Strong Local Opposition to Outdoor Lighting Changes Voices Its Stance at Meeting

• Distrust of School Board Is an Issue

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

At its Dec. 8 meeting, the City of Malibu’s Zoning Ordinance Revisions and Code Enforcement Subcommittee continued to grapple with the challenge of drafting a Local Coastal Program zoning text amendment to permit temporary athletic field lighting at Malibu High School for the campus’s football program.
The subcommittee reviewed changes to the previous draft of the lighting proposal and added recommendations based on their observations and input from the public.
Changes included limiting the proposed ZTA to the Malibu High School campus only, rather than having it apply to all institutionally zoned parcels in the city, and removing a condition that would have required 80 percent of school neighbors to approve future changes.
Associate City Planner Joseph Smith revised a statement in the meeting agenda that indicated that “approximately 20 members of the public attended the meeting and it appeared the majority supported temporary lights at MHS so long as they were operated in a very limited fashion.” Smith clarified that the majority of public speakers at the previous meeting had outnumbered supporters of the proposal. Smith also stated that all of the letters received by the city were now included in the report. Staff had been criticized for omissions.
ZORACES meetings are frequently informal and lightly attended, but there were so many public speakers on Dec. 8 that speaker slips were required and a two minute limit was placed on each person.
Most speakers continued to vehemently oppose any lighting plan. Many also expressed distrust of the school district. “It doesn’t matter what you put in the language,” longtime Malibu Park resident Jay Griffith said. “The school board will ignore it.”
“Even considering lighting is a violation of the Mission Statement [for the City of Malibu],” said longtime Malibu resident Walt Keller, who served as Malibu’s first mayor. Keller suggested that the most democratic way of determining if the change should be made would be to put it on the ballot for a community-wide vote.
“This proposal is softer than the one that the Coastal Commission rejected,” Malibu Park resident Steve Scheinkman told the subcommittee. “I want to call attention to the fact that the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District calls the field a classroom, exempt [from municipal code].”
“I generally support the new draft, but I see some modifications that can be made,” Malibu High School associated student body president Hap Henry told the subcommittee. Henry, who is a member of the football team, suggested that 10:30 p.m., rather than midnight, would be a more logical end time for lighting, since games rarely run past 9:30 p.m. He also said that 10-12 nights is a more realistic number than the 16 nights proposed.
“I was always hoping the LCP would be changed and made more flexible over time for the Condition Use Permit,” lighting proponent Colleen Baum said. “The community and school may need more or less. It seems that’s impossible.”
ZORACES committee member John Mazza reminded the audience that ZORACES was not charged with determining if the lights were consistent with the Local Coastal Program and the General Plan. “We can’t say no to lights. It’s not our job.”
“The school board passed a resolution saying it’s exempt from municipal law,” Mazza pointed out. “We have to concentrate on the LCP. The school district can ignore anything in municipal code, but not in the LCP,” he said.
“I think it makes sense to have temporary lighting, but we need to find a way to hold the school’s feet to the fire,” City Council and subcommittee member John Sibert said.
“I hope the school district will do self enforcement,” ZORACES chair Ed Gillespe said. “It’s a very big issue.”
Gillespie suggested that the clause requiring approval from school neighbors be restored, and recommended that the radius be increased from 500 to 1000 feet, to include more of the residences that would potentially be impacted by the lighting plan.
The subcommittee discussed including the limit on nights to 12 and time to 10:30 p.m. and incorporating the restrictions in the LCP amendment. They recommended stipulating a specific timeline for the temporary lights to be set up and removed at the start and end of the season. They also proposed that the language of the proposal specify the football field, to close any potential use loopholes and directed staff to determine which parts of the Malibu park neighborhood would be most directly impacted by the proposed lighting. However, the subcommittee declined to take on the issue of Title IX, the law that requires equal athletic opportunity for both sexes.
“Title IX might be the foot in the door to get around the LCP,” Mayor Pro Tem Jefferson Wagner cautioned.
“It’ll be a lawsuit,” Mazza replied. “We don’t want to be involved when we have no control.”
After the latest round of revisions, the draft amendment will be heard by the planning commission at a public meeting, before being sent to the city council. The final amendment will require approval from the California Coastal Commission.