District Seeks to Validate High School Field Lights

• Claims ‘Exemption’ from Restrictions

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The controversial Measure BB Malibu High School athletic field lighting plan was back on the agenda at the May 7 Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District meeting in Malibu, but not for a vote, which left some board of education members confused.
Originally, the item was scheduled to return for a board vote on whether or not to continue moving forward with the expensive project, which is an “add alternative” and can only be included in the BB improvements if funding is still available after the ‘core” projects are completed.
The MHS project has recently encountered additional BB expenses in the form of escalating septic system costs, as well as the revelation that the Morning View Drive right of way is actually 55 feet and not 50 feet, meaning plans for the new buildings and front entrance have to be reconfigured. A costly water supply upgrade required to bring the property up to fire safety code has also been added.
Instead of taking a vote on the item, the board heard an update from the district’s assistant superintendent and chief financial officer Jan Maez, who explained that the district is moving forward with plans to apply for a temporary lighting permit for the 2009-2010 football season. The temporary lighting plan is not part of the BB improvements and is being funded through other sources, although project critics claim some of the field studies and data presented in the district’s Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project appear to have been paid for with Measure BB funds before the distinction was made.
The school’s Coastal Development permit, issued by the California Coastal Commission, contains a condition specifically prohibiting temporary or permanent athletic field lighting on the property. This lighting also violates the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Plan. The school has disregarded this prohibition for several years by bringing in temporary lights for the football season.
After several public meetings, Maez had arranged an ad hoc committee of district staff, lighting advocates and residents, in an effort to reach an agreement on the issue of permanent lights.
“The community has come forward with a great number of concerns, a great number of objections” Maez told the board. She explained that the ad hoc committee had met once and was scheduled to met again soon, with “the charge of completely ID-ing all concerns” and bringing back to the board “a plan that would allow the project with permanent lighting to move forward.”
Maez explained that an application for an amendment to the CDP is still being prepared and is a separate issue from the permanent lighting plan. The district’s Mitigated Negative Declaration was released on Monday, and some residents are already crying foul over its contents.
The MND states that: “The [temporary] light standards will be placed on the site during the football season and removed at the end of the season. The lights will be 53 feet in height with a 5’ x 5’ x 3’ base. Each light standard would have six 1500-watt metal halide fixtures and would be operated by diesel powered generators. The fixtures will be shielded to reduce light spill and reduce glare.
The City of Malibu’s building code requires a building permit for “light standards which exceed 30 feet (9144 mm) in height.” In addition, the Malibu Local Coastal Program states that “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.”
The district states in the MND that it believes it is exempt from the LCP and city code because the property is zoned institutional: “There are no restrictions in the development standards for Institutional in the LCP, nor do the lighting restrictions purport to apply to public uses. Therefore there is no conflict with the LCP on this point.”
The MND claims that “No residual impacts on aesthetics would occur,” and elaborates by stating “private views are not significant,” and that “night lighting for football games is a natural concomitant to a high school,” although the report does disclose that public views on PCH and Zuma Beach would potentially be impacted by the lights. “Sky glow will be visible from limited locations along PCH and Zuma Beach...on foggy or rainy nights sky glow may appear stronger,” the document states.
The MND also declares that “the operation of the night lighting for such a limited duration each year, combined with the past use of the lights without complaint show that the limited football lighting is not annoying.”
The MND says that no complaints have ever been received during the years the unpermitted lights were in use. It bases this statement on a “personal communication with Virginia Hyatt, Director of Procurement, Contracts and Construction Management for Santa Monica, Malibu Unified School District.”
Residents contest that claim, stating that numerous complaints have been made to the school and the residents are troubled that no record of these complaints was made. “Many people did complain, but I guess not to the right agencies,” one school neighbor told the Malibu Surfside News.
Residents also contest the district’s statement that “The proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans as the project is confined to the existing high school site,” and the claim that there is “no sign of owl use in the study area.”
Embattled residents are already voicing dismay with the findings in the MND, but they have won at least one victory: the district concedes in the MND document that “the night lighting is in violation of CDP 4-99-276, condition 6, which prohibits outdoor lighting for all athletic fields [on the school property].” The document goes on to blame the state Coastal Commission, stating that the original agreement in final form was “never transmitted to the high school.”
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Environmental Checklist, as well as all referenced documents, are available for public review at the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District offices at 1651 Sixteenth Street, Santa Monica. Copies of the MND are also available at Malibu High School, the Malibu Library and the Santa Monica Library.
Public comment, directed to Jan Maez, may be submitted in writing to the district office address or in an email by 5 p.m. on June 10. For questions, comments or additional information, contact Maez at jan.maez@smmusd.org, or 310-450-8338 ext. 268.