|
No to FNL
San Pedro, CA
|
Judged:
2
1
PV Homeowner wrote: <quoted text>Barry, whether you are truly a booster or not, you are not doing the school, team, coach, or students any service with your spiteful posts. I would hope that no matter what happens the school will continue to make its best efforts to reasonably limit the adverse impacts of its normal operations on nearby residents. Thanks PV Homeowner for showing some civility. No matter what side of the issue people fall on this topic, all I ask is some respect for those who will be impacted. As a nearby resident of Penn High, I know we must accept some noise and activity at the school. All I ask is some respect for the residents as well. Efforts to mitigate noise, lights, etc. go a long way but so does positive community efforts to recognize that some benefits come at a cost for others. That's all I ask is some acknowledgement of that fact. But some folks are so engrossed on this Hill to buy their kids whatever they want including expensive cars, expensive clothes, expensive vacations, etc. that it's no wonder that the students (and parents) are so self-engrossed. Unfortunately, I lived through this predicament and expect that my kids will face it as well. That is truly the biggest downside of living up on the Hill (parents thinking that they can buy their way out of anything, even buying their kids' affection by buying them whatever they want). Again, all we ask is a little respect for the neighbors.
|
|
No to FNL
San Pedro, CA
|
Judged:
2
PV Homeowner wrote: <quoted text>There is no precedent being set here. The precedent is well established that FNL are not unreasonably burdensome and are perfectly appropriate absent unique circumstances (which you confirm don't exist). Further, chosing to hold public events, whether in the daytime or the evening, at a long-operating high school is not a taking. And I'm sorry, but stadium light pollution is not a compensable "externality." Though I'm sure you could convince an attorney to accept your money to lose that claim for you. <quoted text>PV is not rural under any definition. It is suburban and nearly every suburban high school I’ve ever seen has built FNLs at some point. And just think about it. If PV were truly rural, the stadium lights wouldn't be a bother to anyone, would they? For those who aren't familiar with the school, check out the satellite view of the campus. The school is bordered by two of the busiest commuter thoroughfares in PV and sits catercornered to PV's central retail shopping district. http://maps.google.com/maps... Okay, I acknowledge PV is not rural like Midwest farms but I was using it to describe the "suburban" landscape since "suburban" can describe a multitude of city types. Torrance is suburban, so is Redondo Beach and so are parts of Beverly Hills. The point I was trying to convey is some parts of PV are unlike other cities so saying it should have FNL just to be like other cities flies in some ways in convention to the type of landscape it was designed to encompass. Of course there are commercial areas of PV and Penn High is very close to those areas but so too is it near homes as you pointed out. It is also somewhat unique at being at the top of the Hill facing residential homes on 3 sides which makes the impact of stadium lights even more impactful (but not as much as PV High which is completely surrounded by homes).
|
|
Peterson
Los Angeles, CA
|
Barry wrote: <quoted text>
These are kids the neighbors are harassing, the neighbors don't want to compromise Laughable statement. Asking a school to make as little noise and disturbance at night as possible, at a school that is surrounded by a residential neighborhood, is a lawyer's definition of "harassment of students." Classic lawyer. I do agree that the school team's record of losses has nothing to do with the discussion, and shouldn't be used as a jab.
|
|
PV Homeowner
El Segundo, CA
|
No to FNL wrote: <quoted text>Okay, I acknowledge PV is not rural like Midwest farms but I was using it to describe the "suburban" landscape since "suburban" can describe a multitude of city types. Torrance is suburban, so is Redondo Beach and so are parts of Beverly Hills. The point I was trying to convey is some parts of PV are unlike other cities so saying it should have FNL just to be like other cities flies in some ways in convention to the type of landscape it was designed to encompass. Of course there are commercial areas of PV and Penn High is very close to those areas but so too is it near homes as you pointed out. It is also somewhat unique at being at the top of the Hill facing residential homes on 3 sides which makes the impact of stadium lights even more impactful (but not as much as PV High which is completely surrounded by homes). Thanks for the clarification. Clearly there is a great variety in suburban landscapes. Because of the many canyons in PV we are perhaps more "sub" than "urban." However, I would imagine the HS stadiums in most other communities with canyons like ours have lights just like everywhere else. In any event, if the placement of the lights will be uniquely impactful here because of the topography of the school campus specifically, that is definitely the type of information that should be shared with the Planning Commission. It may not tip the balance, but it would be a relevant fact to consider (unlike the football team's record).
|
|
PV Homeowner
El Segundo, CA
|
Judged:
1
1
No to FNL wrote: <quoted text>Of course there are commercial areas of PV and Penn High is very close to those areas but so too is it near homes as you pointed out. It is also somewhat unique at being at the top of the Hill facing residential homes on 3 sides which makes the impact of stadium lights even more impactful (but not as much as PV High which is completely surrounded by homes). I'd like to address your point about the nearness of homes because it has come up repeatedly in anti-development debates in PV in recent years. Once a parcel is zoned institutional the fact that nearby residences exist (or may be built) cannot justify preventing a school from operating as a school or a church from operating as a church, as the case may be. Again, some mitigation may be appropriate with respect to any particular project or activity. We all should be good neighbors for each other. But the expectation from that point forward is that the property will be used by a fully functioning institution. In many instances the operation of our institutions will have an adverse impact on nearby neighbors. But that's how it works in a functioning society. Our institutions must be located SOMEWHERE. The determination of exactly where is made primarily through zoning. That is the proper time to debate that issue. Consider the case of Calvin Christian High, a private high school in Escondido, CA that opened in the 1980s. More than 20 years after opening they decided to add a football team. The next year they decided to add lights in order "to allow the school's students to have a more typical high school experience." However, the school's field happens to sit right next to a group of residences. In fact, the back yard fences for some of the houses were literally inches from the edge of the running track encircling the field. Of little surprise, the residents complained. Even less surprisingly, the Escondido Planning Commission approved the lights by a vote of 6-1 vote (with the one dissenting commissioner favoring taller poles). Again, if there is something unique about the situation here, the city should know about it. But simply being a resident who lives near a high school does not make your situation unique.
|
|
Jim the Neighbor
Torrance, CA
|
Judged:
2
1
I dont find the argument that "somebody, somewhere, got lights, therefore we deserve lights" to be valid. There are loads of unlighted fields all across the nation, and they are as good an example to follow as any other. The real issue for the neighborhood is that for 35 years we've been able to count on the kids going home and the neighborhood getting quiet at night. Now the school wants more money and everyone is supposed to roll over for them. School gets money, fans get games, neighbors pay the cost. Thats not fair.
|
|
PV Homeowner
El Segundo, CA
|
Jim the Neighbor wrote: I dont find the argument that "somebody, somewhere, got lights, therefore we deserve lights" to be valid. There are loads of unlighted fields all across the nation, and they are as good an example to follow as any other.
The real issue for the neighborhood is that for 35 years we've been able to count on the kids going home and the neighborhood getting quiet at night. Now the school wants more money and everyone is supposed to roll over for them.
School gets money, fans get games, neighbors pay the cost. Thats not fair. A school choosing to improve its facilities is not unfair. When the high school selected this particular parcel to develop its campus it was their expectation (and legal right) that they would be able to conduct normal school operations, making reasonable improvements from time to time as they saw fit. There is no statute of limitations on school improvements (as the Escondido example shows). If you are uncomfortable with that you should have either challenged the zoning ordinance in the first instance or chosen to live somewhere else. What is unfair is your coming out of the woodwork after all these years to argue that the site is now an inappropriate location for normal high school activities.
|
|
PV Homeowner
El Segundo, CA
|
Kevin Moen, if you are reading these comments, I want you to know that, while I support your team’s lighting initiative, I personally hate you with every fiber of my being. Go Cardinal!
|
|
|
No to FNL
San Pedro, CA
|
PV Homeowner wrote: <quoted text>I'd like to address your point about the nearness of homes because it has come up repeatedly in anti-development debates in PV in recent years.
Once a parcel is zoned institutional the fact that nearby residences exist (or may be built) cannot justify preventing a school from operating as a school or a church from operating as a church, as the case may be. Again, some mitigation may be appropriate with respect to any particular project or activity. We all should be good neighbors for each other. But the expectation from that point forward is that the property will be used by a fully functioning institution.
In many instances the operation of our institutions will have an adverse impact on nearby neighbors. But that's how it works in a functioning society. Our institutions must be located SOMEWHERE. The determination of exactly where is made primarily through zoning. That is the proper time to debate that issue.
Consider the case of Calvin Christian High, a private high school in Escondido, CA that opened in the 1980s. More than 20 years after opening they decided to add a football team. The next year they decided to add lights in order "to allow the school's students to have a more typical high school experience." However, the school's field happens to sit right next to a group of residences. In fact, the back yard fences for some of the houses were literally inches from the edge of the running track encircling the field. Of little surprise, the residents complained. Even less surprisingly, the Escondido Planning Commission approved the lights by a vote of 6-1 vote (with the one dissenting commissioner favoring taller poles).
Again, if there is something unique about the situation here, the city should know about it. But simply being a resident who lives near a high school does not make your situation unique. Well, taking another example closer to home, Rolling Hills Community Church has been limited on it's expansion plans and following your comments that "once a parcel is zoned institutional the fact that nearby residences exist (or may be built) cannot justify preventing a school from operating as a school or a church from operating as a church, as the case may be." and "our institutions must be located SOMEWHERE." If I follow your example of Escondido, RHCC should have been allowed their expansion plans unabated despite the concerns of nearby RHE residents. So as with this case with the proposed stadium lights, all I ask as a nearby resident of Penn High is that some consideration be made for our sakes. Otherwise, if we apply your logic any church, school or zoned business entity should be allowed to build out to their property limits (within reason). I'm still not convinced that permanent stadium lights can be installed (with or without the lights on) without creating a visual obstruction to neighbors on Fond Du Lac Road, let alone the noise disturbance to other nearby residents.
|
|
No to FNL
San Pedro, CA
|
Sorry, I meant to say Rolling Hills Covenant Church (RHCC) not Rolling Hills Community Church. Got mixed up with Palos Verdes Community Church.
|
|
Curious
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA
|
Judged:
1
1
As a lifelong resident of RPV, I chuckle at all of the stereotypes that always seem to appear on the comments section. There are all types of people in every community so I've met my fair share of off-putting locals over the years as well as warm hearted people. I could go either way on this issue, although it would be nice to have lights for the football stadium AND the tennis courts for that matter. I just find the parallels of this issue compared with the November vote on the Marymount College expansion very interesting. Hundreds of people's change in quality of life and property values could be determined by a vote that was cast by residents 20 minutes away. Even more contemplative is the majority vote that put Prop. 8 on the books. I just hope everyone stays consistent in their opinions and lose their "not in my backyard" mentality.
|
|
PV Homeowner
El Segundo, CA
|
No to FNL wrote: <quoted text>Well, taking another example closer to home, Rolling Hills Community Church has been limited on it's expansion plans and following your comments that "once a parcel is zoned institutional the fact that nearby residences exist (or may be built) cannot justify preventing a school from operating as a school or a church from operating as a church, as the case may be." and "our institutions must be located SOMEWHERE." If I follow your example of Escondido, RHCC should have been allowed their expansion plans unabated despite the concerns of nearby RHE residents.
So as with this case with the proposed stadium lights, all I ask as a nearby resident of Penn High is that some consideration be made for our sakes. Otherwise, if we apply your logic any church, school or zoned business entity should be allowed to build out to their property limits (within reason). I'm still not convinced that permanent stadium lights can be installed (with or without the lights on) without creating a visual obstruction to neighbors on Fond Du Lac Road, let alone the noise disturbance to other nearby residents. The RHCC proposal was rejected because the parking structure they needed to construct in order to support the expansion didn't comply with local ordinances. It wasn't because church activities were determined to be incompatable with the nearby residential neighborhood (though that's what some of the residents tried to argue). Obviously, any proposed improvement by a church, school, homeowner, or whomever would have to comply with local building codes, setbacks, etc. Your concerns about impact are valid, but are more pertinent to mitigation rather than whether lights should be allowed at all. What I've read about the proposal so far suggests that mitigation efforts have included an improved lighting angle and sound system, off site parking arrangements, and limitations as to the number of games.
|
|
PV Homeowner
El Segundo, CA
|
Judged:
1
Curious wrote: As a lifelong resident of RPV, I chuckle at all of the stereotypes that always seem to appear on the comments section. There are all types of people in every community so I've met my fair share of off-putting locals over the years as well as warm hearted people. I could go either way on this issue, although it would be nice to have lights for the football stadium AND the tennis courts for that matter. I just find the parallels of this issue compared with the November vote on the Marymount College expansion very interesting. Hundreds of people's change in quality of life and property values could be determined by a vote that was cast by residents 20 minutes away. Even more contemplative is the majority vote that put Prop. 8 on the books. I just hope everyone stays consistent in their opinions and lose their "not in my backyard" mentality. With Prop. 8 a voting majority took an established constitutional right away from a minority group. I don't see any established rights being taken away here, let alone constitutional ones. Further, the potential impact on quality of life and property values is highly speculative. In other circumstances, majority votes in RPV have had a far more dramatic and certain impact on a minority of homeowners. Perhaps the best example is when we passed the ordinance giving heightened protection to the views of some residents at the direct expense of others. In fact, thinking about it, perhaps the view ordinance is the reason so many RPV residents are convinced they have a vested right in the status quo. The ordinance tells me that if I have a view I can ban my downhill neighbor from planting a tree. So, perhaps if I live near a field with no lights I can ban the school from installing them. And if there are no teenagers in my neighborhood any longer, perhaps I can even ban students from living here.
|
|
Pedro Fan
Wilmington, CA
|
Judged:
1
bring back the original school name and colors
|
|
Pedro
Wilmington, CA
|
zBB45 wrote: To what in San Pedro:
I said the the facilities are superior you moron. Can't you read? Oh, that's right your from San Pedro, sorry. Tone it down beyatch!!!
|
|
Cry Baby
Wilmington, CA
|
Mark Sr wrote: Pedro Fan: Stop posting. Nobody cares what you write. FYI - NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU WRITE. OMG! It's 'wonder boy's' father again!!! PULEEZE don't make this about your son the stupid ... urr ... super star (sorry ~ ha - not really!) Mr. 0h-please-let-me-be-booster-pr ez-so-I-can-shove-my-boy-down- every one's-throat Okuma. BTW since no one I know has a clue who this wiz kid is, I asked two young men. One played with your son. Zero rating from him. The other a player from San Pedro. While he did say your son is a nice guy, he also said he's not that good. Not that "great" but not that "good". Here's an idea - sign him up for football. Quarterback. After all you HAVE been bragging how he's been saving his arm since he was 12.
|
|
RHHS1966
Torrance, CA
|
Judged:
1
I'm late to this, probably by design, but I'm guessing from the tone of his posts that Barry of Torrance is no attorney, but rather an adolescent; if so, he shouldn't be posing as one; if not, he's not sufficiently competent to represent my aggrieved cat against my n'er-do-well dog. This stadium lights idea is just as ill-advised as it has been every time it's been dredged up.
|
|
Pedro Fan
Wilmington, CA
|
Judged:
1
1
Are there lights yet? Let the games begin I love night football
|
|
Pete
Santa Monica, CA
|
There is now a Web site specifically for keeping people informed and included on the lights initiative. Feel free to go there and join in the conversation at http://www.fnlonthehill.com . It really is a great opportunity to get more people to participate in the high school activities. Football games are a great way to unite with old friends and alumni.
|
|
Pedro Fan
Wilmington, CA
|
Bring on the lights, scoreboard, speakers, cheerleaders, laughter, bands, fans, and beer!!!!
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Libra