It’s ironic that the Malibu City Council, after bemoaning their failure to prevent the bulldozing of the Malibu Lagoon, just sanctioned four 70’ stadium lights generating 1,500 megawatts each on 12.3 foot standards, each with 12 fixtures for a combined total of 48 fixtures (and let’s not forget the inevitable artificial turf), without a Planning Department hearing and without an independent study of the cumulative lighting impact of the proposed lights and the proposed parking lot lights soon to be installed on campus.
I was not a cynic before the last council meeting. I am a cynic now. I cannot help but wonder why only those homes within 500 feet of the school were notified of the hearing when the whole of the Malibu Bowl (and others in Western Malibu) will be impacted by the lights, the noise and traffic associated with these lights and the inevitable light creep once these $600,000 lights are installed. And excuse me if I am suspicious, but it is more than curious that the only public hearing on the 70’ poles took place before a diminished council following a series of questionable forced recusals by the city attorney.
Mayor Pro-Tem La Monte appeared to accept the Musco lighting representative’s assertion that it would be impossible to lease temporary lights. Wouldn’t someone genuinely interested in that alternative want to explore whether leasing, or heaven forbid buying, temporary lights might be a viable alternative without reliance on the firm that is selling the permanent lights? Likewise, does it make any sense that Council Member Silbert seemed more interested in opining about the lights at the University of Arizona stadium in Tucson rather than insisting on an independent light study for this project? Former council member Jefferson Wagner suggested that the use of hydraulic lights should be explored as an alternative.
Regardless of whether one is “pro” or “con” on the issue of the 70’ lights, the process used to decide this important issue is at odds with the rationale for why Malibu became a city in the first instance. Forced recusals of convenience, minimum and inadequate notification of those affected, and the reliance on data provided by vested interests all set bad precedents for how Malibu has implemented the powers it gained through cityhood.
Mayor Rosenthal is on record (indeed a video of her statement was submitted to the council) that temporary 53’ poles with 16 nights was a good compromise. The community had every right to expect that this option would be seriously vetted. Call me a skeptic, but something stinks in Malibu and this time, it’s not the septics.
Cynthia Kesselman