Recently, eight yellow balloons suddenly appeared on the Malibu Bowl horizon. What were these new mysterious balloons? On June 19 the answer became evident by way of a supplemental report by the Planning Department which, it must be said, gave a more methodical assessment of the temporary pole alternative in which the Planning Department concluded… wait for it… that 70-foot permanent poles were the best alternative.
In arriving at this conclusion, it would appear that mission at hand was to make the worse possible case for temporary lighting and the best possible case for permanent poles. Thus 70-foot feet poles (vs. 80 feet poles—see, that’s compromise!) vs. eight temporary poles (instead of the five poles previously used) that would result in “greater” light spill and that eight poles “may” appear “much” brighter. The Planning Department also concluded that there would be no visual impact with respect to these poles from either the beach or the Trancas trails, presumably the only views that concern the Coastal Commission. The problem is that the Coastal Commission is not answerable to the citizens of Malibu, all the citizens of Malibu, and the City Council is or at least should be. The fact is that both residents of Malibu Park, users of the equestrian center and adjacent trails, including dog walkers will be negatively impacted by the erection of 70-foot permanent steel poles in the middle of a semi rural area.
In thinking about this issue, we should all keep in mind the Malibu mission statement that provides that we, as a city, are committed “to protect that environment and lifestyle, and to preserve unaltered natural resources and rural characteristics [and]… responsible custodian of the area’s natural resources for present and future generations…”
While it remains possible that temporary poles are not the best answer, it is as true that that alternative has not been sufficiently vetted and that the multi-generational scarring of the skyline deserves more than acceptance of a last minute supplemental report based upon the data and conclusions apparently coming from the very same company that stands to make a large profit should the 70-foot light poles go forward. Questions remain, such as why the sudden eight vs. five temporary poles and how much additional glare, etc. The City Council should slow down, approve temporary poles for this season, and bring in an independent lighting consultant to explore (in conjunction with the community) the range of options available before approving permanent (and the effectively unalterable) installation of 70 steel poles.
Cynthia Kesselman