31 thoughts on “Comments

  1. Here is a suggestion for a reasonable compromise between allowing the children to have some night games but keep the neighborhood livable. I support the stadium lights but limiting their usage. Suggestions include:

    1) Limit the number of night events per year (School would get priority, and very few or zero night rented events)

    2) Limit PA system usage to school games (not practices), graduations, and a limited number of school assemblies

    3) Mandatory “Lights out” at 7:30PM (Practices – Late October through March only) and 10:00 PM (Games). Games or lighted events beyond 7:30PM can only take place on Thursday, Friday or Saturday nights. A limit of one beyond 7:30PM lighted event per week.

    4) Insist that the lights have an LED source vs a traditional HID source. LEDs are much more focused due to the narrowing of the beam and reduce the spill light. Musco invented the LED lights just recently and from what I heard they really do a good job at keeping the field bright but the outside area dim. Additionally they consume far less power, saving the school money.

    5) Insist on a spill light shield.

    6) Go with a multiple light level. Practices and field maintenance should be able to be set at a reduced intensity level.

  2. The intent of the San Diego Unified School District to install huge night lighting despite compelling safety and residential quality of life concerns is unconscionable.

    The fact that it materially increases the possibility of a loss of life due to an otherwise preventable aviation accident is but one of many considerations.

    Moreover, the arrogance of school district officials toward those whose considerable taxes fund the county’s educational enterprise (including their salaries) and their lack of concern toward the safety and well-being of these taxpayers is reprehensible.

  3. Lights spell Trouble in the neighborhood . Traffic, partying, trash, drinking – it all spells TROUBLE……

  4. Stadium lights make no sense at PLHS. The homes surrounding the school are too close to the field to even consider having night time activities, there is no parking, all the attendees would be exiting the games/events into a dark neighborhood. I cannot imagine how SDUSD could even consider installing these lights, particularly considering the environment.

  5. Sept. 6

    I have lived in Loma Portal for 26 years, am a homeowner and raised two daughters here. I have been following letters to the editor in the Beacon to find out what is happening on this unfortunate community situation. Today, while shopping at People’s I interacted with a SDUSD representative and what I learned is very troubling. From that conversation, I am under the impression that the decision has been made to move forward with this project (kept hearing the word “attorneys”). I am left with the impression that the project is a GO pending an environmental impact study (whatever that means) and FAA approval. The representative does not live in Point Loma (Pacific Beach) and had a “talking point” for every issue I brought up in terms of the negative impact to the Loma Portal community. I finally told him to basically LISTEN which further leads me to believe this is out of the community’s control Is this a lost cause?

    Jean Center

    Sept. 17

    Dear Jean,

    You are correct that school district staff have an “answer” to every point that is brought up; however, the talking points are intentionally vague and deceptive. Examples of this include meetings regarding the lights at Hoover High School, where school officials kept saying that there would only be “15 to 18 lighted events” a year, which everyone including school board members thought meant lights 15 to 18 times a year. But what was really meant, and only admitted after repeated pressing and questions at follow up meetings, is that there will be 15 to 18 high school games between two teams a year and the field will be lighted up on other nights for practice or if it is rented out. At Clairemont High School, neighbors were told lights were to be used for “Friday night lights,” and what they got was rental 4 to 5 nights a week for 5 months out of the year.

    I am so glad you finally told the person to listen to you!! The school district has tried to intimidate us; Scott Barnett has said things that were outright lies about PPL in public and in the press; and night light boosters who don’t live in the neighborhood try to paint us as a “small group of NIMBYs.” However, we are not backing down and we continue to fight the commercialization of the PLHS athletic field.


  6. If any project in San Diego needs a great big “onion “it is this proposal for lights at Point Loma High School stadium. If the stadium were located in an open field far from homes, that would be a different story. But if you take a good look at the neighborhood, you will see that it is surrounded by homes. Clairemont high school is the perfect example of what NOT to do. SDUSD should be ashamed of themselves for even contemplating this in this wonderful, old neighborhood.

  7. Hi, my driveway was blocked by a truck during PLHS football game on Saturday. . . . I complained to the principal who did answer my email promptly. He did also tell me that the stadium entrance on Voltaire St. will be moved to the other side of the stadium, it’s part of their master plan. He didn’t say exactly where the new entrance would be. He also told me they might take out the auto shop and add 48 new parking places. Obviously that is a band aid approach to resolving the parking problem. I also told him that I thought it was too bad to eliminate auto shop since they should be providing that type of education to students who may not be college bound.

  8. First football game of the year yesterday. I came home from the grocery store to find a truck parked blocking our driveway. No place else to park because of all the cars. My husband notified the security guard at the stadium and the car was moved in about 15 min. Next time though I intend to just call the police and the car ticketed or towed. I sent an email to Mr. Becker, PLHS principal, and I would hope that if any neighbors have problems during stadium events to do the same. I think I’ll send an email to Scott Barnett too….

  9. Dear Sir/Madam,

    I . . . moved to Point Loma in Aug 2012. Have been a resident at the Gables Point Loma since mid-Dec 2013. . . I am fortunate – chose the corner apartment for the fresh air and 300 degree views – Ocean and sunsets, Sea World and fireworks, and the incoming aircraft as well as those flying away, and the City skyline.
    I am British and worked in the City of London, Financial District, Chase Manhattan Bank, and my own business with offices at London Wall, EC2, for 25 years.
    I LOVE Point Loma!!!
    If one was to take away the palm trees and clay tile roves, would be quintessential England! Even has the fog in Winter!
    So, I completely support the campaign;
    . . . the renovation of Liberty Station has brought so many benefits and attributes, especially to the transformation of the previously dry, dusty and plain Rosecrans Street, and the airport investments, and so many other improvements that have contributed to Point Loma’s desirability . . .the Rock Church is a problem – though I observe that they try their best to be good neighbors – this is enough of a compromise for our neighborhood just on its own!
    So, whatever else is being planned to alter this wonderful haven should be strongly resisted…I totally support your endeavors.

    Thank you, Tim Evans

    …AND, to add, we do ‘quietly, and patiently’ deal with the aircraft noise – in many locations within Point Loma, – and compromise our choice of living here in the recognition that the very many wonderful benefits of Point Loma come with the reality that San Diego has an airport and needs an airport; . . . BUT our compromises for the common good with the outbound flight noise and the Rock Church is ENOUGH!; we demonstrate our good citizenship for San Diego…anything further such as [what] PLHS is planning is a step too far…TOO MUCH! Fair play and reasonableness must be recognized, …surely! As stated, you have my support, thank you.

  10. We just moved here in mid May. I cannot imagine any more noise or congestion in this small area.

  11. Concerned about the lack of parking at The high school. Over flow parking already occurs in front of our house during school hours. Also concerned with the lights and noise level in the evenings.

  12. [An] Ad Hoc committee [was formed] to work with the [School] District to gather input and create a Field Use Policy that can be used by other high impact schools and neighborhoods. In the case of Point Loma High School, the “Draft Policy” can be viewed [here]

    Lighted “events “ would be limited to 18 times per year (not including any playoff games). Lights for non- “events “ (i.e. practices, etc.) would be required to be off by 7:30pm.

    Use of the field for any lighted activities are for the exclusive use of Point Loma High School. Other schools or community groups who wish to use the lighted stadium may appeal to the Superintendent (or his/her designee) for approval of the use of the lighted stadium. In considering whether to grant such an appeal, the Superintendent or his/her designee [would] determine whether there is another District site which can accommodate the proposed use without negative impact to the surrounding community. The Superintendent [would also] determine whether the proposed use will interfere with [the] use of the field by Point Loma High School or the operation of the campus, the likely number of attendees, whether there is adequate parking to support the proposed use and whether sufficient measures can be employed to minimize adverse impact to the campus and the surrounding community; including custodial services, traffic control and security. No appeal [would] be granted which [would] cause the total number of events held at the lighted stadium to exceed [that] cap. Priority [is to] be given first to other District schools, then to other schools, and then to community groups. Commercial uses [would] not be permitted.

    In order to obtain ongoing feedback from the community regarding implementation of this Field Use Policy and the impact on the community of events held at Point Loma High School, the Point Loma High School Cluster [would] host semi-annual meetings for purposes of discussing field use issues at Point Loma High School, [to] which members of the greater Point Loma community [would] be invited. These meetings [would] be scheduled to occur at or about the time the school year begins, and following the conclusion of the winter sports season. Community members or organizations who submit a request to be provided notice of these meeting [would] be provided such notice and shall be permitted to participate.

    Final note, it has been brought up that the District could change the Field Use Policy in the future. This is true, but would require [a majority of] the 5 member Board of Education vote to do so.

  13. This is intolerable. Isn’t Point Loma crowded enough? Must I think about traffic at night as well as during the day . . .? [As it is] I plan my trips around P.L. and off the Point according to what’s happening with traffic. We can’t have that happen. Please do what you can to stop this ruining of our neighborhood.

  14. Proposed changes will lead to increased crime, graffiti, and noise. Spend the money on the teachers.

  15. The prospect of expanded night use for PLHS Athletic field and the lighting necessary for this simply shows the arrogance of the school district and total disregard for the residents in order to generate income for the school district. Its all about money, as usual. We live in a residential neighborhood not a commercial one where such a “stadium”- as proposed-belongs . . .

  16. Many thanks to all of you for taking action to protect Loma Portal. We have been residents of Loma Portal for almost forty years. Our children attended the neighborhood public schools, including Point Loma High School, and both children participated in varsity sports. We support Point Loma High School and its varied programs. We do not, however, believe that the neighborhood should be compromised by the school district to the District’s advantage over ours. Preserving a safe, beautiful neighborhood close to downtown should be a priority for all of San Diego.

  17. Mission Bay is being upgraded to a stadium, as they have more space and less residential impact. Why do we need another rental venue in the same cluster?

    What consideration was given to the Correia Middle School site being expanded instead of the compact high school grounds? Homes are farther from the field at Corriea and the YMCA is next door to share the venue.

  18. I read the e-mails and posts, have attended Pro Point Loma meetings and financially support the efforts to maintain our neighborhood, and the efforts made by the High School to offer a positive atmosphere for learning.
    That said I am also sure that what the ruling members of SDUSD are doing is pure and simple bullying. They the board has shown that they have no interest in listening or compromising with the various communities that are suffering. They are making it clear that they have no interest in working with any community . They don’t give a damn about our streets or safety or how much noise we will endure.
    Would it not be helpful if we the citizens form a city wide community group to force compromise? If Clairemont, Talmadge, Point Loma and any other area threatened with these conditions come together and act as one entity couldn’t we effect change? No community is saying they are against upgrades to their schools but that the school must fit into the community. Perhaps strength in numbers is needed to stop the bullying behavior.

  19. The football stadium at Clairemont HS was completely rebuilt and includes four 100 foot light towers and a massive PA system. It has ruined our neighborhood! Many residents have had to leave their homes during games because of the PA sound level. The field has been rented out nearly every night for 3 months now and I no longer enjoy going in my back yard at night because of the light intensity. Many summer evenings are difficult to bare because we can’t open our windows to cool our homes when a game is in progress, the sound system is extremely loud. We, the residents, were never asked, interviewed or informed about the up coming stadium lights and PA system. It was built and turned on before we had knowledge of it. We HATE the lights and PA! We’ve written emails to the school administration and have had little or no response back. One family has moved away and another is moving out in a few months to escape the lights and noise.

  20. Mr. Barnett repeatedly said it was the law that the SDUSD make school sites available for community use. What are the hours for community access to the track at PLHS to do some jogging?
    R. Beauchaine

  21. Bringing more traffic and noise into Point Loma is a terrible idea. Stating the obvious, we live on a peninsula which is already impacted by too much noise and traffic. We have it coming in from all sides including Ocean Beach, Sports Arena, and Rosecrans Avenue. I will admit to living close to Rosecrans which is a little further than most folks in the immediate area of PLHS but my husband and I already contend with traffic and noise from the airport, the military, Humphrey’s concerts, the Rock Church, marathons, walk-a-thons, Hi-Tech High, not to mention the ongoing water-main breaks at the intersection of Rosecrans and Nimitz which are always repaired at night.

    Besides the constant nuisance endured by the noise pollution, don’t forget that we have no emergency rooms nearby. The closest ones are UCSD, Scripps Mercy and Sharp Memorial. If there were any major disasters in our area, the ability of emergency responders to get to some areas of PL could be greatly hindered by the traffic.

    Enough is enough. Stop trying to cram so many people into one small area. We can’t let our quality of life be further eroded by decision makers that don’t even live in this area and frankly, couldn’t care less about the people that do live here.

  22. I do think the improvements are a good idea for our kids and our school. As long as the improvements are done with strict guidelines and limitations based on the needs of our neighborhood, I think the enhancements would be a win win for our community and potentially address some of the existing traffic/parking issues.

  23. There is no parking to support additional cars and traffic. If expansion is approved, all street parking should be restricted by permit for residents only as is in place in Hillcrest.
    Additional traffic , cars and night activities will be detrimental to our neighborhood.

  24. The only documentation *at present* is a planning document from several years ago showing the destruction of 6 area homes (including one historically designated structure) to construct a single-story underground parking structure. We are awaiting additional information from the SDUSD. Update 9/18: At tonight’s planning meeting SDUSD board member Scott Barnett said that there are no specific plans to build a parking structure, rather that a parking structure on campus is one of many options under consideration. Barnett said he is not aware of any district consideration of eminent domain as it relates to the PLHS site.

  25. We heard something about plans to build a parking structure. Is this true? Does anyone know the proposed location of it?

  26. This area is simply too small for a stadium venue more than what is currently in place for the school. We do not need any commercialization to “rent” the stadium. There is simply no parking….anywhere.
    We have lived here for 10 years and we simply say no to the expansion,
    Hilary and Randy on Willow st.

  27. No more traffic…it’s bad enough that high school kids park cars all over neighborhood every school day…drive like a bat out of hell after school paying no attention to stop signs or people walking their dogs or children …if this goes in at nite it would endanger our lives and property…we need more traffic controls now in areas where these kids use some streets without traffic controls as throughfares with no regards for speed or pedestrian . No lites at PLHS and more traffic controls are the answer …

  28. We have lived directly across the street from the football field for 22 years and have never felt a need to complain or have any concerns until now. In the past we have had problems with traffic, people blocking our driveway, trash, loud music, speeding cars, and nowhere to park during sporting events. This will only intensify our problems in this neighborhood. And having lights beaming into my home is not appealing to me and my family. The only peace we have is Summer and evenings which will end with these changes and this concerns us.

Share your thoughts

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s