Editorial: Future of Marin Catholic field lights now firmly in hands of the courts
When it comes to erecting lights at Marin Catholic High School’s football field, there’s plenty of frustration to go around.
Students, leaders and supporters of the school have been trying for years to win the county’s approval for lights. A lot of money and hours have been devoted to the improvement. But after winning the county’s approval, the lights have been sidelined after a lawsuit filed by neighbors and a Marin judge’s preliminary ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor.
The ruling could send the school back into the county planning process to prepare an environmental impact review, a step that the county Planning Commission called for, only to be overruled by a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors.
The county’s planners and lawyers said the school had submitted enough documentation that an EIR, an independent county-commissioned review, was not legally needed.
Judge Sheila Shah Lichtblau’s ruling prohibits construction of the lights while the trial over the lawsuit is pending.
An attorney for the school is hopeful Marin Catholic’s plan will ultimately prevail, possibly in time for the lights to be installed before the start of the fall prep sports season.
Neighbors contend the permanent lighting and nighttime games will generate additional noise, traffic and glare from the lights. They want those issues independently analyzed in a county-commissioned report.
The school has countered that it has been using occasional portable lighting for years and that new lighting is designed to reduce glare. It has also agreed to limit the use of the lights and a 9:30 p.m. curfew for a small number of Friday night football games and 7 p.m. for practices and other activities.
The legal battle is not unlike the one that delayed the erecting of lights at San Marin High School’s sports field in Novato. Eventually, the school won the go-ahead – after meeting the state-required environmental review process – and has hosted nighttime football, mostly without the problems that had worried neighbors.
The outcome could be the same for Marin Catholic. The court should expedite its process so that both sides could either reach a settlement or have their fair say in court.
County supervisors sided with the importance of encouraging youth sports and Marin Catholic’s “good neighbor” pledge to limit the use of lights and to respond to any complaints about lighting or noise. They also agreed that the school’s plan warranted an exemption from having to go to the time and expense of having to prepare an environmental report because it could not make a finding that the lights would create significant impacts.
If their approval skirted legal requirements, the court will decide. The county has faced this legal challenge before, only to learn that it all too often winds up to be less costly in legal expenses and the consumption of time to avoid taking a shortcut.
The Planning Commission’s decision – albeit a 4-3 vote – certainly raises questions about the legal approach taken by the county.
It took San Marin seven years to win the approvals, comply with environmental requirements and wage legal battles to put up lights.
Marin Catholic has tried before to win the county’s approval. The green light from the supervisors in December was a long-sought milestone.
Instead of the field of local politics, this matter is now being played out in court.
Whether the decision allows the lights to go up or requires more study and hearings, it deserves prompt and fair consideration.