City Council Moves to End Ban on Institutional Night Lights

• Law May Not Be Able to Be Written So Narrowly that It Precludes Illumination in Other Settings

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The Malibu City Council will consider passing a resolution of intent to investigate zoning text Local Coastal Program amendments to remove a prohibition on athletic field lighting in areas zoned institutional at its meeting on Nov. 9.
According to a staff report, “On Oct. 12, 2009, the City Council directed staff to begin preparation of a ZTA and LCPA to incorporate new development standards for the institutional zoning district and update existing permitted and conditionally permitted uses within that zone.”
Last month, a Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District request for an LCP amendment to permit limited use of temporary lights at Malibu High School for football season was unanimously rejected by the California Coastal Commission.
The temporary lighting plan presented to the commission last month included a maximum of 16 nights—eight football practices and eight games. The original MHS field lighting plan, unveiled by the district in 2008 as part of the campus’s Measure BB funded improvements, included artificial turf and permanent athletic field lighting that could potentially be in use 200+ nights a year. The plan instantly generated an outpouring of opposition.
Rather than appeal the commission’s decision, the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District is instead opting to work with the City of Malibu to attempt to amend the city’s LCP. The board of education voted last month to remove the permanent lighting plan from the Measure BB plan, but only “at this time.”
“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,” Chief financial officer Jan Maez stated after the board’s decision, adding that “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.”
The deadline to file for Coastal Commission reconsideration is Nov. 6. However, district staff has reportedly decided that an appeal to the coastal agency is unlikely to succeed, and that the process could cost in excess of $50,000, in addition to the more than $100,000 in general funds already spent on biology reports and lobbying services for the original amendment application. The district is currently facing a $12-15 million deficit.
Critics of the lighting plan are calling the district’s decision to rely on the city ironic, because the board of education voted unanimously on July 1 to pass a special resolution that declared the school was not subject to Malibu’s zoning ordinances. The district used the resolution to bypass city authority and go directly to the California Coastal Commission with its request for an LCP amendment.
According to the staff report, existing city code for industrial zoning—which includes religious institutions, private and public educational institutions, and outdoor activities and facilities such as sporting events and farmers markets—provides “general institutional requirements for setbacks, height and floor area ratio. [However], “all remaining components default to the residential development standards, including grading, impermeable coverage, fencing and accessory structures/ uses.”
The staff report also states that the “current set of permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the institutional zone are limited and inadequately regulate the scope of existing and potential uses within this zoning district.
“By incorporating new development standards and updating the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the Institutional zone,” staff anticipates “an improvement in the planning review process, better regulation governing complex institutional projects and transparent guidelines for applicants to follow during project design.”
While the amendments to zoning and the LCP would technically permit the lights, the city and the district would still have to overcome several additional hurdles. The proposed temporary lights would exceed existing building code restrictions for height, brightness and environmental impact.
The Coastal Commission blasted both the district and its own staff for inadequate and inaccurate environmental review and for underestimating the potential negative impact of light pollution in an area of Malibu that is still largely rural and surrounded by public lands and beaches. Coastal Commissioner and Malibu resident Sara Wan stated when the lighting request was denied that removing the prohibition in the LCP would be “opening a can of worms.”
Athletic program supporters say that, if the LCP and zoning amendments are successful, it could open the door for field lighting not only at the high school campus but also potentially at the district’s Point Dume and Webster campuses, and other institutional-zoned areas, enabling development of playing fields and other nighttime facilities in the community.
If the city council votes to approve the resolution, staff will prepare the draft amendments for consideration. The amendments will then be presented to the Zoning Ordinance Revisions and Code Enforcement Subcommittee for review and recommendation, and from there they would go to a public hearing at the planning commission. If the planning commission approves the amendments, they will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for processing.