The Coast News Group
Community Commentary

COMMUNITY COMMENTARY: Confusion reigns at Hall park meeting

Confusion began with the required notice of Citizens Participation Program meeting, (E.M.C.23.06), to citizens who will be affected by the changes in the General Plan, Local Plan, Major Use Plan, Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and possible zoning change.
The meeting was labeled as a Neighborhood Meeting. Many affected were not contacted. The subject property was described as “Encinitas Community Park,” which does not exist. It was described as “Hall Property Community Park.” It is not a community park. It is legally designated as a Special Use Park according to the EIR. It stated that the Planning Commission approved and certified the EIR. The CPP document states, “ … is approved to be developed into a community park.”
It is approved to be developed into a Special Use Park. The Planning Commission did not certify the EIR, as stated. They recommended reducing the fields by one or two, and solving identified serious daylight traffic issues prior to approval. City Council rejected their recommendations.
Questions and answers were only allowed to be directed to the Musco lighting representative. Questions such as, “Why are these changes being brought up in the general plan now when the city is currently involved with a citywide, city-sponsored citizens review of the general plan, and the process is still under way?” and “Are there going to be individual hearings on each of these modifications and amendments? When?” and “Is the city going to spend another $25,000 for a lobbyist to the Coastal Commission, like before?” could not be asked. And no one at the meeting voiced support for the lights.
The following are the city’s comments in the July 2 The Coast News Article and our rebuttals.
“Mayor Dan Dalager disagrees. He has been working on City Council for eight years to move Hall property park plans forward through a failed lawsuit that objected to the park being built and continues to support park plans through community objections to field lights.”
Rebuttal: The courts favored the Citizens v. the City in the lawsuit. The lawsuit wasn’t about the park being built. No one objected to a park being built. Mayor Dalager is simply ignoring the “community objections to field lights.”

“Encinitas is filled with a lot of good decent people who are scared by a small group who spread misinformation,” Dalager said.
Rebuttal: Encinitas is also filled with a large group of decent people who fear having a change in their community character, quality of life, loss of their ocean views, and reduced property values. What misinformation is Mr. Dalager referring to?

“Phase II construction includes the installation of 22 poles and 144 fixtures to illuminate the fields.
Lights will later be installed to light up the planned skate park and aquatic center. The hours that the lights will be on has not been determined.”
Rebuttal: The attendees were told that 34 athletic poles are planned up to ninety feet high. Strobe lights on top of the poles may be required for aviation safety. Lights on until midnight? It would be wiser to build the park and see the impact to the community before considering field lights.

“If we use 30-foot lights it will blind everyone for miles around,” Dalager said.
Rebuttal: No lights would not “blind everyone for miles around.”
“Taller lights go straight down.”
Rebuttal: The light manufacturer admitted to light spillage equal to 80 full moons and didn’t know how far away you would have to be to see the stars. All of the photos shown by the light representative were from a sky view only, not as they would affect homeowners.

“The field lights will directly neighbor Vons shopping center and Interstate 5. ‘If you can’t have lights by the shopping center and freeway, where can you have them?’ Dalager asked.”
Rebuttal: The field lights will be immediately near an entire residential community on the west side of I-5 and will also obstruct ocean, sunset and horizon views of an entire hillside of homes east of I-5.

For a depiction of story poles, photos from the meeting presentation and homes that will lose their oceans views, and additional information, visit


Unbevievable July 22, 2010 at 4:42 pm

Earlier today the city changed the description of the project and stated that there were tennis courts. There are not tennis courts planned. They do not exist of any map.
Then that was changed again. Basketball courts were put into the description and tennis courts were omitted. There are no tennis courts on any proposal maps. They are doing this to try to pretend that this is a Community Park. That is what the community wanted, tennis courts and basketball courts.
The current park plan is a Special Use Park and there are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the plan.

What is going on? July 22, 2010 at 1:54 pm

They altered it AGAIN.

More Deception ll July 22, 2010 at 9:08 am

This was the second time the city has altered this document.
How many times are they going to alter documents of record?

More Deception July 22, 2010 at 8:57 am

The city changed the original CPP document to say that the EIR was approved and certified, "…by the Planning Department and/or the City Council.
Fact: The Planning Department DID NOT APPROVE OR CERTIFY THE EIR. The Planning departments findings were rejected by City Council.
They did not notify anyone of these changes to this legal document.

More Obfuscation July 22, 2010 at 6:31 am

The city has not contacted people who had questions from this meeting. They are available if you go to the planning department and if you knew this was happening. Still, no answers to questions submitted concerning the General Plan,Zoning Changes or anything other than lights.
"Any questions or comments which were outside the scope of the proposed lighting project CPP
(specifically in regards to athletic field lighting), but rather specific to the CPP process or planning, are excluded from this final report and will be directed to Planning staff."
This is not an open and fair CPP process. If this was anyone other than the city presenting this CPP, they would be required to follow the rules.

More Misinformation July 21, 2010 at 7:07 am

The city updated the Hall Property information on their website. The CPP notice document that is presented as to what was sent out is not the CPP notice that was actually sent out. It has been changed and is now being represented as the actual original document. That is not true.

Best option July 16, 2010 at 9:46 am

It sure seems like the best option would be to hold off this general plan change for now and get the park built. Then we can see what kind of impact the operational park has on the entire community. At that point, the entire community can decide if we want the stadium lights, and consider if the additional night time hours issues can be tolerable.

Comments are closed.