Planning Panel Approves LCP Amendment that Allows MHS Temp Athletic Field Lighting

• City Council Candidates See Issue as ‘Campaignable’

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The City of Malibu’s Planning Commission, after nearly three hours of public testimony and a lengthy debate, approved a recommendation for Local Coastal Program and Zoning Text amendments to permit temporary athletic field lighting at the Malibu High School campus.

The recommendation will be heard next by the Malibu City Council. The California Coastal Commission, which voted unanimously to deny a previous request for a lighting amendment last year, will have the final say.

Several factions spoke at the meeting: residents who oppose changing the LCP; football team supporters who requested a total of 16 lighted nights during October and November to accommodate eight games and eight practices; and supporters of open-ended lighting to accommodate soccer, lacrosse, baseball, softball, tennis, and fundraising activities.

I speak for many residents,” Malibu Park resident Carol Gable said. “We feel this is the first step [toward permanent lighting]. Wildlife abounds. We enjoy hearing and seeing it year round. You would be better served to be teaching the students to be good stewards.”

One woman brought carefully labeled bags containing owl pellets that she stated had been collected on school property. “There is habitat,” she said. We all know we have raptors.”

“I’ve attended dozens of these meetings,” Hap Henry, the only MHS football player to participate in the discussion, said. He suggested that the amendment be limited to 16 nights of high school football and that language be included to ensure that the lights be shielded and removed promptly at the end of of the season. He also suggested that the amendment should have “deeper protection against increases to an unreasonable number.”

“Anybody opposed is disgusting,” Malibu Park resident Steven Bard said. “It’s unbelievable to me. The best athletes are leaving.” Bard has coached MHS middle school flag football.

“[Lights] would bring in revenue and keep kids here in Malibu,” another speaker said, stating that “the [men] being prosecuted in the Corral Fire” are a “prime example” of what happens to youth without the benefit of organized sports. However, the speaker did not indicate whether he actually knew that the men did not participate in sports.

“The 200-plus lighting plan still exists, it’s waiting on the shelf” Malibu Township Council president Steve Uhring said, pointing out that opponents have so far outnumbered proponents 20 to 1. “That’s why residents say no. 16 nights opens the door to 200-plus nights. It launches an assault on quality of life.”

The meeting attracted the attention of most of the candidates for the April city election. Candidates Ed Gillespie and John Mazza are chair and vice chair of the planning panel. Laura Rosenthal and Mike Sidley are both education activists who are on the school district’s Measure BB committee. Matthew Katz and Steve Scheinkman are Malibu Park residents.

Rosenthal, who has advocated for the lights from the beginning, described the process as “a great example of different groups coming together to compromise.” She added, “When we were looking at permanent lights, at that time I supported them [but] it became quite clear it was going to impact. We’ve gone down from 203 nights to 16 nights. I know there’s a lot of wildlife, beautiful dark skies. The wildlife has not gone away with six years of limited use.”

“I urge you to adopt the one with the most flexibility,” Sidley said. “The board of education in not to be feared. We are talking about providing opportunities. Will people be impacted? Yes. All of us have to compromise. The reason they were talking about 200 was they were trying to provide more opportunity.”

“Why are we spending money on lights? The school district is going to raise our property tax,” said Katz. “People who don’t live in Malibu Park shouldn’t have a say. They aren’t the ones who suffer,” he stated.

“There was a compromise that took place for seven years,” council candidate Steve Scheinkman pointed out. Scheinkman, who has been an advocate for the 16 night plan, cautioned that any amendment would need to incorporate the restrictions in the LCP, not just the municipal code.

 “There has got to be protection in the LCP so the school district can’t turn around and say they’re exempt,”  Scheinkman said. There are 188 houses within 1000 feet of the school. Four percent of Malibu’s population [will be] impacted.

“You have to understand, what we are trying to do is work out the best solution for the Coastal Commission to look at.” Commission vice chair John Mazza said, addressing his remarks to a pair of young cheerleaders who said earlier that they “really, really wanted the lights.”

“The school board has gone outside of local control,” Mazza explained. “They went directly to Coastal, outside of the city process. They were turned down 12-0. We have to come up with a rational solution that protects the school, protects the neighbors, and language that the City Council and the Coastal Commission can accept.”

“Can’t we have a resolution that includes all of our sports?” asked Commissioner Regan Schaar. She repeatedly called the proposed 16 night limit “restrictive,” and pushed initially for an open-ended amendment that would not restrict the number of nights or types of activities and later for a 25 night plan.

“I’m concerned that we are going to lose football,” Steve Scheinkman said, after plans to include everything from tennis to Pop Warner in the proposal. “I listened to coastal, [they were] specifically concerned about creep. Don’t do anything that’s going to lose football.” He added that “[Coastal] rejected the environmental report.” 

“Owls have 365 nights a year,” Schaar snapped.

“I’m not going to dignify that remark with a reply,” chair Ed Gillespie answered.

After lengthy debate, the commission agreed to retain the 16-night limit, but opted not to specify football, leaving the distribution of night sports up to the school. This move was seen as a way to make the lights available for other sports and avoid Title XI complications, but it would also expand the period of time the six 53-foot lights would potentially be on the field from the two months required for football to a total of four months, to accommodate soccer, potentially doubling the cost of the lights, which several speakers pointed out have in the past been funded entirely by the football team.

The extension could also mean the lights would still be in use during the start of breeding season for the hotly contested owl population in late winter.

The final proposal recommends placing the Conditional Use Permit requirement in the LCP, to prevent the school district from circumventing municipal control. The commission also agreed that the amendment should specify high school athletic activities only and set an end-time of 10:30 p.m. and require that the lights be removed promptly at the end of the four-month period.