-10 homeowners who have the audacity to think they shouldn't have bright lights shining into their homes?

      Delete
    5. You were never told by the city that lights could never be allowed at Leo Mullen. Because the planning documents say that is the one place you CAN have lights (as opposed to West Saxony). And the lights that have been in place for 12 years are no way near as bright as you're saying. The club would have had better lighting if they had pointed several cars towards the field and turned on the high beams. The Target parking lot was better lit than Mullen.

      Now you're just making stuff up.

      Delete
    6. 2:57pm, yes, the city is considering lights at the soccer field only and not the baseball field

      Delete
    7. "Our community is growing, there are more kids."

      Our community is growing very slowly and is aging. US Census data show Encinitas with a population of 59,518 in 2010 and an estimated 62,930 in 2015. This small growth is highest in the senior age bracket. It's become too expensive to live in Encinitas for most young families.

      Everyone knows that the soccer league has been importing player from outside the city to keep the program growing and not shrinking. The league promised to give $200,000 to help with the artificial turf and lights, total cost that will probably end up being close to $2 million. Will this money be forthcoming from the league? It's a lot of money to serve the desires of a small segment of the population.

      Delete
    8. We were told exactly that by the city... That lights could never be allowed. They referenced the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan that says lights are strictly forbidden at Leo Mullen.

      You don't know what you are talking about!

      Delete
    9. "You were never told by the city that lights could never be allowed at Leo Mullen. Because the planning documents say that is the one place you CAN have lights"

      FALSE. Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan strictly forbids lights at Leo Mullen. It does say that since the Zone H tax was created, Zone H taxpayers have exclusive rights to make any lighting decisions. FACTS ARE IMPORTANT.

      Delete
    10. Not as important as voting blocs, apparently.

      Delete
    11. Ugh. These are replies to a month-old argument. The HOA is working with the club apparently, see their http://nolightsplease.com/ website. It's gone dark (pun intended..)

      Delete
  8. Was going to comment but not sure i'll be monitoring this thread a month from now to see the responses...

    ReplyDelete