The possibility of nude sunbathers’ photos being taken during aerial photography for the city worries some councilmembers.

By Ken Gale/Special to the Malibu Times

Nude sunbathers of Malibu beware. Your contours could become part of the landscape in living color aerial photos.

At least that was the concern of some city councilmembers about a proposal that the city hire a company to take digital aerial color photos of Malibu’s topographical contours. The photos would use new digital technology to provide much clearer pictures of the city’s geography.

Maybe too clear.

“I was told they are getting down to two to three pixels, which is nearly getting down to a gnat’s rear end,” said Councilman Ken Kearsley.

“Can we get 30 days notice so we can tell people in advance that they might not want to engage in nude sunbathing” on the day the photos are taken, asked Councilman Jeff Jennings.

But there was a more serious objection to the aerial photo proposal by Vexcel Corp. at the council meeting Monday night. The proposal would allow Vexcel to maintain ownership of the photos and resell them to other interested parties.

Councilmember Sharon Barovsky objected to “the idea that we’re paying over a $100,000 and they end up owning all the raw data and we end up getting nothing but the pictures.”

Jennings worried about how the city could restrict the sale of Malibu pictures to the public: “Who is allowed to get that information? It seems to me it’s proprietary, or is it public information?”

The cost of the photos would be $139,000 over four years. By providing more precise pictures of roads and terrain, they would be a “valuable tool” for the city’s emergency operations as well as for planning and zoning studies and for implementing public works projects, according to the city engineer’s report.

The proposal was referred back to the city engineer for more clarification.

Prices remain firm in most neighborhoods, despite a dramatic reduction in the number of sales.

By Rick Wallace/Special to The Malibu Times

The economy is officially in recession according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. However, you wouldn’t know that by one indication of trends in the local real estate market.

Observe the sales list during one recent seven-day period:

A home listed at $859,000 sold for $845,000. A beach house asking $1,495,000 sold for $1.5 million. A house in the hills, listed at $659,000, sold for $615,000. On Point Dume, a new listing at just under $1.7 million, sold for $1.65 million. A $595,000 listing got $580,000. A foreclosure priced at $359,000 traded for well over $400,000.

When they sell, they sell close. That is, most Malibu homes sales remain within one key trend of the hot 1997-2000 marketplace, getting close to asking price.

As a result, virtually every neighborhood in Malibu has held firm on its value. A survey of all the sales of single-family residences in Malibu through Nov. 15 shows that average sale prices are higher than last year, or at least as strong.

This is despite a dramatic reduction in the number of sales. Only 200 homes have sold in Malibu this year as the calendar winds down. The year will end with a 35 percent drop-off in the number of homes sold and dollar volume, approximately.

There are two primary reasons why values are holding despite a shift in the supply and demand dynamics, and the uncertain economic and terrorist climate.

Low interest rates are more than alluring. They make homes more affordable. The lowest rates since the 1960s allows buyers to spend more-and negotiate more liberally, apparently, than might be the case otherwise.

One point of interest rate affects payments on a home loan about 10 percent. Home values now are about the same as last year, but mortgage costs are at least 10 percent less.

Secondly, choices remain slim for buyers. A low inventory, particularly under $1 million where the action is, keeps purchasers hungry at the plate, willing to get the deal they can when they can.

In effect, the current market in Malibu is in a price stale-mate-many fewer buyers; few sellers to begin with.

By one measure, Malibu features 50 neighborhoods of distinctive personality.

Though the pool of sales is a handful for most, the average price in 34 of them is higher than in the year 2000.

Neighborhoods with at least five sales this year and last, that show mean average increases this year, are: Big Rock, Sea View Estates, Rambla Pacifico area, Corral Canyon, Ramirez Canyon/Mesa, Cavalleri, Point Dume, Zuma Bluffs/Bonsall and Malibu Park.

Prime market indicators have been consistent throughout the year. Sales started slow and stayed that way. Particularly on the beach, the number of sales has been half of last year. Thus, sales of more than $2 million have decreased drastically this year.

The median average price of a home (the point where half of listed homes sell for more and half for less) has drifted downward to about $1,100,000.

That is more than 10 percent less than 2000 and about the same as 1999.

Technically, Malibu homes have lost value. In reality, that is not the case.

The key fact is that lower-priced homes have sold while higher-priced ones have not. Because lower-priced homes have sold more, the averages appear lower.

Homes that are reselling are getting as good or better prices than before.

Rick Wallace of the Coldwell Banker Company has been a Realtor in Malibu for 14 years. He can be reached at RICKMALIBUrealestate.com.

Better feelings exist between council and Coastal Commission on LCP; Las Flores Park plan edges forward.

By Ken Gale /Special to The Malibu Times

The City Council Monday rejected a request to change an environmental mitigation plan at the site of a hotel to be built on land known as the Adamson property on Malibu Canyon Road north of Pacific Coast Highway.

In 1998, the city accepted the offer of 30 acres north of the site to mitigate the loss of 8 acres of coastal sage scrub to construction of the hotel, to be known as Rancho Malibu.

In July, the Adamson Companies sold the property to Meadowlands Ranch LLC, headed by Brian Sweeney.

Meadowlands wants to reclaim a portion of the 30-acre mitigation land because the lower slope density there would be more suitable for construction of a hotel than the site proposed for it. In exchange, Meadowlands offered twice as much land-a total of 60 acres-for mitigation of the environment.

But councilmembers argued the new land being offered, much of which is across the city line in Los Angeles County, has such a steep slope density that it would not be suitable for development. Thus, they said, the city would be giving up already mitigated land for development in exchange for land that could never developed.

Meanwhile, better feelings between the City of Malibu and the California Coastal Commission seemed to be holding up, a week and a half after a watershed hearing by the commission.

At that Nov. 18 hearing, Coastal Commissioners promised more direct communication with the city on the drafting of a new local coastal plan (LCP) for Malibu. Until the hearing, city leaders had accused the Coastal Commission of creating an LCP that dictated city land-use decisions without city input.

But Monday, Councilmember Ken Kearsley said, “I thought the LCP meeting downtown was a success. It looks like we’re getting to the point where we can at least have a discussion on some of the issues with the Coastal Commission.”

Councilmember Jeff Jennings echoed that sentiment, with only slight reservation. “We have some positive indication that at least our voice is going to be heard … we’ll see. It’s looking reasonably favorable.”

Jennings also said the city had been getting help from higher political levels, starting with meetings that he and Mayor Joan House had with state Sen. Sheila Kuehl and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley prior to the commission hearing.

He said another meeting was being planned at Kuehl’s office in Los Angeles in the near future. That meeting could include city staff and “whoever Coastal wants to send.”

“Jeff and I have continued to have lots of meetings on the LCP and will continue to do so right on through until we have an LCP that we can live with,” said House.

But there have not been any meetings between the city and Coastal Commission Chair Sara Wan and Commissioner Cynthia McClain-Hill, who formed a subcommittee of two for the purpose of direct discussions with Malibu officials.

In other action, the council voted to proceed with the first phase of a three-part plan to build Las Flores Creek Park.

The ambitious $2.1 million plan would remove an abandoned house on proposed park property, build fences and trails, and remove exotic plants not native to the area.

The plan calls for a complete cleaning out and restoration of Las Flores Creek. The park would also include a playground, a pedestrian bridge, a parking area, rest rooms and more.

Money for the project is to be raised through state and federal grants as well as local fundraising. However, only about $187,000 has been raised so far, enough to complete phase one and perhaps begin a second phase.

On another matter involving developer Brian Sweeney, the council delayed action until Jan. 28 on a proposal to construct a 1,660-foot long private road north of Sweetwater Mesa Road in Serra Retreat. The road would serve as an access to five single-family lots on adjacent property in Los Angeles County.

Court rebukes council and mayor for conduct.

By Arnold G. York/Special to The Malibu Times

The City of Malibu and Mayor Joan House were dealt a stinging rebuke by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs in a case brought against the city by the Sierra Club over construction of two beachside homes on Latigo Beach.

The case involves charges that the two homes built on Latigo Beach exceeded allowed heights. The Sierra Club, represented by attorney Frank Angel, initially wanted the almost-completed house either lowered or torn down.

In February 2000, the developer applied for and received a variance from the Malibu Planning Commission in a 3 to 2 vote. The Sierra Club appealed to the City Council and asked it to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.

On the night the case arrived before the council for hearing, only three members were present. Councilmember Harry Barovsky had died and a replacement had not yet been appointed. Councilmember Tom Hasse was stuck out of town in a storm.

Councilmember Ken Kearsley recused himself from the decision because he had been a member of the Planning Commission when the original decision was made granting the variance. Although Kearsley didn’t participate in the decision that night, he was still counted as part of the mandatory three persons needed for a quorum.

The court disagreed and said that when Kearsley recused himself, the council lost their quorum and therefore could not legally act on the matter. Therefore, the Sierra Club never received a fair hearing.

On several grounds, Janavs ordered the council to set aside its decision and grant the Sierra Club a new hearing on its appeal.

But she went on, and in a stinging 10-page decision accused House of being “not a credible witness” and further said; “Ms. House’s deliberate failure to disclose a substantial ex parte [outside of the hearing] contact with Mr. Barsocchini [the architect of both contested homes] is evidence of bias in the context of Mr. Barsocchini’s rather extensive political support for her … As a result, Petitioner did not have a fair hearing.”

The single-family residences have long since been completed and are now up for sale. The City Council will now have to rehear the appeal of the Planning Commission decision but without either Kearsley or House, who was disqualified by the judge from participating.

If the council reverses the decision, part of the building would probably have to be torn down to meet code requirements. If it approves the variance decisions, attorney Curtis Horton, the attorney who would handle the case for the Sierra Club, said the club probably would recommend another lawsuit be filed to contest it.

Another part of the case-whether there should be any attorney’s fees awarded against the city or damages awarded under the Coastal Act against the owners of the building-will go back to court soon for a determination. Damages could run as high as $1,000 to $10,000 per day per violation Horton said.

It’s not your local sandlot anymore As parents and their children become increasingly involved with organized sports, focusing on the need to excel, which can result in college scholarships, increases stress, sometimes leading to outbursts that can be deadly.

By Nikki Pedersen/Special to The Malibu Times

It isn’t hard to miss them-they scream the loudest, verbally humiliate players, and threaten coaches-and that’s just their own team. They dish out their meanest brand of disdain, sarcasm and belligerence to the opposing team, whose members aren’t old enough to understand this type of adult angst.

Jeff Gardella, Malibu High School’s athletic director, is no stranger to sideline rage.

“I’ve coached 26 years, and I’ve seen it in all its aspects,” said Gardella.

“I think what adds to the situation is the money that pros make,” Gardella explained. “Each parent sees his or her kid as an all-star, sees the scholarship potential. Winning is everything.”

Another cause, said Gardella, is that some adults try to live through their kids. The worst are parents of 13-year-olds.

Malibu AYSO soccer coach Ruben Azar said, “Parents often bring issues of tension and dominance to the field.”

Sideline rage seems to be escalating.

Locally, at a water polo game in Malibu, recounts Gardella, “The parent of an opposing player who got hurt went crazy, pushing the coach out of the way and cursing him. I told the parent straight out, ‘You’re leaving now or I’ll call the cops.’ “

That incident is mild compared to what happened in Reading, Massachusetts. Two fathers got into a fight during a hockey practice as boys 10, 11 and 12 stood by, watching one of them kill the other. At a 10-and-under boys’ sectional event, a father, angered by a line call during his son’s match, pulled out a gun and pointed it at an umpire. In San Juan Capistrano, parents were arrested for fighting at a soccer match between 14-year-olds.

One theory about the rage is that media coverage is ratcheting up the stakes, while expanding the opportunities for youth sports to be big business.

The pickup game and local sandlot are no more, according to Dr. Darrell J. Burnett, a Southern California sports psychologist, in his book, “It’s Just a Game.”

“Now there’s a good chance the field is organized and scheduled or reserved for other teams,” writes Gardella.

The more competitive the sport, the more rage, according to Gardella.

Reports from the National Alliance for Youth Sports (NAYS) show that about 15 percent of youth games involve some sort of verbal or physical abuse from parents or coaches, compared with five percent just five years ago. These are big numbers when you consider that some 30 million youth ages 4 to 14 are involved in organized sports, according to NAYS. Not only is anger becoming the common denominator of our daily lives, but also there isn’t even a uniform code of conduct and ethics that applies to youth sports.

To deal with outbursts, many organized teams are beginning to require that their players sign oaths or contracts to uphold standards of behavior and good sportsmanship. The city of Santa Clarita has already mandated that parents sign a binding code of conduct before their children are allowed to play on a sport team. The American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) issues a Player’s Rights, “No Fighting Contract.” It ends with a section of large, bold type stating, “Any player, coach or parent refusing to sign this document will not be able to participate in play.”

Gardella said, other than having a “Code of Conduct” that only coaches are required to sign, there’s no such thing as a “No-Fighting Contract” in inter-scholastic sports.

Yet the issue is so pervasive that former Los Angeles mayoral candidate Steven Soboroff thought to make parental oaths a part of his campaign platform.

Another tactic to combat negative parental behaviors is “Silent Saturday,” where parents are not allowed to yell anything during the game.

“I had a ref send one parent out of the park for shouting destructive comments,” said Gardella, “after two warnings.”

Overall, Azar gives Malibu parents a good score on managing rage: “There’s political correctness here; parents know each other, so they don’t speak up over problems.”

Azar also observes a difference in attitude between “old” and “new” Malibu parents: “Old Malibu is very easy going; new Malibu tends to be pushy.”

Regardless of parents’ attitudes, the bottom line for Azar is that his kids stay focused on skill development, which allows him to move them around so they play a variety of positions. “If the attention is on winning, I’m going to be focused on where to put the kids to win the game, not on looking for the depth inside each child.”

The lack of comments at Monday night’s meeting of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy indicated the organization was as wary of the Local Coastal Plan as the City of Malibu is.

Discussion was brief. Noting that the densification of housing along the hillside is “denser than the 1986 County Plan,” Executive Director Joe Edmiston acknowledged, “There are issues here that we need to resolve, even among members of the board. We need to establish a policy that all of us can support.”

The Local Coastal, or Land Use Plan, was prepared by the California Coastal Commission after the city’s incorporation. Although the Coastal Commission’s role has been to preserve coastal resources and public access to the shore, residents have stated that the Coastal Commission document would increase development and have criticized the lack of participation permitted city officials. Speakers again questioned the role of preservation in the plan.

“It actually increases concentrations-that’s my concern-the deterioration in the level of protection,” said member David Brown.

The matter was tabled and will be addressed at the SMMC’s December meeting.

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy put the nix on a proposed private road running off Sweetwater Mesa Road-at least temporarily.

The SMMC voted unanimously to recommend that the City of Malibu not accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Report and require the larger document. A MND states that a project will have no notable impacts and therefore, a more comprehensive (and more expensive) Environmental Impact Report is unnecessary.

The 20-foot wide, 1,600-foot-long road would enable the development of five future single-family homes on lots of 5 acres each, but would pass through part of a 24-acre area, which have been proposed as open space “pursuant to the California Coastal Commission for development on property owned by Sheldon Gordon.” The recipient may be the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority.

Although they found the MND skimpy in a number of areas, the biggest problem lies in what the staff report calls “the piecemeal presentation” without a thorough description of the development itself. Although the northern extension of the road and the five homesites are situated within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, the MND only analyzes the environmental impacts of the road where it passes through the City of Malibu.

The report also stated that “it is unsound public policy to consider approval of a road without knowledge of the project elements associated with the houses that the road would service, and without consideration of those impacts.”

“At the very least, the project description should include the locations of the proposed road through the City of Malibu and the County of Los Angeles, five homes, grading, fuel modification, utilities, and other project elements that would result in environmental impacts,” in addition to plant communities, wildlife movement and watershed.

Member David Brown questioned whether the 20-foot road is not a foot in the door for a wider road-and questioned the road’s ability to handle emergency vehicles.

“All of this taps into a private road and comes down to Serra Road, which is also a private road,” he said, “and none of which are capable of being a fire road. I wonder if we’re looking at a 20-foot road, or if somebody is going to blow the whistle somewhere down the road and say we need a much wider road.”

In addition, he said, the Coastal Slope Trail runs through the development site. “It looks like Mr. Sweeney is trying to get us to buy his property,” Brown said.

Both staff and conservancy members questioned the potential for this road to open up the area to further development. The report states that although the “project is probably growth-inducing in this regard,” no analysis had been provided of these “probable growth-inducing impacts.” There is no indication that development would be limited to five homes and that no additional roads would be built on the property.

“While we support the idea of limiting the development, it is unclear how this would in fact be enforced,” the report states, or, if limits were imposed, how these could be enforced in the future. Member David Allgood said it was “absolutely essential” to ask for the more comprehensive Environmental Impact Report, as did the rest of the members, who voted unanimously to disapprove the MND.