School District Puts Lights Issue on Hold Pending Action on Malibu LCP

• Supporters of Lights for MHS Games Continue Their Efforts to Obtain Permanent Solutions

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Board of Education, at its Oct. 15 meeting in Santa Monica, reluctantly voted to remove permanent field lighting from Malibu High School’s Measure BB-funded improvement plans, but only “for now.”
The permanent field lighting, which would have had the potential to be in use more than 200 nights a year, was an alternative that could only be constructed if sufficient funds were left after the BB core projects were completed. The plan would also require changes to zoning in the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program, as well as variances for a number of other municipal regulations ranging from light pollution to height restrictions.
The decision came after the California Coastal Commission ruled unanimously to uphold the City of Malibu’s Coastal Development Program and General Plan and deny the school district’s request to amend the Malibu Campus’s Coastal Development Permit to allow temporary lighting for the school’s football program. The district, which has used unpermetted temporary lights for a number of years, agreement to a deed restriction on the Malibu property in 2000 prohibiting temporary or permanent field lighting as a condition for a Coastal Development Permit to build new facilities at the campus.
“I think everybody is fully aware that last week the district application for our Coastal Commission amendment was denied, ” Tim Cuneo told the board. “At that time, one of the main concerns of commissioners was the continuation of our plans for permanent lighting of the field and one of the suggestions we had as we went into the meeting was removing that part of the Measure BB plan.
“Since the denial of the temporary lights, I think it is even more important that the board consider removing this portion of the project. Staff will then stop moving forward and including this in the project description as we do the Environmental Impact Review as we move forward with the CDP application through the City of Malibu,” Cuneo stated.
Asked to “walk the board members through the commission’s decision,” district chief financial officer Jan Maez said, “Basically, the standard that the California Coastal Commission uses in evaluating permits is the LCP of the area. The primary basis for their decision to deny the amendment was based on the local coastal plan that’s been established in the Malibu area. They felt that night lighting of sports courts in the coastal zone of the CDP was a violation of the plan. They had other areas [of concern], but that was probably the strongest argument in their opposition.”
Maez did not mention a long list of environmental concerns, including light pollution and wildlife impact, that attracted opposition to the lighting plan from the Sierra Club, and led the commission to take coastal staff and the school district’s consultants to task for allegedly failing to accurately report the project’s potential for environmental damage. The commissioners also questioned the district’s commitment to honoring the 16-night limit presented in the amendment requested.
“I’m really very encouraged that some of our parent community has given direction to city staff to start that process of considering [changing the LCP],” Maez said. “The fact that they are interested in it gives us the hope that in the future when the CDP is amended the school community could come back and reconsider some kind of lighting of the field, whether it’s temporary for 16 nights, or for other athletic purposes or even in the larger community. At this time, we have the existing LCP. Continuing to move ahead with football lighting as part of BB would not be cost effective for the program at this time because of the LCP. “
“It’s out of our hands today,” board vice president Barry Snell said, describing the lighting plan as an enormous undertaking. “I think we as a board have done everything we could possibly do as a board to show our support of it. It’s the only activity that students have on a nightly basis to be able to congregate. The Coastal Commission didn’t understand. I think we argued our point very validly.”
“The people who were opposed to the lighting didn’t think about the students, instead they thought about aesthetics and everything that was around them,” board member Maria Leon Vazquez said. “What’s important to us is students. It’s important that we support the community that does want the lights.”
“I can’t speak for residents around the school, but those that I have talked to I believe would testify to this, that they were not opposed to the temporary plan itself,” MHS football player and associated student body president Hap Henry told the board. “They were opposed to having what they thought could be the opening of a Pandora’s box situation, where there could have been dozens or even hundreds of night uses under the permanent plan that we’ve been supporting up until this point,” Henry told the board.
“And I do not personally think that we should stop our efforts to obtain permanent lighting under a more reasonable limited basis in which I feel there should be the football games, as a football player, and that we could also include several, I don’t know what the number would be, but less, soccer for both boys and girls and lacrosse games to be under the lights in order to ensure the equity,” Henry continued. “I want to publicly attest that I do not support the maximum plan for the football field that would include adult sports.”
“Not having night games has really motivated students to not register that there is a game,” said MHS cheerleader Eden Concoff. “When you think about your high school career, a lot of that probably revolves around sporting events and homecoming and senior night and we don’t have that at all. So it makes sense to everyone at some level that we really do need these lights just so we can have a high school experience and be able to look back and say ‘Oh, that night football game was so much fun.’ We don’t have that at all. For the cheerleaders it really difficult for us.”
The cash-strapped school district, which is facing a $12-15 million deficit this year, authorized one last MHS temporary lighting expense at the meeting: an additional $20,000 in general funds for Culbertson and Associates, the firm hired by the district to prepare the CCC amendment and lobby the commission, bringing the total for the firm’s temporary lighting efforts to $54,000. The amendment extends the contract until June of 2010, to ensure that all of the project’s loose ends are tied up, according to district staff.