Malibu Park Neighbors Lambaste Proposal for High School Lighting

• Eight-Story-High Units Could Be Used Much of the Year

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

An outreach meeting at Malibu High School to discuss the proposed Measure BB funded permanent field lighting received extensive criticism from residents after the revelation that the project calls for 70-to-80-foot tall lighting poles and the lighting could be in use up to 203 nights a year. The plan includes permanent seating for 1300—a 1000-seat concrete grandstand on the home side, and a 300-seat aluminum grandstand on the visitor side—as well as a synthetic turf football field with a soccer overlay.
“We are very fortunate to have a wonderful education program,” MHS principal Mark Kelly told the audience. “The whole Measure BB project is about improving the facilities. It’s about improving the facilities to match the quality of the education program. We currently have an incomplete athletic stadium. It’s serving our needs but it’s incomplete. Our proposal is to really enhance the facilities in order to make sure that we are providing the best opportunities.
Kelly said, “One of the things we experience is we have students who opt for other schools because our facilities aren’t up to par. The quality of the program is there, but the facilities don’t match that.”
The principal also outlined how the school hopes to add soccer and lacrosse night games and practice sessions, in addition to football, and explained the school is negotiating a new shared-use agreement with the city that may add more community uses.
“Right now we have limitations because of lighting,” Kelly said, as he tried to assuage the audience about the 203 nights of lights use. “I know that it sounds like a lot,” Kelly said, “When we put this together we thought about maximum usage. It’s a lot of numbers, but it’s the maximum.”
Two alternative lighting plans were presented by Paul Austad of Musco Lighting, the company overseeing the project. The first has a four-pole lighting scenario, the second design has six poles.
“The higher the pole, the more directly the light shines down,” Austad said, explaining the necessity for eight-story high poles in a city that limits building height to a maximum of 28 feet.
Austad described the Musco plans as “green technology” and explained that the aluminum fixtures have visors that direct the light onto the field and limit the amount of light bleed and glare. “The glare is the pain to the eye, as Musco sees it,” Austin said.
“We understand that the community is very concerned,” said Julian Capata, a spokesperson for the consultant firm of PBS&J.
Austad presented simulations of what he called “light spill” from eye level at six vantage points around the school. Audience members pointed out that the simulations did not include a second story view, or an overview from neighboring ridgelines.
“We have a ridgeline law here,” Malibu Park resident Jay Griffith said. “You’re not supposed to break the ridgeline. They haven’t done daytime studies.
“The lights are there 365 days a year. Right in our view line. You are proposing lights 70-80 feet that will break the horizon line. We’re going to look at those lights all the time. It’s pretty invasive. [Malibu has] a 28-foot building height. I cannot go past 28 feet. They are asking to put in eight-story structures. Yikes.”
“203 nights?” Griffith added. “I see that as a very slippery slide.”
“That’s pretty much all of the work days of the year,” one resident complained.
“I have nothing against Friday night football,” said Steve Scheinkman, who lives across from the school. “But 203 nights compared to eight?”
The consultants displayed a map that diagramed the potential area affected by light pollution from the proposed installation, encompassing much of Malibu Park. A resident of the mobile home park on Point Dume stated that he believes the lights will impact more than just the area shown on the map.
“120 mobile homes look straight across [to Malibu Park]. All those mobile homes, when the temporary lights are turned on [at MHS], it’s like looking at oncoming headlights,” the Point Dume resident said.
“You will be completely changing the character of Malibu Park,” Cathy Cadieaux stated. “You are going to ruin this area. It’s a tragedy. You have created a lack of trust in the community.”
“I came here very strongly to speak in favor of the lights, but I guess I didn’t know. If we’re talking about the possibility of 200 nights a year, 50 nights a year, you lose me,” Paul Speigel said.
Not everyone was opposed to the plan.
“All the extra [light] pollution is here to support something valuable to the community,” argued Dane Skophammer, who told the audience that he was on the football team when he attended MHS and now works as a team coach. He explained that not having a lighted field when he was on the team was “a part of my high school experience that was missing. I don’t want to say robbed. I know it sounds kind of selfish, but its one of the most fundamental American dreams. MHS needs athletes. We have lost countless numbers of athletes to other schools.”
“Our community is benefitted by the lights. Selfishness is not appropriate,” said a young member of the current football team. “I personally wouldn’t be playing football, if I had to play our homecoming game in Santa Monica.”
Colleen Baum, a parent of three children, said Friday night football is “the only event where my husband, myself and our kids [are] all together. There isn’t even a movie we can all agree on. 203 nights is huge, but sometimes it’s just a couple of hours to finish practice.”
Sandy Banducci called the charts showing 203 nights of use “the biggest mistake.” Adding that “anyone who knows anything about sports knows that’s not realistic. Make a realistic proposal and stick with it. If we could redo it and revisit it and make it work with maybe 20 times a year, I think then people wouldn’t [object].
“When I think about the future,” Terry Lucoff responded, “what bothers me is the past. It bothers me that the school was given no rights for lights but they put up lights anyway. You ask me to have faith in you. It’s hard. I’m very skeptical about putting up lights.”
The existing Coastal Development Permit for the campus (CDP-04-99-276) specifically prohibits either temporary or permanent field lighting. At its Aug. 21 meeting, the district contracted with CAA Planning to negotiate an amendment to MHS’s CDP with the Coastal Commission to permit the field lighting plan. According to Malibu Park residents, the commission is aware that the school is currently in violation of its permit.
The City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan that was adopted by the Coastal Commission on Sept. 13, 2002, states: “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity fixtures, shielded, and concealed to the maximum feasible extent so that no light source is directly visible from public viewing areas. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities in scenic areas designated for residential use shall be prohibited.”
As far as The News has been able to determine, there is no precedent in the city for an 80-foot tall installation. Tennis court lighting, popular in the ’70s and ’80s, is no longer permitted in the city. The height of a proposed 50-foot high monopole antenna with a 20-foot whip extension at the new fire station located in the part of Malibu that extends into Ventura County was challenged earlier this year. The fire department was forced to lower the antenna by 20 feet because it allegedly blocked the primary view of residents.
The third and final public meeting on the school’s measure BB improvement plan, which will focus on design and sustainability, will be held on Tuesday, Jan. 27, at 6:30 p.m. in the school auditorium. Information on the plan is available at the district Web site: www.smmusd.org.