Malibu City Council
September 9, 2024

__________________
between the city and the property owner that addresses a resolution to the violation; and

8. That the proposed use shall be in compliance with all City ordinances, as applicable.

H. That MMC Section 17.68.070 (Conditions of approval) be amended to read as follows:

In approving an application for a minor or major temporary use permit, the director or planning commission may impose such conditions as are deemed necessary to ensure that the permit will be in accord with the findings required by Section 17.68.060. These conditions may involve any pertinent factors affecting the operation of the temporary use, and may include but are not limited to the following:

A. Provision of adequate temporary off-street parking facilities, including vehicular access and egress as defined by the planning director or planning commission; B. Regulation of nuisance factors such as, but not limited to, the prevention of glare or direct illumination of adjacent properties, noise, vibrations, smoke, dust, dirt, odors, gasses and heat;
C. Regulation of temporary buildings, structures and facilities, including placement, height and size, location of equipment and open spaces, including buffer areas and other yards;
D. Provision of sanitary and medical facilities;
E. Provision of solid waste collection and disposal;
F. Provision of security and safety measures;
G. Regulation of signs;
H. Regulation of operating hours and days, including limitation of the duration of the temporary use to a shorter time period than that requested, and limiting the hours for event set-up, break-down, and clean-up;
I. Submission of a performance bond or other surety devices to ensure that any temporary facilities or structures used for such proposed temporary use will be removed from the site within a reasonable time following the event and that the property will be restored to its former condition;
J. Submission of a site plan indicating any information required by this chapter; 28 Ordinance No. 522

__________________
K. Requirement that the approval of the temporary use permit is contingent upon compliance with applicable provisions of other ordinances; L. Such other conditions which will ensure the operation of the proposed temporary use in an orderly and efficient manner and in accord with the intent and purpose of this chapter;
M. Applicants for temporary use permits shall:

1. Provide containers for recycling cans, glass, plastic and paper generated,

2. Provide information and guidance to assure recycling of materials listed above,

3. Comply with the city’s solid waste recycling ordinance, and

4. Submit a plan indicating efforts to reduce, reuse or recycle waste generated; N. The event shall not cause any noises, sounds or vibrations which are physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity or which are so harsh or so prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to occasion unnecessary discomfort to any persons within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the place from which such noises emanate or which interfere with the peace and comfort of residents, occupants or guests of the surrounding neighborhood, or the operators or customers in places of business in the vicinity;
O. The applicant shall demonstrate that the holding capacity of surrounding streets and intersections is sufficient to sustain the use without conflicting with established goals and policies of the general plan circulation and infrastructure element; P. Submission of additional services bond for the purpose of protecting, assisting and regulating the proposed event. The cost of providing such additional services shall be paid in advance to the city by the applicant;
Q. The temporary use shall conform to city planning department, building and safety department, public works department, Los Angeles County fire prevention bureau, Los Angeles County sheriff’s department, Los Angeles County mountain and rural sanitation department programs, regulations and requirements;
R. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the city and its officers, agents, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the city or its officers, agents, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul approval of this permit; S. The applicant shall furnish insurance in the amount to be determined by the planning director, but in no event less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) to protect the city against claims of third persons for personal injury, wrongful death and property damage; 29 Ordinance No. 522

__________________
T. The applicant shall have a copy of the approved temporary use permit available on-site during the entire duration of the use.

I. That MMC Section 17.68.080 (Appeals and revocation) be amended to read as follows:

A. Decisions by the planning director or the planning commission may be appealed according to Section 17.04.220, except that:

1. For decisions made by the planning director, an appeal shall be filed with the city clerk within three (3) business days following the date of action for which an appeal is made and shall include written, specific grounds for the appeal. If the appellant does not submit grounds for the appeal within three (3) business days, the city clerk shall return the filing fee and the appeal shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

B. A temporary use permit may be revoked if the planning director or planning commission find that one or more of the following conditions exists:

1. Circumstances have been changed by the applicant to such a degree that one or more of the findings of fact contained in Section 17.68.060 can no longer be made in a positive manner.

2. The temporary use permit was obtained in a fraudulent manner.

One or more conditions of the temporary use permit have not been fulfilled.

SECTION 5. Severability.

If any section, subsection, provision, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be illegal or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall be severable, and shall not affect or impair any remaining section, subsection, provision, sentence, clause, phrase or word included within this Ordinance, it being the intent of the City that the remainder of this Ordinance shall be and shall remain in full force and effect, valid, and enforceable.
30 Ordinance No. 522

__________________
SECTION 6. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and enter it into the book of original ordinances.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _______, 2024. ____________________________
DOUG STEWART, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
Date: _______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the Malibu Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure.
31 




!

















'
&
*).

2%-.%)#

$
+.!,



.!2.

,,%!
"*,1
,
%).*
*, %)
)!

!
*).
%)#'!
-.,%&!.$,*/#$

)
/) !,'%)!
%) %
.!
,!0%-%*)-
(
!
.*
.$!
*, %)
)!

/,%)#
.$!

*)%)#
, %)
)!
!0%-%*)-

)
* !
)"*,!(!).
/
*((%..!!



+,*!--
*)
+,%'



.*
!,



)
*0!(
!,



'/!
*).
*/
'!
-.,%&!.$,*/#$

)
/) !,'%)!
%) %
.!
,!0%-%*)-
(
!
.*
.$!
*, %)
)!

/,%)#
.$!
'
))%)#
*((%--%*)4-

,!0%!1
*)

,$



)

3

 

,!!)
*).
!0%-%*)-
(
!

3
.$!
'
))%)#
!+
,.(!).
%.3

)
#!,

)
.$!
%.3

..*,)!34-
*""%!
.*
.$!
*, %)
)!
"*''*1%)#
.$!

(!!.%)#-

,!
,!"'!.!
%)
-%)#'!

-.,%&!*/.
1%.$
$
.$!
/) !,'%)!
"*,
!'!.%*)-

)
$
.$!
/) !,'%)!
"*,

%.%*)-




#

!










@19<;>->E
A?1
;>
G@19<;>->E 1B1:@H
?4-88
91-:
-:E
-/@5B5@E
;>
8-:0
A?1
;2
-
@19<;>->E
:-@A>1
;:
:;:>1?501:@5-8F;:10
<>;<1>@E @4-@
1D@1:0?
.1E;:0
C4-@
5?
1D<>1??8E
-88;C10
.E
@41
-<<85/-.81
.-?1
F;:1
5:
@1>9?
;2
A?1
-:0
01B18;<91:@
?@-:0->0?
)41
<A><;?1
;2
@45?
4-<@1>
5?
@;
[email protected]?4
-
<>;/1??
@;
-//;99;0-@1
>1-?;:-.81
>1=A1?@?
2;>
-<<>;B-8
;2
@19<;>->E
A?1?
2;>
-
8595@10
<1>5;0
;2
@591
5:
8;/-@5;:?
C41>1
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
9-E
.1
01?5>-.81
-:0
-<<>;<>5-@1
0A1
@;
@41
8595@10
-:0
?4;>@@1>9
:-@A>1
;2
@41
-/@5B5@E
-:0
C41>1
@41
A?1
C;A80
:;@
;@41>C5?1
.1
-88;C10
C5@45:
@41
-<<85/-.81
:;:>1?501:@5-8
.-?1 F;:1
)41
5:@1:@
5?
@;
/;:?501>
?A/4
>1=A1?@?
;:
-:
5:05B50A-8
.-?5?
@;
1:?A>1
@4-@
@41E
C588
:;@
.1
01@>591:@-8
@;
@41
<A.85/
41-8@4
?-21@E
-:0
31:1>-8
C182->1
@;
?A>>;A:05:3
<>;<1>@51?
:1534.;>4;;0?
;>
@;
@41
/;99A:5@E
-?
-
C4;81


)41
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
5?
5:@1:010
@;
-88;C
2;>
@41
?4;>@@1>9
<8-/191:@
;2
-/@5B5@51?
9-:E
;2
C45/4
C;A80
.1
<>;45.5@10
-?
<1>9-:1:@
<8-/191:@?
5:
@19<;>->E
2-/585@51?
<A.85/
;>
<>5B-@1
.A5805:3?
;>
;<1:
?<-/1?
;>
;A@?501
;2
.A5805:3?
/@5B5@51?
5:B;8B5:3
-:E
/;991>/5-8
/;9<;:1:@
?A/4
-?
-095??5;:
211
>1:@5:3
;2
2-/585@E
/4->35:3
2;>
B-81@
<->75:3
;>
?4A@@81
?1>B5/1
-:0 ;>
<A.85/
-0B1>@5?5:3
?4-88
>1=A5>1
-
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@

)19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@?
?4-88
.1
8595@10
@;
2;A>
1B1:@?
<1>
<->/18
;2
8-:0
<1>
/-81:0->
E1->
5:
>1?501:@5-8
F;:5:3
05?@>5/@?
-:0
?5D
1B1:@?
<1>
<->/18
;2
8-:0
<1>
/-81:0->
E1->
5:
-88
F;:5:3
05?@>5/@?
1D/1<@
>1?501:@5-8
88
-/@5B5@51?
?4-88
.1
>13A8-@10
?;
-?
@;
-B;50
5:/;9<[email protected]@E
.1@C11:
?A/4
A?1?
-:0
?A>>;A:05:3
->1-?





"



<<85/-@5;:
2;>
-
95:;>
-:0
9-6;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
?4-88
.1
25810
-//;>05:3
@;
(1/@5;:?




@4>;A34









"

!#""
# 
"!




<<85/-@5;:
2;>
-
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
?4-88
.1
25810
-//;>05:3
@;
(1/@5;:?



@4>;A34





-:0
5:/8A01
@41
2;88;C5:3







*:52;>9
-<<85/-@5;:
?53:10
.E
.;@4
-<<85/-:@
-:0
8-:0;C:1>
5:/8A05:3
;>3-:5F-@5;:?
-:0
<>5:/5<-8?
C5@45:
@41
;>3-:5F-@5;:
-<<8E5:3
2;>
@41
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@






585:3
211




ATTACHMENT 2
32 



!

















































(5@1
<8-:
@4>11
/;<51?
5:/8A05:3
@41
0591:?5;:?
;2
@41
8;@
8;/-@5;:
;2
-88
@19<;>->E
?@>A/@A>1?
-//1??
;:@;
@41
?5@1
-:0
<->75:3
->1-?







C>5@@1:
01?/>5<@5;:
01@-585:3
@41
@E<1
-:0
:-@A>1
;2
@41
@19<;>->E
A?1
>1=A1?@10
-:0
@41
0-@1?
-:0
4;A>?
;2
;<1>-@5;:
;2
@41
@19<;>->E
A?1
5:/8A05:3
52
-:E
-8/;4;8
;>
2;;0
?1>B5/1
85B1
9A?5/
;>
-9<852510
?;A:0
<8-::10
2;>
@41
1B1:@
:
-005@5;:
<>;B501
5:2;>9-@5;:
;:

4;C
:;5?1
3->.-31
?-:5@-@5;:
0A?@
@>-225/
<->75:3
1@/
->1
3;5:3
@;
.1
95@53-@10






31:/E
-<<>;B-8
?411@
?53:10
.E
-88
-31:/51?
-?
01@1>95:10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>







%>;;2
;2
85-.585@E
5:?A>-:/1
2;>
@41
?A.61/@
<>;<1>@E







:019:525/-@5;: 4;80
4->981??
-3>1191:@







%A.85/
:;@5/1
<>;<1>@E
;C:1>
-:0
;//A<-:@
9-585:3
8-.18?
<>;B501
@4>11
?1@?
;2
8-.18?
2;>
<>;<1>@51?
C5@45:
-
25B1
4A:0>10



2;;@
>-05A?
;2
@41
?A.61/@
<>;<1>@E
4;C1B1>

<A.85/
:;@5/5:3
9-E
.1
C-5B10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
2;>
/1>@-5:
@E<1?
;2
95:;>
)*%?
-:0


:E
-005@5;:-8
5:2;>9-@5;:
-?
9-E
.1
>1=A5>10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
@;
418<
1B-8A-@1
@41
>1=A1?@
2;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@





 %
#!!

"
# 


 "

A1
@;
@415>
8595@10
:-@A>1
-:0
-/@5B5@E
@41
2;88;C5:3
@19<;>->E
A?1?
->1
/;:?501>10
01
95:595?
-:0
?4-88
:;@
>1=A5>1
-
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
A:81??
;@41>C5?1
01@1>95:10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>






B1:@?
8;/-@10
;:
-:E
5@E;C:10
<->/18?
-:0
<->7?
1D/8A05:3
<>;<1>@51?
81-?10
@;
-:
;A@?501
B1:0;>
2;>
9;>1
@4-:
;:1
E1->
?;
8;:3
-? .;@4
@41
:A9.1>
;2
-:@5/5<-@10
0-58E
-@@1:011?
0;1?
:;@
1D/110
;:1
4A:0>10



-:0
-:
-095??5;:
211
5?
:;@
/4->310

;9<85-:/1
C5@4
-:E
A:01>8E5:3
A?1
>1?@>5/@5;:
;:
@41
<>;<1>@E
?4-88
.1
9-5:@-5:10
88
;@41>
-<<>;B-8?
?A/4
-?
-
2-/585@E
A?1
<1>95@
-:0
>1=A5>10
5:?A>-:/1
9A?@
.1
;.@-5:10
<>5;>
@;
?A/4
A?1






%A.85/
1B1:@?
-:0 ;>
<>5B-@1
1B1:@?
;:
<A.85/
;>
<>5B-@1
<>;<1>@E
:;@
;<1:
@;
@41
31:1>-8
<A.85/ C41:
/;:0A/@10
5:
/;9<85-:/1
C5@4
-
5@E5??A10
<1>95@
?A/4
-?
-
/;:05@5;:-8
A?1
<1>95@
;>
;@41>
8-:0
A?1
-<<>;B-8?
-A@4;>5F5:3
?A/4
A?1






,;A@4;>51:@10
2A:0>-5?5:3
-:0
/;991>/5-8
-/@5B5@51?
/;:0A/@10
;:
<>5B-@1
<>;<1>@E
.E
-
>135?@1>10
:;:<>;25@
;>3-:5F-@5;:
@4-@
<>59->58E
?1>B1?
E;A@4
A:01>
@41
-31
;2
1534@11:


-:0
@41
@;@-8
:A9.1>
;2
0-E?
<1>
/-81:0->
E1->
0;1?
:;@
1D/110
?1B1:

<1>
;>3-:5F-@5;:
?A/4
-?
<>;0A/@
?-81?
;>
;@41>
A?1?
;2
?5958->
/;:0A/@ 




:@1>@-5:91:@
<1>2;>9-:/1?
/;:0A/@10
;:
<>5B-@1
<>;<1>@E
?A/4
-?
.A?75:3
;>
;@41>
A?1?
;2
?5958->
/;:0A/@
?;
8;:3
-?
@41
<1>2;>9-:/1
5?
/;:0A/@10
-:/588->E
@;
;@41>
<>59->E
A?1?
;:
@41
<->/18
-:0
-:
-095??5;:
211
5?
:;@
/4->310
-:0 




#;:/;991>/5-8
?<11/4
-/@5B5@E
<>;@1/@10
.E
@41
*:5@10
(@-@1?
;>
-852;>:5-
/;:?@5@A@5;:?
;:
<A.85/
;>
<>5B-@1
<>;<1>@E
?A/4
-?
@41
05?@>5.A@5;:
;2
<;85@5/-8
;>
>18535;A?
33 



!




































9-@1>5-8?
5:5@5-@5B1 <1@5@5;:
?53:5:3?
B;@1>
>135?@>-@5;:
0>5B1?
;>
;@41>
A?1?
;2
<>;@1/@10
/;:0A/@






88
@19<;>->E
A?1?
?4-88
.1
/;:0A/@10
5:
/;9<85-:/1
C5@4
@41
>181B-:@
?1/@5;:?
;2
)5@81


1-8@4
-:0
(-21@E
-:0
)5@81

%A.85/
%1-/1
-:0
+182->1
;2
@45?
;01 

 

 %
#!!
# 


 "



@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
?4-88
:;@
.1
>1=A5>10
C41:
1B1:@?
->1
8;/-@10
;:
@41
2;88;C5:3
5@E;C:10
<->/18?
?;
8;:3
-?
@41
:A9.1>
;2
-:@5/5<-@10
0-58E
-@@1:011?
0;1?
:;@
1D/110
;:1
4A:0>10



-:0
-:
-095??5;:
211
5?
:;@
/4->310
!13-/E
%->7
"-85.A
8A22?
%->7
)>-:/-?
-:E;:
%->7
-:0
"-85.A
5@E

-88




"5:;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@?
->1
8595@10
@;
?5D

1B1:@?
<1>
<->/18
;>
/;:@53A;A?
<->/18?
C41:
A:01>
/;99;:
;C:1>?45<
?4->5:3
-
>18-@10
A?1
;2
8-:0
<1>
/-81:0->
E1->
5:
-88
F;:5:3
05?@>5/@?
1D/1<@
>1?501:@5-8
F;:1?
C45/4
->1
?A.61/@
@;
?<1/5-8
1B1:@
<1>95@
>13A8-@5;:?
<1>
4-<@1>


"5:;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@?
->1
8595@10
@;
:;
9;>1
@4-:
2;A>@11:
 

/;:?1/A@5B1
0-E?
<1>
1B1:@
-:0
?4-88
:;@
1D/110
9;>1
@4-:
?5D@E
 
/A9A8-@5B1
0-E?
;2

1B1:@?
<1>
<->/18
<1>
/-81:0->
E1->
B1:@?
9-E
;//A>
;:
/;:?1/A@5B1
;>
:;:/;:?1/A@5B1
0-E?
C5@45:
@41
2;A>@11:


0-E
8595@-@5;:
5@E;C:10
<->/18?
-:0
<->7?
1D/8A05:3
<>;<1>@51?
81-?10
@;
-:
;A@?501
B1:0;>
2;>
9;>1
@4-:
;:1
E1->
?4-88
:;@
.1
?A.61/@
@;
@41
?5D

1B1:@
-:0
?5D@E


/A9A8-@5B1
0-E
8595@-@5;:?
-?
:;@10
41>15:


95:;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
9-E
.1
5??A10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
2;>
@41
2;88;C5:3
A?1?



'1-8
1?@-@1
?-81?
;225/1?
C5@45:
-<<>;B10
01B18;<91:@
<>;61/@?


";018
4;91?
-:0
@19<;>->E
@>-/@
?-81?
;225/1?
2;>
-
<>;61/@
;<1:10
@;
@41
<A.85/
2;>
@41
25>?@
@591




!;@?
A?10
2;>
?1-?;:-8
-/@5B5@51?
?A/4
-?
4>5?@9-?
@>11
-:0
<A9<75:
?-81?

8;@?
4;C1B1>
-
<1>95@
?4-88
:;@
.1
>1=A5>10
C41:
?A/4
?-81?
->1
5:
/;:6A:/@5;:
C5@4
-:
[email protected]?410
/;991>/5-8
.A?5:1??
4;805:3
-
B-850
/5@E
.A?5:1??
85/1:?1
<>;B5010 4;C1B1>
?A/4
-/@5B5@E
9-E
1D@1:0
.1E;:0
@41
2;A>@11:


0-E
9-D59A9
<1>
(1/@5;:




.A@
?4-88

?4-88
.1
<1>95@@10
2;>
-
<1>5;0
:;@
@;
1D/110
.1
8595@10
@;
@45>@E
 @45>@E
/;:?1/A@5B1
/-81:0->

0-E?







5>/A?1?
-:0
/->:5B-8?








(<1/5-8
1B1:@?
>18-@10
@;
-:
1D5?@5:3
.A?5:1??
C5@4
@19<;>->E
;A@0;;>
05?<8-E ?-81?
;2
91>/4-:05?1
5:
-:E
/;991>/5-8
F;:1
<>;B5010
@41>1
?4-88
.1
:;
9;>1
@4-:
2;A>
05?<8-E? ?-81?
5:
-:E
/-81:0->
E1->
-:0
:;@
9;>1
@4-:
@C;
/;:?1/A@5B1
0-E?
-:0
@4-@
<>;B5010
@4-@
@41
05?<8-E10
91>/4-:05?1
5?
/A?@;9->58E
?;80
;:
@41
<>195?1?
-:0
@4-@
?A/4
<>195?1?
->1
A@585F10
2;>
-
<1>9-:1:@8E
[email protected]?410
.A?5:1??









:0;;>
-:0
;A@0;;>
1:@1>@-5:91:@
-:0
-??19.8E
1B1:@?
5:/8A05:3
.A@
:;@
8595@10
@;
C1005:3?
2A:0>-5?1>?
>1@>1-@?
2-5>?
21?@5B-8?
-:0
/;:/1>@?
C41:
:;@
4180
C5@45:
<>195?1?
01?53:10
@;
-//;99;0-@1
?A/4
1B1:@?
?A/4
-?
-A05@;>5A9?
?@-05A9?
;>
;@41>
<A.85/
-??19.8E
2-/585@51?
;>
<>5B-@1
/8A.4;A?1
2-/585@51?
:;@
-??;/5-@10
C5@4
<A.85/
/A8@A>-8
;>
>1/>1-@5;:-8
2-/585@51?
34 



!











































>@
/A8@A>-8
-:0
10A/-@5;:-8
1D45.5@?
-:0
05?<8-E?
4;C1B1>
:;@C5@4?@-:05:3
;@41>
<1>95@?
;>
-<<>;B-8?
@4-@
9-E
.1
>1=A5>10
-
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
?4-88
:;@
.1
>1=A5>10
C41:
@41
1B1:@?
->1
8;/-@10
-@
5@E;C:10
<->7?
;>
5@E
-88
?;
8;:3
-?
@41
:A9.1>
;2

-:@5/5<-@10
0-58E
-@@1:011?
0;1?
:;@
1D/110
;:1
4A:0>10



-:0
-:
-095??5;:
211
5?
:;@

/4->310







(C-<
911@?
2;>
:;
9;>1
@4-:
@C;
/;:?1/A@5B1
0-E?









$22?5@1
/;:@>-/@;>?I
/;:?@>A/@5;:
E->0?








$A@0;;>
?<;>@5:3
1B1:@?



)19<;>->E
>18;/-@5;:
;2
-
<1>95@@10
2->91>I?
9->71@
@;
-
<A.85/8E;C:10
<->7
8;/-@10
C5@45:



211@
;2
@41
<1>95@@10
8;/-@5;:
?;
8;:3
-?
?A/4
A?1
0;1?
:;@
1D/110
;:1
0-E
<1>
C117
)41
0-@1?
2;>
@45?
A?1
?4-88
:;@
/;A:@
-3-5:?@
@41
9-D59A9
?5D@E
 
/-81:0->
0-E?

C5@45:
;:1


/-81:0->
E1->
2;>
C45/4
-
?5@1
/-:
.1
A?10
2;>
@19<;>->E
A?1?
:;>
@;C->0
@41
?5D

1B1:@?
<1>
<->/18
8595@
:E
-<<>;B-8?
2;>
@45?
A?1
?4-88
.1
3;;0
2;>
?5D

9;:@4?
88
;@41>
-<<>;B-8?
?A/4
-?
-
2-/585@E
A?1
<1>95@

:
-005@5;:
@;
-
)*%
-
-/585@51?
*?1
%1>95@

9A?@
.1
;.@-5:10
<>5;>
@;
?A/4
A?1
-:0


 



(5958->$@41>
@19<;>->E
A?1?
C45/4
5:
@41
;<5:5;:
;2
@41
05>1/@;>
->1
/;9<[email protected]
C5@4
@41
F;:1
-:0
?A>>;A:05:3
8-:0
A?1?


!




$22?5@1
?A>2-/1
<->75:3
;:
-
B-/-:@
/;991>/5-88E
F;:10
8;@
2;>
@41
2->91>?
9->71@
C5@45:



211@
;2
@41
2->91>?
9->71@
@;
>1<8-/1
>1=A5>10
<->75:3
05?<8-/10
.E
/;:?@>A/@5;:
)41
0-@1?
2;>
@45?
A?1
?4-88
:;@
/;A:@
-3-5:?@
@41
9-D59A9
?5D@E
 
/-81:0->

0-E?
C5@45:
;:1
/-81:0->
E1->
2;>
C45/4
-
?5@1
/-:
.1
A?10
2;>
@19<;>->E
A?1?
)45?
<>;B5?5;:
?4-88
1D<5>1
@41
1->851>
;2
@41
5??A-:/1
;2
-
/1>@525/-@1
;2
;//A<-:/E
2;>
(-:@-
";:5/-
;88131
;>
;:
-:A->E








9-6;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
9-E
.1
5??A10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
/;995??5;:
2;>
@41
2;88;C5:3
A?1?









8->31
1B1:@
C41>1
.;@4
;:1
@4;A?-:0




;>
9;>1
-@@1:011?
->1
-:@5/5<-@10

2;>
@41
0A>-@5;:
;2
@41
1B1:@
-:0
-:
-095??5;:
211
5?
/4->310









:
1B1:@
@4-@
C588
1D@1:0
.1E;:0
2;A>@11:


/;:?1/A@5B1
0-E?
;>
.1E;:0

@45>@E


0-E?
2;>
-
?1-?;:-8
1B1:@
A:81??
;@41>C5?1
<1>95@@10
?A/4
-?
1B1:@?
@4-@
;<1>-@1
-?
-
?1>51?
;>
;@41>
-/@5B5@51?
@4-@
019;:?@>-@1
-
:110
2;>
3>1-@1>
0A>-@5;:




:E
-005@5;:-8
1B1:@?
;:
-
<->/18
@4-@
4-?
>1-/410
@41
9-D59A9
:A9.1>
;2
0-E?
-:0 ;>
1B1:@? <1>
E1->
-?
;@41>C5?1
>1=A5>10
5:/8A05:3 ;2
/A9A8-@5B1
1B1:@?

0-E?

-:0 ;>
@41
9-D59A9
:A9.1>
;2
95:;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@?
<1>
/-81:0->
E1->
?5D
1B1:@?
<1>
<->/18
5:
-88
F;:5:3
05?@>5/@?
1D/1<@
>1?501:@5-8
-:0
1B1:@?
8;/-@10
-@
5@E;C:10
<->/18?
-:0
<->7?
1D/8A05:3
<>;<1>@51?
81-?10
@;
-:
;A@?501
B1:0;>
2;>
9;>1
@4-:
;:1
E1-> ;>
5@E
-88

?;
8;:3
-?
@41
:A9.1>
;2
-:@5/5<-@10
0-58E
-@@1:011?
0;1?
:;@
1D/110
;:1
4A:0>10



-:0

-:
-095??5;:
211
5?
:;@
/4->310
35 



!








































'1-8
1?@-@1
?-81?
-:0
>1:@-8
;225/1?
-??;/5-@10
C5@4
-<<>;B10
01B18;<91:@
<>;61/@?



$:?5@1
-:0 ;>
;22?5@1
/;:@>-/@;>?I
/;:?@>A/@5;:
E->0?
-??;/5-@10
C5@4
-<<>;B10
01B18;<91:@
<>;61/@?



5>/A?1?
-:0
/->:5B-8?
-:0



$@41>
@19<;>->E
A?1?
C45/4
5:
@41
;<5:5;:
;2
@41
05>1/@;>
>1=A5>10
1:4-:/10
>1B51C
.E
@41
<A.85/
-:0
<8-::5:3
/;995??5;:
@;
1:?A>1
@4-@
@41
1B1:@?
C588
:;@
.1
01@>591:@-8
@;
@41
<A.85/
41-8@4
?-21@E
-:0
31:1>-8
C182->1
@;
?A>>;A:05:3
<>;<1>@51?:1534.;>4;;0?
;>
@;
@41
/;99A:5@E
-?
-
C4;81



# 

 "!



#

"


@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
-<<>;B10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
;>
<8-::5:3
/;995??5;:
?4-88
.1
>1=A5>10
2;>
-88
A?1?
85?@10
5:
@45?
/4-<@1>
-:0
?4-88
.1
5??A10
<>5;>
@;
/;991:/191:@
;2
@41
A?1



<A.85/
41->5:3
?4-88
:;@
.1
>1=A5>10
2;>
@41
5??A-:/1
;2
-
95:;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
4;C1B1>
-:
-<<85/-@5;:
?4-88
.1
25810
-:0 25B10-E
<A.85/
:;@5/1
;2
@41
<>;<;?10
1B1:@
?4-88
.1
<>;B5010
-?
2;88;C?











<<85/-@5;:
2;>
95:;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
?4-88
.1
25810
C5@4
@41
<8-::5:3
01<->@91:@
@45>@E2;>@E25B1


0-E?
<>5;>
@;
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
4;C1B1>
@41
2585:3
@5912>-91
2;>
95:;>
)*%?
9-E
.1
>10A/10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
C41>1
5@
5?
019;:?@>-@10
@4-@
?<1/5-8
/5>/A9?@-:/1?
1D5?@
-221/@5:3
@41
@19<;>->E
-/@5B5@E
@4-@
9-71?
5@
5:21-?5.81
;>
59<>-/@5/-8
@;
/;9<8E
C5@4
@41
?@>5/@
-<<85/-@5;:
;2
@41
2585:3
@5912>-91
>1=A5>191:@









:;@5/1
?4-88
.1
9-5810
<;?@-31
<>1<-50
@;
-:E
;>3-:5F-@5;:
;>
4;91;C:1>?
-??;/5-@5;:?
@4-@
>1=A1?@?
?A/4
:;@5/1
5:
C>5@5:3
-:0
@;
-88
<>;<1>@E
;C:1>?
-:0
@1:-:@?
C5@45:
-
25B1
4A:0>10



2;;@
>-05A?
;2
@41
?A.61/@
<>;<1>@E
-:0
5:
:;
1B1:@
81??
@4-:
@1:



01B18;<10
<>;<1>@51?
A:81??
;@41>C5?1
C-5B10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
2;>
/1>@-5:
@E<1?
;2
95:;>
)*%?
<A>?A-:@
@;
(1/@5;:














)41
<A.85/
:;@5/1
?4-88
?@-@1
@41
:-@A>1
;2
@41
>1=A1?@
8;/-@5;:
-:0
F;:5:3
01?53:-@5;:
;2
@41
<>;<1>@E
:-91
;2
@41
<>;61/@
<>;<;:1:@-<<85/-:@
-:0
@41
@591
-:0
<8-/1
;2
@41
<>;<;?10
@19<;>->E
A?1







%A.85/
:;@5/1?
?4-88
.1
9-5810
:;@
81??
@4-:
@45>@E@C;@C1:@E;:1



0-E?

<>5;>
@;
@41
<>;<;?10
1B1:@








)41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
?4-88
>1:01>
-
01/5?5;:
@C1:@E2;A>
2;A>@11:
 


0-E?
<>5;>
@;
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
1B1:@



<A.85/
41->5:3
?4-88
.1
>1=A5>10
2;>
-
9-6;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
-:0
:;@5/1
;2
?A/4
41->5:3
35B1:
5:
-
9-::1>
/;:?5?@1:@
C5@4
@41
>1=A5>191:@?
/;:@-5:10
5:
(1/@5;:?





@4>;A34






36 



!






































 


!


)41
05>1/@;>
9-E
-<<>;B1
-
95:;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
-<<85/-@5;:
<>;B5010
@4-@
-88
;2
@41
2;88;C5:3
25:05:3?
;2
2-/@
->1
9-01








)4-@
@41
;<1>-@5;:
;2
@41
>1=A1?@10
A?1
-@
@41
8;/-@5;:
<>;<;?10
-:0
C5@45:
@41
@591
<1>5;0
?<1/52510
5?
/;9<[email protected]
C5@4
@41
?A>>;A:05:3
:1534.;>4;;0
A?1?








)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
?5@1
5?
-01=A-@1
5:
?5F1
-:0
?4-<1
@;
-//;99;0-@1
@41
@19<;>->E
A?1









)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
?5@1
5?
-01=A-@18E
?1>B10
.E
?@>11@?
;>
4534C-E?
4-B5:3
?A225/51:@
C50@4
-:0
59<>;B191:@?
@;
-//;99;0-@1
@41
75:0
-:0
=A-:@5@E
;2
@>-225/
@4-@
?A/4
@19<;>->E
A?1
C588
;>
/;A80
>1-?;:-.8E
31:1>-@1







)4-@
-01=A-@1
@19<;>->E
<->75:3
@;
-//;99;0-@1
B145/A8->
@>-225/
@;
.1
31:1>-@10
.E
?A/4
A?1
C588
.1
-B-58-.81
15@41>
;:?5@1
;>
-@
-8@1>:-@1
8;/-@5;:?
-//1<@-.81
@;
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>








)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
C588
:;@
61;<->05F1
@41
<A.85/
<1-/1
?-21@E
;>
31:1>-8
C182->1
;>
.1
5:6A>5;A?
;>
01@>591:@-8
@;
<>;<1>@51?
-06-/1:@
@;
;>
5:
@41
B5/5:5@E
;2
@41
<>;<;?10
8;/-@5;:
;2
@41
-/@5B5@E




)4-@
:;
9;>1
@4-:
?5D

1B1:@?
5:
@41
/-81:0->
E1->
4-B1
;//A>>10
;:
@41
<->/18
C5@4
1D/1<@5;:
2;>
@41
2;88;C5:3
5@E;C:10
<->/18? -:0
<->7?
1D/8A05:3
<>;<1>@51?
81-?10
@;
-:
;A@?501
B1:0;>
2;>
9;>1
@4-:
;:1
E1->
!13-/E
%->7
"-85.A
8A22?
%->7
)>-:/-?
-:E;:
%->7
-:0
"-85.A
5@E

-88







)4-@
@41
0A>-@5;:
;2
@41
1B1:@
?4-88
0;1?
:;@
1D/110
-
@;@-8
;2
2;A>@11:
 

/;:?1/A@5B1
/-81:0->
0-E?
;>
@45>@E


0-E?
2;>
-
?1-?;:-8
-/@5B5@E
1B1:@
-:0
@4-@
@41

<>;<;?10
?5@1
4-?
:;@
.11:
A?10
2;>
@19<;>->E
A?1?
2;>
9;>1
@4-:
?5D@E
 
/-81:0->
0-E?

C5@45:
-:E
;:1


/-81:0->
E1->
C5@4
1D/1<@5;:
2;>
5@E;C:10
<->/18?
-:0
<->7?
1D/8A05:3
<>;<1>@51?
81-?10
@;
-:
;A@?501
B1:0;>
2;>
9;>1
@4-:
;:1
E1->
@4-@
->1
:;@
?A.61/@
@;
@41
?5D@E


0-E
8595@-@5;:
-:0







)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
<->/18
4-?
:;@
>1/15B10
@C;
;>
9;>1
/5@-@5;:?
2;>
B5;8-@5;:?
;2
@41
5@EI?
:;5?1
;>05:-:/1
C5@45:
-
<1>5;0
;2
@C18B1



/;:?1/A@5B1
9;:@4?
)4-@
:;

/;9<8-5:@?
4-B1
.11:
25810
-3-5:?@
@41
/A>>1:@
<>;<1>@E
;C:1>
C5@4
@41
!;?
:3181?
;A:@E
05?@>5/@
-@@;>:1EI?
;225/1
;>
@41
5@E
<>;?1/A@;>I?
;225/1
0A>5:3
@41
@C1:@E2;A>
 
9;:@4?

<>1/105:3
@41
0-@1
;2
-<<85/-@5;:
?A.95@@-8



)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
<->/18
0;1?
:;@
4-B1
-:E
;A@?@-:05:3
/;01
1:2;>/191:@
B5;8-@5;:?
:;@
5:/8A05:3
-:E
B5;8-@5;:?
?A.61/@
@;
-:
-/@5B1
/;9<85-:/1
-3>1191:@
.1@C11:
@41
/5@E
-:0
@41
<>;<1>@E
;C:1>
@4-@
-00>1??1?
-
>1?;8A@5;:
@;
@41
B5;8-@5;:
)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
?5@1
0;1?
:;@
4-B1
-:E
"A:5/5<-8
;01
B5;8-@5;:?
;:2581
C5@4
5@E
C5@45:
@41
<>1/105:3
@C18B1




9;:@4?
:;>
-
45?@;>E
;2
4-.5@A-8
-:0
5:@1:@5;:-8
"A:5/5<-8
;01
B5;8-@5;:?
2
5:
@41
?;81

05?/>1@5;:
;2
@41
%8-::5:3
5>1/@;>
@41
"A:5/5<-8
;01
B5;8-@5;:?
->1
A:>18-@10
@;
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
-:0 ;>
>1?;8B10
@;
@41
?-@5?2-/@5;:
;2
@41
5@E
;01
:2;>/191:@
$225/1>
-:0
%8-::5:3
5>1/@;>
@41:
@45?
25:05:3
9-E
.1
9-01
A:81??
;@41>C5?1
/;:?501>10
:;@
-<<85/-.81
@;
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
-:0 ;>
>1?;8B10
@;
@41
?-@5?2-/@5;:
;2
@41
5@E
;01
:2;>/191:@
$225/1>
-:0 37 



!




































)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
?4-88
.1
5:
/;9<85-:/1
C5@4
-88
5@E
;>05:-:/1?
-?
-<<85/-.81

)41
<8-::5:3
/;995??5;:
9-E
-<<>;B1
-
9-6;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
-<<85/-@5;:
<>;B5010
@4-@
-88
;2
@41
2;88;C5:3
25:05:3?
;2
2-/@
->1
9-01






)4-@
@41
;<1>-@5;:
;2
@41
>1=A1?@10
A?1
-@
@41
8;/-@5;:
<>;<;?10
-:0
C5@45:
@41
@591
<1>5;0
?<1/52510
5?
/;9<[email protected]
C5@4
@41
?A>>;A:05:3
:1534.;>4;;0
A?1?







)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
?5@1
5?
-01=A-@1
5:
?5F1
-:0
?4-<1
@;
-//;99;0-@1
@41
@19<;>->E
A?1








)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
?5@1
5?
-01=A-@18E
?1>B10
.E
?@>11@?
;>
4534C-E?
4-B5:3
?A225/51:@
C50@4
-:0
59<>;B191:@?
@;
-//;99;0-@1
@41
75:0
-:0
=A-:@5@E
;2
@>-225/
@4-@
?A/4
@19<;>->E
A?1
C588
;>
/;A80
>1-?;:-.8E
31:1>-@1






)4-@
-01=A-@1
@19<;>->E
<->75:3
@;
-//;99;0-@1
B145/A8->
@>-225/
@;
.1
31:1>-@10
.E
?A/4
A?1
C588
.1
-B-58-.81
15@41>
;:?5@1
;>
-@
-8@1>:-@1
8;/-@5;:?
-//1<@-.81
@;
@41
%8-::5:3
;995??5;:







)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
C588
:;@
61;<->05F1
@41
<A.85/
<1-/1
?-21@E
;>
31:1>-8
C182->1
;>
.1
5:6A>5;A?
;>
01@>591:@-8
@;
<>;<1>@51?
-06-/1:@
@;
;>
5:
@41
B5/5:5@E
;2
@41
<>;<;?10
8;/-@5;:
;2
@41
-/@5B5@E





)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
<->/18
4-?
:;@
>1/15B10
@C;
;>
9;>1
/5@-@5;:?
2;>
B5;8-@5;:?
;2
@41
5@EI?
:;5?1
;>05:-:/1
C5@45:
-
<1>5;0
;2
@C18B1



/;:?1/A@5B1
9;:@4?
)4-@
:;

/;9<8-5:@?
4-B1
.11:
25810
-3-5:?@
@41
/A>>1:@
<>;<1>@E
;C:1>
C5@4
@41
!;?
:3181?
;A:@E
05?@>5/@
-@@;>:1EI?
;225/1
;>
@41
5@E
<>;?1/A@;>I?
;225/1
0A>5:3
@41
@C1:@E2;A>
 
9;:@4?

<>1/105:3
@41
0-@1
;2
-<<85/-@5;:
?A.95@@-8



)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
<->/18
0;1?
:;@
4-B1
-:E
;A@?@-:05:3
/;01
1:2;>/191:@
B5;8-@5;:?
:;@
5:/8A05:3
-:E
B5;8-@5;:?
?A.61/@
@;
-:
-/@5B1
/;9<85-:/1
-3>1191:@
.1@C11:
@41
/5@E
-:0
@41
<>;<1>@E
;C:1>
@4-@
-00>1??1?
-
>1?;8A@5;:
@;
@41
B5;8-@5;:
)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
?5@1
0;1?
:;@
4-B1
-:E
"A:5/5<-8
;01
B5;8-@5;:?
;:2581
C5@4
5@E
C5@45:
@41
<>1/105:3
@C18B1




9;:@4?
:;>
-
45?@;>E
;2
4-.5@A-8
-:0
5:@1:@5;:-8
"A:5/5<-8
;01
B5;8-@5;:?
2
5:
@41
?;81

05?/>1@5;:
;2
@41
%8-::5:3
5>1/@;>
@41
"A:5/5<-8
;01
B5;8-@5;:?
->1
A:>18-@10
@;
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
-:0 ;>
>1?;8B10
@;
@41
?-@5?2-/@5;:
;2
@41
5@E
;01
:2;>/191:@
$225/1>
-:0
%8-::5:3
5>1/@;>
@41:
@45?
25:05:3
9-E
.1
9-01
A:81??
;@41>C5?1
/;:?501>10
:;@
-<<85/-.81
@;
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
-:0 ;>
>1?;8B10
@;
@41
?-@5?2-/@5;:
;2
@41
5@E
;01
:2;>/191:@
$225/1>
-:0


)4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
A?1
?4-88
.1
5:
/;9<85-:/1
C5@4
-88
5@E
;>05:-:/1?
-?
-<<85/-.81





"

!




$

:
-<<>;B5:3
-:
-<<85/-@5;:
2;>
-
95:;>
;>
9-6;>
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
@41
05>1/@;>
;>
<8-::5:3
/;995??5;:
9-E
59<;?1
?A/4
/;:05@5;:?
-?
->1
011910
:1/1??->E
@;
1:?A>1
@4-@
@41
<1>95@
C588
.1
5:
-//;>0
C5@4
@41
25:05:3?
>1=A5>10
.E
(1/@5;:



)41?1
/;:05@5;:?
9-E
5:B;8B1

-:E
<1>@5:1:@
2-/@;>?
-221/@5:3
@41
;<1>-@5;:
;2
@41
@19<;>->E
A?1
-:0
9-E
5:/8A01
.A@
->1
:;@
8595@10
@;
@41
2;88;C5:3

38 



!
















































%>;B5?5;:
;2
-01=A-@1
@19<;>->E
;22?@>11@
<->75:3
2-/585@51?
5:/8A05:3
B145/A8->
-//1??
-:0
13>1??
-?
0125:10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
;>
<8-::5:3
/;995??5;:













'13A8-@5;:
;2
:A5?-:/1
2-/@;>?
?A/4
-?
.A@
:;@
8595@10
@;
@41
<>1B1:@5;:
;2
38->1
;>
05>1/@
588A95:-@5;:
;2
-06-/1:@
<>;<1>@51?
:;5?1
B5.>-@5;:?
?9;71
0A?@
05>@
;0;>?
3-??1?
-:0
41-@














'13A8-@5;:
;2
@19<;>->E
.A5805:3?
?@>A/@A>1?
-:0
2-/585@51?
5:/8A05:3
<8-/191:@
41534@
-:0
?5F1
8;/-@5;:
;2
1=A5<91:@
-:0
;<1:
?<-/1?
5:/8A05:3
.A221>
->1-?
-:0
;@41>
E->0?













%>;B5?5;:
;2
?-:5@->E
-:0
9105/-8
2-/585@51?













%>;B5?5;:
;2
?;850
C-?@1
/;881/@5;:
-:0
05?<;?-8













%>;B5?5;:
;2
?1/A>5@E
-:0
?-21@E
91-?A>1?













'13A8-@5;:
;2
?53:?














'13A8-@5;:
;2
;<1>-@5:3
4;A>?
-:0
0-E?
5:/8A05:3
8595@-@5;:
;2
@41
0A>-@5;:
;2
@41
@19<;>->E
A?1
@;
-
?4;>@1>
@591
<1>5;0
@4-:
@4-@
>1=A1?@10
-:0
8595@5:3
@41
4;A>?
2;>
1B1:@
?1@A<
.>1-70;C:
-:0
/81-:A<
















(A.95??5;:
;2
-
<1>2;>9-:/1
.;:0
;>
;@41>
?A>1@E
01B5/1?
@;
1:?A>1
@4-@
-:E
@19<;>->E
2-/585@51?
;>
?@>A/@A>1?
A?10
2;>
?A/4
<>;<;?10
@19<;>->E
A?1
C588
.1
>19;B10
2>;9
@41
?5@1
C5@45:
-
>1-?;:-.81
@591
2;88;C5:3
@41
1B1:@
-:0
@4-@
@41
<>;<1>@E
C588
.1
>1?@;>10
@;
5@?
2;>91>
/;:05@5;:















(A.95??5;:
;2
-
?5@1
<8-:
5:05/-@5:3
-:E
5:2;>9-@5;:
>1=A5>10
.E
@45?
/4-<@1>












'1=A5>191:@
@4-@
@41
-<<>;B-8
;2
@41
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
5?
/;:@5:31:@
A<;:
/;9<85-:/1
C5@4
-<<85/-.81
<>;B5?5;:?
;2
;@41>
;>05:-:/1?








!




(A/4
;@41>
/;:05@5;:?
C45/4
C588
1:?A>1
@41
;<1>-@5;:
;2
@41
<>;<;?10
@19<;>->E
A?1
5:
-:
;>01>8E
-:0
1225/51:@
9-::1>
-:0
5:
-//;>0
C5@4
@41
5:@1:@
-:0
<A><;?1
;2
@45?
/4-<@1>








"



<<85/-:@?
2;>
?<1/5-8
1B1:@@19<;>->E A?1
<1>95@?
?4-88
















%>;B501
/;:@-5:1>?
2;>
>1/E/85:3
/-:?
38-??
<8-?@5/
-:0
<-<1>
31:1>-@10
















%>;B501
5:2;>9-@5;:
-:0
3A50-:/1
@;
-??A>1
>1/E/85:3
;2
9-@1>5-8?
85?@10
-.;B1
















;9<8E
C5@4
@41
/5@EI?
?;850
C-?@1
>1/E/85:3
;>05:-:/1
-:0















(A.95@
-
<8-:
5:05/-@5:3
122;>@?
@;
>10A/1
>1A?1
;>
>1/E/81
C-?@1
31:1>-@10








#



)41
1B1:@
?4-88
:;@
/-A?1
-:E
:;5?1?
?;A:0?
;>
B5.>-@5;:?
C45/4
->1
<4E?5/-88E
-::;E5:3
@;
>1-?;:-.81
<1>?;:?
;2
;>05:->E
?1:?5@5B5@E
;>
C45/4
->1
?;
4->?4
;>
?;
<>;8;:310
;>
A::-@A>-8
;>
A:A?A-8
5:
@415>
A?1
@591
;>
<8-/1
-?
@;
;//-?5;:
A::1/1??->E
05?/;92;>@
@;
-:E
<1>?;:?
C5@45:
-
25B1
4A:0>10



2;;@
>-05A?
;2
@41
<8-/1
2>;9
C45/4
?A/4
:;5?1?

39 



!




































19-:-@1
;>
C45/4
5:@1>21>1
C5@4
@41
<1-/1
-:0
/;92;>@
;2
>1?501:@?
;//A<-:@?
;>
3A1?@?
;2
@41
?A>>;A:05:3
:1534.;>4;;0
;>
@41
;<1>-@;>?
;>
/A?@;91>?
5:
<8-/1?
;2
.A?5:1??
5:
@41
B5/5:5@E








$



)41
-<<85/-:@
?4-88
019;:?@>-@1
@4-@
@41
4;805:3
/-<-/5@E
;2
?A>>;A:05:3
?@>11@?
-:0
5:@1>?1/@5;:?
5?
?A225/51:@
@;
?A?@-5:
@41
A?1
C5@4;A@
/;:285/@5:3
C5@4
[email protected]?410
31:1>-8
<8-:
3;-8?
-:0
<;85/51?
;2
@41
31:1>-8
<8-:
/5>/A8-@5;:
-:0
5:2>-?@>A/@A>1
18191:@








%




(A.95??5;:
;2
-005@5;:-8
?1>B5/1?
.;:0
2;>
@41
<A><;?1
;2
<>;@1/@5:3
-??5?@5:3
-:0
>13A8-@5:3
@41
<>;<;?10
1B1:@
)41
/;?@
;2
<>;B505:3
?A/4
-005@5;:-8
?1>B5/1?
?4-88
.1
<-50
5:
-0B-:/1
@;
@41
/5@E
.E
@41
-<<85/-:@









&



)41
@19<;>->E
A?1
?4-88
/;:2;>9
@;
/5@E
<8-::5:3
01<->@91:@
.A5805:3
-:0
?-21@E
01<->@91:@
<A.85/
C;>7?
01<->@91:@
!;?
:3181?
;A:@E
25>1
<>1B1:@5;:
.A>1-A
!;?
:3181?
;A:@E
?41>522I?
01<->@91:@
!;?
:3181?
;A:@E
9;A:@-5:
-:0
>A>-8
?-:5@-@5;:
01<->@91:@
<>;3>-9?
>13A8-@5;:?
-:0
>1=A5>191:@?









'




)41
-<<85/-:@
?4-88
0121:0
5:019:52E
-:0
4;80
4->981??
@41
/5@E
-:0
5@?
;225/1>?
-31:@?
-:0
19<8;E11?
2>;9
-:E
/8-59
-/@5;:
;>
<>;/1105:3
-3-5:?@
@41
/5@E
;>
5@?
;225/1>?
-31:@?
;>
19<8;E11?
@;
-@@-/7
?1@
-?501
B;50
;>
-::A8
-<<>;B-8
;2
@45?
<1>95@








(




)41
-<<85/-:@
?4-88
2A>:5?4
5:?A>-:/1
5:
@41
-9;A:@
@;
.1
01@1>95:10
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
.A@
5:
:;
1B1:@
81??
@4-:
;:1
95885;:
0;88->?
 






@;
<>;@1/@
@41
/5@E
-3-5:?@

/8-59?
;2
@45>0
<1>?;:?
2;>
<1>?;:-8
5:6A>E
C>;:32A8
01-@4
-:0
<>;<1>@E
0-9-31








)




)41
-<<85/-:@
?4-88
4-B1
-
/;<E
;2
@41
-<<>;B10
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
-B-58-.81
;: ?5@1
0A>5:3
@41
1:@5>1
0A>-@5;:
;2
@41
A?1







!


$
"















)41
-<<85/-:@
9-E
-<<1-8
@41
01/5?5;:
;2
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
@;
@41
<8-::5:3
/;995??5;:
C5@45:
@4>11
/-81:0->
0-E?
;2
@41
01/5?5;:
0-@11/5?5;:?
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
;>
@41
<8-::5:3
/;995??5;:
9-E
.1
-<<1-810
-//;>05:3
@;
(1/@5;:




1D/1<@
@4-@





















;>
01/5?5;:?
9-01
.E
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
-:
-<<1-8
?4-88
.1
25810
C5@4
@41
/5@E
/81>7
C5@45:
@4>11


.A?5:1??
0-E?
2;88;C5:3
@41
0-@1
;2
-/@5;:
2;>
C45/4
-:
-<<1-8
5?
9-01
-:0
?4-88
5:/8A01
C>5@@1:
?<1/525/
3>;A:0?
2;>
@41
-<<1-8
2
@41
-<<188-:@
0;1?
:;@

?A.95@
3>;A:0?
2;>
@41
-<<1-8
C5@45:
@4>11


.A?5:1??
0-E?
@41
/5@E
/81>7
?4-88
>1@A>:
@41

2585:3
211
-:0
@41
-<<1-8
?4-88
.1
011910
@;
4-B1
.11:
C5@40>-C:























@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
9-E
.1
>1B;710
52
@41
<8-::5:3
05>1/@;>
;>
<8-::5:3
/;995??5;:
25:0?
@4-@
;:1
;>
9;>1
;2
@41
2;88;C5:3
/;:05@5;:?
1D5?@?
















5>/A9?@-:/1?
4-B1
.11:
/4-:310
.E
@41
-<<85/-:@
@;
?A/4
-
013>11
@4-@
;:1
;>
9;>1
;2
@41
25:05:3?
;2
2-/@
/;:@-5:10
5:
(1/@5;:




/-:
:;
8;:31>
.1
9-01
5:
-

<;?5@5B1
9-::1>

















)41
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
C-?
;.@-5:10
5:
-
2>-A0A81:@
9-::1>
















$:1
;>
9;>1
/;:05@5;:?
;2
@41
@19<;>->E
A?1
<1>95@
4-B1
:;@
.11:
2A8258810
40 $"%
!






 

#$##
!



!



#;(--
79,:,5;,+
*65*,7;:
(5+
+9(-;
3(5.<(.,
;6
;/,
0;@
6<5*03D:
'6505.
9+05(5*,
",=0:065:
(5+
6+,
5-69*,4,5;
#<)*6440;;,,
'"#
69
#<)*6440;;,,
<)30*
4,,;05.:
>,9,
/,3+
>0;/
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,
65
7903





*;6),9






(5+

6=,4),9






:<44(9@
6-
,(*/
4,,;05.
0:

796=0+,+
),36>

09:;
'"#

,,;05.

$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
/,3+
(
7<)30*
4,,;05.
65
7903




>/,9,
;/,

#<)*6440;;,,
4,4),9:
+0:*<::,+
76;,5;0(3
(4,5+4,5;:
;6
;/,
$%
69+05(5*,
(5+
796=0+,+
-,,+)(*2
-69
:;(--
;6
05*69769(;,
05;6
(
+9(-;
69+05(5*,
$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
4,4),9:
05+0*(;,+
;/,@
>,9,
56;
05
(.9,,4,5;
65
=(906<:
67;065:
-69
46=05.
-69>(9+
)<;
+0+
(.9,,
65
;/,
-6336>05.

 ?,47;
(9;9,3(;,+
*644<50;@
,=,5;:
-964
9,8<0905.
(
$%
05
0;@6>5,+ 7(92:

 336>
-69
36>05;,5:0;@
:,(:65(3
,=,5;:
(5+
4<:0*
05
*644,9*0(33@A65,+ :,;;05.:

 ?,47;
,=,5;:
-964
9,8<0905.
(
$%
>/,5
/,3+
(;
;/,
0;@
(33
6<5*03 /(4),9:$/,(;,9
,5,9(33@
;/,
-6336>05.
7605;:
>,9,
+0:*<::,+
)@
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,
4,4),9:
/6>,=,9
;/,@
>,9,
56;
,5;09,3@
05
(.9,,4,5;
65
(33
7605;:
 $/,
05;,5;
6-
;/,
690.05(3
$%
796*,::
>(:
;6
(336>
,=,5;:
05
36*(;065:A65,:
;/(;
>,9,
6;/,9>0:,
56;
(336>,+
<5+,9
;/,


(5+
;6
796;,*;
;/,
8<(30;@
6-
30-,
-69
9,:0+,5;:
>0;/
,(93@
56;0-0*(;065
(5+
67;065:
;6
796=0+,
057<;
(5+
9(0:, 6)1,*;065:

 $/,
0;@
:/6<3+
(336>
,=,5;:
6-
:<0;()3,
:0A,
(5+
:*(3,
(;
-(*030;0,:
+,:0.5,+ ;6
/6:;
:<*/
,=,5;:
>0;/6<;
9,8<0905.
(
$% 
05
7(9;0*<3(9
(;
,.(*@
(92

(30)<
3<--:
(92
$9(5*(:
(92
(5+
0;@
(33

 -
;/,
$%
69+05(5*,
0:
46+0-0,+
;6
(336>
469,
,=,5;:
0;
4<:;
=,;
/6>
;/, +,*0:0654(205.
(5+
7<)30*
9,=0,>
796*,::
>6<3+
(3:6
),
(+1<:;,+
;6
,5:<9, :*9<;05@
6=,9
;/,
$%
9,8<,:;
(5+
796;,*;065
-69
;/,
*644<50;@

 $/,
0;@
:/6<3+
+,=,367
(
796*,::
;6
0::<,
$% :
-69
(
:,90,:
6-
,=,5;:
;/(; ;,*/50*(33@
,?;,5+
),@65+
(
*65:,*<;0=,

+(@
7,906+
,.
(5
,=,5;
;/(;
6**<9:
65
;/9,,
>,,2,5+:
05
65,
465;/

 %:,
;/,
3(5505.
6440::065
-69
,5/(5*,+
9,=0,>
6-
*,9;(05
$%
9,8<,:;:
:<*/
(:
(5
,=,5;
:,90,:
*65:;9<*;065
:;(.05.
@(9+:
(5+
6;/,9
9,8<,:;:
;/(; 9,8<09,
(++0;065(3
:*9<;05@
),@65+
:;(--3,=,3
9,=0,>
Attachment 3
41  -
;/,
3(5505.
6440::065
0:
<:,+
796=0+,
;/9,:/63+:
;/(;
;90..,9
;/,09 9,=0,>
 5-69*,4,5;
0:
(
4,*/(50:4
;6
(++9,::
$%
0::<,:
(5+
=063(;065:  =,5;:
67,9(;,+
<5+,9
(5
(7796=,+
*65+0;065(3
<:,
7,940;
% 
:/6<3+
), :<)1,*;
;6
;/,
%
(5+
56;
6;/,9>0:,
9,8<09,
(
$% 
$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
9,8<,:;,+
;/(;
:;(--
9,;<95
;6
'"#
-69
(
-05(3
9,=0,>
6-
;/,
+9(-;
*65*,7;:
),-69,
796*,,+05.
;6
;/,
3(5505.
6440::065
(5+
0;@
6<5*03


#,*65+
'"#

,,;05.

$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
/,3+
(
:,*65+
7<)30*
4,,;05.
65
*;6),9





#;(--

+9(-;,+
;>6
=,9:065:
6-
(
79676:,+
$%
69+05(5*,
;6
:630*0;
-,,+)(*2
65
=(906<:
0;,4:
(5+
;6
.<0+,
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,D:
+0:*<::065
&,9:065

>(:
;0;3,+
B#;(;<:
!<6
>0;/

040;,+
?,47;065:
++,+C
(5+
&,9:065


>(:
;0;3,+
B4796=,+
96*,::

>0;/
5/(5*,+
<)30*
",=0,>C
&,9:065

05*3<+,+
40569
9,=0:065:
;6
(++9,::
*644<50;@:765:69,+
(9;9,3(;,+
,=,5;:
05
0;@6>5,+
:7(*,:
(
$%
,?,47;065
-69
(9;:
*<3;<9(3
(5+
,+<*(;065(3
,=,5;:
/,3+
(;
0;@
7(92:
(5+
0;@
(33
(5+
40569
*3,(5<7
;6
9,-3,*;
;/,
,3,*;9650*
796*,::05.
6-
(7730*(;065:
&,9:065

05*69769(;,+

(33
&,9:065

:<..,:;065:
(5+
9,:;9<*;<9,+
;/,
$%
/(7;,9
;6
(++9,::
,=,5;
;04,305,:
,5/(5*,+
7<)30*
9,=0,>
(5+
,=,5;:
;/(;
67,9(;,+
(:
(
:,90,:
05
(++0;065
;6
(5
04796=,+
<976:,
:;(;,4,5;
(7730*(;065
9,8<09,4,5;:
(5+
*3(90-0*(;065:
-69
*,9;(05
<:,:
(5+
(77,(3
;0405.
&,9:065


(3:6
05;96+<*,+
(
5,>
0;@
796*,::
-69

9,8<,:;:
*65:0+,9,+
(:
B
(169
$% :C
>/,9,
;/,
3(5505.
6440::065
56;
:;(--

>6<3+
),
;/,
+,*0:0654(2,9
(;
(
56;0*,+
7<)30*
/,(905.
$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
4,4),9:
9,=0,>,+
;/,
;>6
=,9:065:
(5+
>,9,
05
.,5,9(3
(.9,,4,5;
>0;/
;/,
79676:,+
46+0-0*(;065:
05*3<+,+
05
&,9:065

6>,=,9
;/,9,
>(:
+0:*<::065
()6<;
-<9;/,9
+,-0505.
>/(;
>6<3+
*65:;0;<;,
(5
B(9;:
*<3;<9(3
(5+
,+<*(;065(3C
,=,5;
,5,9(33@
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,
(5+
:;(--
9,*644,5+,+
;/,
-6336>05.
*90;,90(
),
05*3<+,+
;6
*3(90-@
;/0:
;@7,
6-
,=,5;


<4),9
6-
(;;,5+,,:
3040;,+
;6

69
3,::


6
(+40::065
*/(9.,+

 9.(50A,+
(5+
-(*030;(;,+
)@
(
565796-0;
69.(50A(;065
/!,
'&+!

*,!'&
.!
,

!,1
,,'*&
15+
'

!

,'

0($'*

,

('++!!$!,1
'

$!%!,!&
,
+

,'
$!-
*
+!

&,+&'&(*'
!,+


6
<:,
6-
(4730-0,+
:6<5+

 =,5;
;6
),
/,3+
+<905.
:;(5+(9+
7(92
/6<9:
42 $/,
#<)*6440;;,,
+0+
56;
(.9,,
65
(
9,*644,5+(;065
9,.(9+05.
;/,
796=0:065:
6-
&,9:065


05*3<+05.
;/,
*65*,7;
6-
05;96+<*05.
(
5,>

(169
$%
05;6
;/,

796*,::
6>,=,9
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,D:
+0:*<::065
05*3<+,+
;/,
-6336>05.
7605;:
 -
(

(169
$%
>,9,
9,8<09,+
0;
:/6<3+
),
(336*(;,+
;6>(9+
B3(9.,9
,=,5;:C 653@
05
69+,9
;6
,5:<9,
,5/(5*,+
7<)30*
9,=0,>
(5+
9,+<*,
;/,
5<4),9
6-

(169
$% :
9,8<09,+
56;,
;/(;
(
+,-050;065
-69
>/(;
>6<3+
*65:;0;<;,
B3(9.,9 ,=,5;:C
>(:
56;
+0:*<::,+
)@
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,

 5*3<+05.
(

(169
$%
(336>(5*,
>6<3+
9,:<3;
05
;66
4(5@
<5256>5:
;/(; *6<3+
5,.(;0=,3@
(--,*;
;/,
*644<50;@
:<*/
(:
05*9,(:,+
;9(--0*
*65.,:;065 (5+
*65*,95:
9,3(;,+
;6
-09,
90:2
$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
9,8<,:;,+
05-694(;065
65
>/(;
6;/,9
(7796=(3:
;/,
0;@
>6<3+
9,8<09,
-69
<:,
6-
(
0;@
7(92
69
-(*030;@
:/6<3+
,=,5;:
),
,?,47;
-964
9,8<0905.
(
$% 
#;(--
*3(90-0,+
;/(;
;/,
0;@
>6<3+
*65;05<,
;6
9,8<09,
0;:
(*030;@
%:,
,940;
9,.(9+3,::
6-
(
$%
),05.
9,8<09,+
$/,
(*030;0,:
%:,
,940;
0:
(
*<99,5;
0;@
7,940;
;/(;
:,;:
6<;
=(906<:
*90;,90(
9,.<3(;05.
,=,5;
7(9(4,;,9:
-,,:9(;,:
/6<9:
9<3,:
05*3<+05.
<:,
9,:;90*;065:
65
*,9;(05
7(92:
05:<9(5*,
9,8<09,4,5;:
(5+
6;/,9
(7796=(3:
(:
4(@
),
5,,+,+
-964

6:
5.,3,:
6<5;@
5=09654,5;(3
,(3;/

,7(9;4,5;
09,
,7(9;4,5;
,;*

<905.
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,D:
+0:*<::065
(5+
79069
;6
(
-694(3
46;065
(5+
;/,
;,9405(;065
6-
;/,
'"#D
4,4),9:
(**,7;05.
*644,5;:
-964
;/,
7<)30*
0;
>(:
9,769;,+
;/(;
(
:0.50-0*(5;
76>,9
6<;(.,
6**<99,+
05
;/,
605;
<4,
5,0./)69/66+
(--,*;05.
(
5<4),9
6-
/6<:,/63+:
:
;/,
4,,;05.
>(:
653@
*65+<*;,+
=09;<(33@
:64,
4,4),9:
6-
;/,
7<)30*
>,9,
<5()3,
;6
:/(9,
;/,09
-,,+)(*2
>0;/
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,
:
(
9,:<3;
(
;/09+
'"#
4,,;05.
>(:
:*/,+<3,+
;6
*65;05<,
+0:*<::065:
(5+
6);(05
(
-05(3
9,*644,5+(;065
-964
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,
4,4),9:
$/09+
'"#

,,;05.

$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
/,3+
(
;/09+
7<)30*
4,,;05.
65

6=,4),9





>/,9,
;/,

#<)*6440;;,,
4,4),9:
796=0+,+
-<9;/,9
+0:*<::065
65
*65*,7;:
;6
05*3<+,
05
(
+9(-;
$%
69+05(5*,
(:,+
65
-,,+)(*2
9,*,0=,+
(;
;/,
7903
(5+
*;6),9


'"#
4,,;05.:
:;(--
9,8<,:;,+
(++0;065(3
*3(90-0*(;065
(5+
.<0+(5*,
-964
;/,
#<)*6440;;,,
;6
-05(30A,
(
+9(-;
69+05(5*,
-69
;/,
3(5505.
6440::065
(5+
0;@
6<5*03D:
9,=0,>


$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
*65;05<,+
0;:
9,=0,>
6-
*65*,7;:
79,:,5;,+
(;
;/,
*;6),9


4,,;05.
05*3<+05.
-6<9
(++0;065(3
0;,4:
9,8<,:;,+
)@
:;(--
43  65:0+,9
0-
(

(169
$%
796*,::
:/6<3+
),
05;96+<*,+
05


/(7;,9



 -
05;96+<*,+
*65:0+,9
>/(;
;/,
*90;,90(
:/6<3+
),
-69
+,;,940505.
(
B3(9.,9 ,=,5;C
:<)1,*;
;6
;/,

(169
$% 

 65:0+,9
9,+<*05.
;/,
7<)30*
56;0*05.
;04,-9(4,
-69
$% :
-964

+(@:
*<99,5;
9,8<09,4,5;
;6


69

+(@:
;6
*605*0+,
>0;/
6;/,9
0;@
(*;065:
:<*/
(:
*6+,
(4,5+4,5;:
*65+0;065(3
<:,
7,940;:
(5+
*6(:;(3 +,=,3674,5;
7,940;:
>/0*/
9,8<09,
(


69
+(@
7<)30*
56;0*05.
;04,-9(4,

 65:0+,9
46+0-@05.
;/,
$%
3(5.<(.,
-69
-(94,9:D
4(92,;:
05*3<+05.
(5 (336>(5*,
-69
(
;,4769(9@
4(92,;
;6
67,9(;,
(;

,.(*@
(92
+<,
;6
*<99,5;
67,9(;05.
3040;(;065:
(;
;/,

6:
5.,3,:
6<5;@
:0;,
$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
:<44(90A,+
0;:
-,,+)(*2
-964
;/,
*;6),9


4,,;05.:
(5+

796=0+,+
;/,
-6336>05.
9,*644,5+(;065:
;6
:;(--
-69
(
+9(-;
69+05(5*,
$670*

,-05,
B(9;:
*<3;<9(3
(5+
,+<*(;065(3C
,=,5;:
(5+
0-
(
$%
:/6<3+
),
9,8<09,+
-69
:<*/
,=,5;:

-'%%!,,


'%%
&
,!'&



0 %(,!'&
!+

(,$


'*
3*,+
-$,-*$

&

-,!'&$4

.
&,+
+'
$'&
+
,
1
/'-$



'&
-,

!&
!,1
(*#+
'*
,

!,1
$$
!


-+

,
+


!$!,!
+
/
*

+!&

,'
'%%'
,

+-

,
%('**1
-+
+
*

*
$,!.
$1
+%$$
!&
+!2

!


'*
$
++
,,
&

+
&

/'-$


&',
-&*
+'&$1

!+*-(,
,

'%%-&!,1

-

,
!*
!&
*
&,
&,-*

!


.
&,+
, ,

,1(!$$1

'
&',
*
)-!*

&

%!++!'&



$670*


65:0+,9
3040;05.
B(9;:
*<3;<9(3
(5+
,+<*(;065(3C
,=,5;:
;6
(30)<
565
796-0;:9,:0+,5;:

-'%%!,,


'%%
&
,!'&

!,1
,,'*&
15+
'

!

+ '-$

*
.!
/
, !+
'&
(,

(*!'*
,'
$&&!&
'%%!++!'&
*
.!
/
&

!&
!,

!,+

+!!$!,1
+
&
'(,!'&

!&$-
!&

$!!!$!,1
*!,
*!

'*
/ ,
/'-$

'&+,!,-,


$!-
&'&(*'
!,


&'&
(*'
!,
%-+,


*
!+,
*

/!,

$!-


*
++

'*
&'&(*'
!,
%-+,
!&$-

%
%
*+
/ '
*

-**
&,
$!-
*
+!

&,+


,


, !+
'&
(,
/
*

,'




+!$

'(,!'&
,

-'%%!,,

*
)-
+,

, !+
,'(!



!+-++

+(
!
!$$1

1
,

!,1
'-&!$

$670*


++
(

(169
$%
796*,::
05;6


/(7;,9

05
69+,9
;6
,5/(5*,

;/,
7<)30*
9,=0,>
796*,::
-69
*,9;(05
;@7,:
6-
,=,5;:
-'%%!,,


'%%
&
,!'&

&,*'
-


"'*

(*'
++
-,
$!%!,
,'

3$*
*

.
&,+4
'&$1


!&

3$*
*

.
&,+4
+

*&

'


.
&,
,1(
+
, ,

&
*$$1

.

%'*

, &
'&


.
&,
(
*
1
*
!&$-
!&
$*
*
%-$,!
1

.
&,+
&,!!(,


44 
'*
%'*

,,
&

+
 *


%!++!'&

'*

.
&,

&,*1(*,!!(,!'&
&
'*

'&+!+,
'

3+
*!$

.
&,+4
%-$,!($

*
$,

.
&,+
'.
*

$'&
*
(
*!'

'

,!%




-'%%!,,

-*,
*
*
)-
+,

, ,
!


"'*

!+
!&,*'
-


, ,
,


'*
!&&

!&$-


(*'
++
,'
(*',
,
,

'%%-&!,1

*'%
-&*
+'&$

!%(,+

++'!,

/!,
$*
*

.
&,+

$670*


",+<*,
;/,
7<)30*
56;0*05.
;04,-9(4,
-69
$% :
-964

+(@:
*<99,5;

9,8<09,4,5;
;6


69

+(@:
;6
*605*0+,
>0;/
6;/,9
0;@
(*;065:
:<*/
(:
*6+,
(4,5+4,5;:
*65+0;065(3
<:,
7,940;:
(5+
*6(:;(3
+,=,3674,5;
7,940;:

-'%%!,,


'%%
&
,!'&

+
,

(-*('+

'

,


(*'
++
/+
,'

(*',
,
,

'%%-&!,1
&

'.
*$$
)-$!,1
'

$!

'*
,

!,15+
*
+!

&,+
'&,!&-


/!,
,


1
,!%

*%

-,
'&+!

*

"-+,!&
,'



1+
/!,

-*,
*

!+-++!'&

'&
, !+
,'(!
1
,

$&&!&
'%%!++!'&
&

!,1
'-&!$

$670*



6+0-@
;/,
$%
,30.0)030;@
-69
-(94,9:D
4(92,;:
05*3<+05.
(5
(336>(5*,
-69
(
;,4769(9@
4(92,;
;6
67,9(;,
(;

,.(*@
(92
+<,
;6
*<99,5;
67,9(;05.

3040;(;065:
(;
;/,

6:
5.,3,:
6<5;@
:0;,

-'%%!,,


'%%
&
,!'&

&$-

,

%'
!
!,!'&
!&
,


'*
!&&

'*
,
%('**1

*%
*+5
%*#
,+

$/,
#<)*6440;;,,
9,*644,5+,+
:;(--
-05(30A,
(5
69+05(5*,
<;030A05.
79676:,+
&,9:065:

(5+


79,:,5;,+
(;
;/,
*;6),9





4,,;05.
(:
>,33
(:
-,,+)(*2

796=0+,+
;6+(;,
(5+
79,:,5;
;/,
0;,4
;6
;/,
3(5505.
6440::065
-69
-694(3
9,*644,5+(;065:
;6
;/,
0;@
6<5*03

45 
:ā
(ā ²G9ā*
4¬43ā
#$$

ā
Uª$
³¶

4ā8

ā-O7¡ā
ā
S$
@9
­
5ā
(āB/ā@
8I
3ā
´#$$
5ā
(ā
/āV:ā
(ā *©9ā
H

#
°A«ā
/ā#
. 

$ā
āY#
ā(

ā
/ā*(
T
®ā
5¹I

4 
Bā?*āµW?*B:ā
lā¨
.ā

#
H±A3ā
/
ā
/ā
:ā

¸
*ā 

ºā &
5
3ā
Y
ā  8H#

ā

†ā 7>mā (

ā 8ā
?#A.#5
ā

ā
/ā#*G9ā#94*ā
.ā

@ā ™¢ā C&

I43jā

ā
J.
ā
3·*


$āU@
.ā

āB#


:āJ$Sā

$ā
V
āa
ā

ā0ā\
ā'ā0ā !%ā
ā

%'āÄÞnā
āā
)"
āā;å),¥ā $

ā•ā


+)‡ā
–
ā .


%
ā E-6ā š=ā 
ā 'ā
<ā 
ā

!1ā
ˆā ›OF ā ¦ā D2
Õ
ā&
ā

þā?c


āC&
2āA‰āœ‚>Nāā
ā
ā'gā

K 'āJ
ā

ā
M
W2ā
!6ā
Ë
ā,āā



āā
 ÿā
"
āh 
1! )'āÌòāā

ā0ā
"
+2oā
āK
ā !%ā#
!ā
āi# 2ā$

ā D£PF¤QFM(2āā
æ Òā
"

āè
<

=āāā

ā
ā

fā 

ā;ā ÝÖ6ā
!üàpā
ā


)ā
"
ā
ā%!
ā

§ā
ā2ā
×

ā
ā)Z_éā

ā+ā
Ô
á
āā%â
ā

ā
 ā
ā»
āêāõ"
āā




dāā
ā
<ā,]

āā "
6āÓ=ā ā
ß

ā
ā



+—ā
GQ
ā  !ā 7Ÿqā rā 
ā &ā



ā

"ā 
ā 
ā ;ó





$1[



āC&

$kā
āā
ā
ā
ā

+āā
ā #ā
āï"
ā
Æ
%
`ā;āÈāā

  
āØ
āā¿ 0ā 

Pā
R
dā

%
āEsāžtā&

$ā

ā+ā
ā,āý
ā0āāÎā ë


ā"
āÇ
¼
`āÍ āÉāā

ð 
ā
āā Ïā 


Šā
.‹
ā4"

%
āDuāvā&
T$ā
+āāe"
āÑ f
ā
ā
ā



ā Ù

ç
ā ^ā ā 0ā  

ā 
ā




ā ÷
ā 
ā %
ā 



ā ā 
ā !ì
ā
Œā


ā (
%_Āā -wā -Nā ā
Ú

ā 0ā !


ā 


ā [)
ā /
ā ,
1½<
āāāí
L
ā0ā

)ā

1!āL
ā
ā'āÃā b%1āā!
Àāā



ā
eû
Žā
(

ā 
ā6ā-xāø
āa
ā
ā
ãāā!'āù

ā%!
ā
 

ā
ā 
ā
Xāc



ā
ā&
ā5ā7ƒ>yā
"
,
āā


ā\
ā
ā
 zā

"
L
ā
ā



ā, +

ā
 {ā%)
ā

'|āā
ā;Ûā
ā
ā

‘ā


ā b

ā
Kā "Á
ā

āā úÊāā
ñ1

ā !ā
"îāā
ā  Ðā 

Rā
]
ā1¾

ā&
ā,ā



ā
ā

ā+ā
ā 'ā7}ā-ā

ä ā!
ā
ā


’ā
3“

ā #'ā ¯~ā -ā 
ā <

ā 
ā


ā 
ā %)
ā 
Z
ā Åö


ā€ā-ā
ā
ā 
ā
Xā

Â
ā^
ā&
ā8”āE„˜>=ā
"
,
āā
Ü
ô
ā
Attachment 4
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61

62 63
64 65
66 From: Julie Carmen
To: Mary Linden
Subject: support Malibu Film Society screenings
Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 9:56:58 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
PLEASE do whatever is necessary to ALLOW Malibu Film Society to hold screenings at the Malibu Church. Currently, during pre-Oscar awards season we are driving into town 3 and 4 times per week just to screen movies.

Per capita, there are more voters for the Academy Awards in our little town than any other city. Many of us opt in as judges for Best Foreign Film and Best Animated Film. Therefore we are required to watch between 40-98 competing films. In the past, many of those films were screened by Malibu Film Society or at the Cinema which is now Fred Segals. Most Malibuites are not shoppers but we ARE avid filmgoers.

Malibu Film Society invited the directors, writers, producers and actors from the nominated films to hold Q&A sessions with our residents. This had great value for voters and for filmmakers among our permanent city inhabitants.

Also, ever since the Woolsey fire there has not been a community gathering place for residents and film lovers. But now we have a perfect venue with ample parking and facilities. Therefore, if a REGULATION stands in the way, PLEASE CHANGE THE REGULATION.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Julie Carmen
67 68
69 70
71 10-12-22
With Respect to the Malibu City Council ZORACES Subcommittee as you consider Agenda Item 2A.

Dear Members:

I am writing to ask you to support your consideration of regarding the use of Malibu’s public spaces.

As one of the founding members of the Malibu Film Society I am deeply committed to assuring that the Society have a permanent home in Malibu.

In addition, as Publisher Emeritus of the Malibu Times, a Co-Founder of the Malibu Dolphin Charitable Foundation and former Executive Board Member of the Malibu Jewish Center & Synagogue (not to mention my involvement in PTA, Little League, Soccer, etc. as we were raising our children here) much of my adult life has been dedicated to the people of Malibu and to building and supporting a strong, vibrant and caring community.

The success of the Malibu Film Society (as measured by its members, its content and reach, philanthropy, relationship with the film industry, etc.) is of great satisfaction to me. When we were allowed to screen our films in Malibu, it was my pleasure to be the official greeter. It was a joy to welcome our Malibu friends, neighbors, guests, adjacent film fans (of all ages) and cinema professionals = as our mission and was to create an occasion and environment where Malibu citizens could gather, not just to view a film but to enjoy, to learn, to discuss, to socialize and to build relationships which would prove meaningful to them and to our community as a whole.

Today I am asking you to support our mission by allowing us to resume screening our films in Malibu.

The Malibu Film Society has over 12 years of experience in producing events without incident or complaint.

The Malibu Pacific Church has invited the Society to utilize its facilities. We respectfully request that you favor the zoning clarification so that we are able to make the Church our new “home” in Malibu as it complies with the current code as a venue permitted for public gatherings and consistent with the health, safety and convenience of the community.

Respectfully submitted
Karen Portugal York
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 We do not have a Conditional Use Permit on our site to our knowledge and would never have gone the route of applying for a TUP for these types of events.

We received emails from the city saying that “activities beyond those limited to church members would be considered a community center use for which a CUP is required." Malibu Pacific Church is for everyone, and our Sunday service is for the community. Only a small number attending on any given Sunday are church members. Each week we welcome everyone in the community and will continue to. All of our activities are open to the community and provide a great place for people to gather. I understand how easy it is to categorize a group of people (ie. Golf courses are for golfers, shopping malls are for shoppers, churches are for church people, etc), but this is not true for churches. Churches are not for church people — rather, churches are for all people.

Sincerely,
Andy VomSteeg, Pastor
Immediately upon notification of the City’s demand, this event was removed from the Malibu Film Society website – at which point Malibu Film Society has not taken so much as a single reservation.

To confirm: the emails we’ve sent are virtually identical to the invitations being emailed directly by Malibu Pacific Church (which approved our emails before they were sent). These invitations CLEARLY specify that this is an event hosted and sponsored SOLELY by Malibu Pacific Church.

The reservations link contained in all of these email invitations go directly to the reservations site on the Malibu Pacific Church website, as shown below.

Bottom line: as Malibu Pacific Church is hosting this event for the entire community, are you now saying that Malibu Film Society can’t even let others know that they’re among those who’ve been invited by Malibu Pacific Church to attend?
On this basis, please immediately withdraw your determination that this is an unauthorized event as otherwise you’re putting MPC in the position of having no choice but to cancel this event in order to avoid the code violation.
85 From: Raneika Brooks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 10:22 AM
To: Scott Tallal; 'Chris Laubach'
Cc: 'Andy Vomsteeg'; Douglas Cleavenger; Richard Mollica; Mikke Pierson; Karen Farrer Subject: Re: Malibu Pacific Church Super Bowl Event
Good morning Scott,
As currently promoted, the Super Bowl watch party is an event that requires a TUP or CUP. In an effort to prevent an unauthorized event at Malibu Pacific Church, the Planning Department requested this event be removed from the Malibu Film Society website.

We were made aware that the Malibu Film Society has continued to promote and take reservations for this event. As a reminder, this is an unauthorized event and is subject to a code violation.

I suggest the scope for the church’s pending CUP be expanded to include recurring community outreach events like the watch party. In the interim, a TUP must by approved pursuant to MMC Section 17.68.050.

Best,
Raneika K. Brooks
Senior Planner | City of Malibu | Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA 90265-4861
Office: (310) 456-2489. Ext. 276 | Cell: (424) 422-8364 | Fax: (310) 456-7650 www.malibucity.org | [email protected]
Malibu City Hall is CLOSED for in-person service. For additional Planning Department information, please visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning 86 From: Scott Tallal <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 4:59 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>; 'Chris Laubach' <chris Cc: 'Andy Vomsteeg' <andy Douglas Cleavenger
<[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Mikke Pierson <[email protected]>; Karen Farrer <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Malibu Pacific Church Super Bowl Event
Thank you for sending, but this still fails to explain why events like ours are not covered by MMC

17.68.040(F) – which specifically *excludes* such events from requiring a TUP. This is not a question of whether a TUP application was submitted far enough in advance; rather, it’s whether the TUP is even required (as our reading of this provision of the code clearly says that it is not).

As to the issue of the nature of the Super Bowl watching party: exactly how does that change if MPC produces it independently vs. teaming up with MFS to co-sponsor with volunteers and other assistance?
Separately, we will proceed with the filing of a Public Records Request as instructed.

From: Raneika Brooks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 4:20 PM
To: Scott Tallal; 'Chris Laubach'
Cc: 'Andy Vomsteeg'; Douglas Cleavenger; Richard Mollica; Mikke Pierson; Karen Farrer Subject: RE: Malibu Pacific Church Super Bowl Event
Hi Scott,
My apologies for the delayed response.

The MMC Section referenced in your email below contains types of events for which a temporary use permit (TUP) can be issued. The NFC watch parties were brought to the Planning Dept’s attention to confirm if TUPs had been secured, which they hadn’t. MMC Section 17.68.050 requires the TUP application to be filed at least 35 days before the event. The Planning Dept. was made aware of last weekend’s NFC watch party four days before the event. My call to Chris Laubach was to determine the scope of the event and to avoid a code violation if a TUP was required.

After speaking with Chris, we understood last weekend’s NFC watch party to be a fellowship activity that one would consider typical for a place of worship. Chris also expressed an interest for the church facilities to be available to serve the community, which would potentially include recurring film screenings to be co-sponsored by the Malibu Film Society. As with the Malibu Jewish Center, the expanded use of the facilities requires a conditional use permit (CUP). Appendix 1 of the Malibu Zoning Ordinance lists churches/temples, charitable, philanthropic activities, educational (non-profit) activities, and community centers as uses that would require a CUP in the institutional zone. The Planning Department isn’t concerned about the promotion of the events, but the nature of the events being promoted that would require a TUP or CUP.

The Super Bowl watch party, as previously promoted, would have required a temporary use permit, at the very least. Regrettably, the TUP request wasn’t made in the time 87 frame required by the code. The suggestion to remove the promotion from the Malibu Film Society website was an effort to prevent the event from expanding to one that would require a TUP.

Regarding the emails from the Planning Commissioner who brought this concern to the Planning Department’s attention…it’s my understanding the emails can be provided to you through a public records request which can be made available here:
https://cityofmalibuca.nextrequest.com/.

I hope this provides some clarity to your questions. Let me know if you have additional questions.

Best,
Raneika K. Brooks
Senior Planner | City of Malibu | Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA 90265-4861
Office: (310) 456-2489. Ext. 276 | Cell: (424) 422-8364 | Fax: (310) 456-7650 www.malibucity.org | [email protected]
Malibu City Hall is CLOSED for in-person service. For additional Planning Department information, please visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning

From: Scott Tallal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>; 'Chris Laubach' <chris Cc: 'Andy Vomsteeg' <andy Douglas Cleavenger
<[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Mikke Pierson <[email protected]>; Karen Farrer <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Malibu Pacific Church Super Bowl Event
Hi Raneika,
As Chris has already noted: Malibu Pacific Church has passed along your demands so Malibu Film Society is no longer taking reservations for this event on our website (preventing us from accepting proof of vaccination in advance) and has also withdrawn as a co-sponsor.

That said, we’d like to request the following as we obviously need clarity from your department on how best to proceed:

The language of MMC 17.68.040(F) seems exceeding clear: MFS has been sponsoring indoor entertainment/assembly events held on premises designed to accommodate them, so under this section City Code confirms that no Temporary Use Permit is required. As you have already indicated that this upcoming event is in fact permitted if hosted by MPC – and you have previously confirmed approval of last weekend’s NFC Championship watching party – why is it this identical event suddenly NOT permissible with MFS as the co-host? When responding, please provide the specific section of the municipal code which prohibits public promotion of such events, and how our co-sponsorship violates that section of the code.

In your voicemail to Chris Laubach, you mentioned that you are taking this action based on an 88 email you received from one of the Planning Commissioners – so please provide us with a copy of that email and any others you have received regarding this and other Malibu Film Society events at MPC, Malibu Jewish Center & Synagogue, or any other local venue.

Your prompt response to both requests will be very much appreciated.

Best regards,
Scott Tallal
Executive Director
Malibu Film Society
From: Raneika Brooks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 2:44 PM
To: Chris Laubach
Cc: Andy Vomsteeg; scott.tallal@ Douglas Cleavenger; Richard Mollica Subject: RE: Malibu Pacific Church Super Bowl Event
Good afternoon Chris,
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I’ve copied the City’s Code Enforcement Manager, Doug Cleavenger, and the Planning Director, Richard Mollica, so they’re looped in on the status of the Super Bowl watch party.

Per your request, I’ve attached the adopted resolution that approved the CUP for the Malibu Jewish Center. As part of the conditions of approval for the Jewish Center is a description of the operational hours and a list of recurring special events. The pending CUP for Malibu Pacific Church will be structured the same way which currently lists the following events:
- Father-Daughter Valentine’s Dance 450, Timeframe – Valentine’s Day (February), Frequency – Annually
- Malibu Kids Camp (VBS) 200, Timeframe – June, Frequency – Annually - Easter Sunday-3 services 500+, Timeframe – March or April, Frequency – Annually - Christmas Eve-3 services 500+, Timeframe – Christmas Eve (December), Frequency – Annually
- Weddings (varies) 100-300, Timeframe – Varies, Frequency – 2 – 5 annually - Funerals (varies) 100-300, Timeframe – Varies, Frequency – 2 – 5 annually - Sunday Services 175-275, Timeframe – Year-round, Frequency – Weekly - Ice Cream Social/Movies Night 100-125, Timeframe – Varies, Frequency – 3 – 5 annually
- Malibu Pres Preschool Graduation 150, Timeframe – June, Frequency – Annually If there are additional recurring events the church anticipates hosting, I suggest adding the details to the pending CUP. This will avoid the need for obtaining temporary use permits which have limitations and time constraints.

I’ve completed a quick review of the revised plans for the community center. I will respond in a separate email with instructions for getting the plans formally submitted.

Please don’t hesitate to let me know if you have any additional questions. 89 90
91 1
Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 8:56 PM
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Subject: Fwd: Zoraces mtg - Wednesday 1p item 2A
Please include in the public record for item 4B my comments to the former zoraces committee re: temporary use permits for artistic events in Malibu need more leeway. Thanks! Jo
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jo Drummond >
Date: October 12, 2022 at 1:02:14 PM PDT
To: Mary Linden <[email protected]>
Subject: Zoraces mtgͲWednesday 1p item 2A
Attn Mikke & Steve,
Regarding the temporary use permits.

Firstly they should NOT be able to be applied in any religious establishment. These places should be able to worship, show films, have charitable events etc without any permit requirement such as with weddings and funerals there.If you need to require a TUP for events at religious establishments then make it a small annual fee with a reasonable limit required for the film society. If they need to show 50 films a year then let them show 50 films per year with that annual fee.
With regards to TUP’s for artistic events such as the summer concert series at the lumberyard the city should allow these events as a “series” so they aren’t charged per event. Such as one permit allows for 6 weekly events during the summer. So they aren’t limited to just two.

These are reasonable requests to keep the arts alive in Malibu so I hope you can make these appropriate adjustments to the TUP codes.

Thanks very much,
Jo Drummond
92 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, September 9, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. on the item listed below in the Council Chambers at Malibu City Hall, located at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA and via teleconference.

Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.

PROPOSED TEMPORARY USE PERMIT ORDINANCE
Zoning Text Amendment No. 21-005 – Consider an amendment and the Planning Commission’s recommendations to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Malibu Municipal Code to update regulations related to Temporary Use Permits
Applicant: City of Malibu
Location: Citywide
Case Planner Joseph Smith, Contract Planner
(310) 456-2489, ext. 245
[email protected]
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) updates the City’s Temporary Use Permit (TUP) requirements in the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), including eligibility and process criteria for TUPs and activities that are not subject to TUPs due to their location and/or event limitations. Any activity and/or project developed as a result of ZTA action that requires the City’s discretionary approval, such as issuance of a TUP or other permit will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA prior to such approval. The ZTA in no way limits the exercise of the City’s sole and absolute discretion. As such, the ZTA is not found to have a significant effect on the environment.

A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person by appointment at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING

DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Salvador Lopez, Jr., Interim Assistant Planning Director Publish Date: August 15, 2024
$WWDFKPHQW
93

Agenda Item # 4.B.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Renée Neermann, Financial Controller
Reviewed by: Joseph D. Toney, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: August 20, 2024 Meeting date: September 9, 2024 Subject: Proposed Schedule of Fees Fiscal Year 2024-25
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct the Public Hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 24-25 establishing the Schedule of Fees for Fiscal Year 2024-25.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. The Schedule of Fees establishes the amount the City can charge for service fees for cost recovery. The City’s FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget includes approximately $6.1 million in revenue from Services Charges and approximately $4.1 million in revenue from Licenses and Permits.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Plan is finalized.

DISCUSSION: State law mandates that agencies such as the City of Malibu charge customers only the fees necessary to recover costs for services provided. Fees cannot exceed the actual cost of the service. If the Schedule of Fees for FY 2024-25 is approved, the revised fees will not generate funds that exceed this standard.

In FY 2015-16, the City completed a comprehensive fee study. The fee rates from that study have been adjusted annually based on inflation, but no new comprehensive review has been conducted since.

Due to changes in operations, staffing, and the fact that the last study was nearly a decade ago, a new comprehensive study was needed to ensure that fees align with the true cost City Council Meeting
09-09-24
Item

4.B.
1

Agenda Item # 4.B.
of providing services. The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on August 3, 2023, and selected Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. (Matrix) in November 2023 to conduct a fee study.

Matrix’s study, which commenced in January 2024, included Department/Division staff interviews, data collection, cost analysis of direct and indirect costs, and a preparation of a proposed fee schedule. Matrix used a “bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity was determined for each position within a Department or Division. Once determined, all applicable City costs, including total overhead and consultant time, were then considered in the calculation of the “full” cost of providing each service. The study included a comparative study of other local jurisdictions, and the report contains a detailed description of the full cost recovery, as well as legal and policy considerations.

Film Permit Fees and Parkland Development Fees were not evaluated through this study.

The rates established for these fees are used as a base amount that is increased with a cost-of-living adjustment. The cost-of-living adjustment is derived from the Consumer Price Index (CPI) using an annual percentage from February. The percentage change was

3.4% in February 2024, and this adjustment has been applied to these fees for FY 2024-

25. On August 15, 2024, the Administration and Finance Subcommittee (A&F) met to discuss the completed fee study and proposed Schedule of Fees for FY 2024-25. A&F recommended, without opinion, the proposed fees as presented to the City Council for consideration and discussion.

Matrix’s completed report (Attachment B) and proposed Schedule of Fees for FY 2024-25 (Attachment A) are being presented for the City Council’s review and as a tool to understand current service levels, the cost of those services, and to determine if any of the proposed fees should be adjusted.

For the proposed Schedule of Fees for FY 2024-25 to take effect, the City Council must adopt Resolution No. 24-25. This action must occur at a regular meeting no later than 60 days before the new fee schedule’s effective date.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. 24-25
B. Report on Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
2 Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 24-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU
ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 SCHEDULE OF FEES
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Schedule of Fees. The City Council finds that the fees for permit processing and other services do not exceed the reasonable cost of services directly conferred to the payer and are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee. The City Council further finds that the fees for costs of regulation do not exceed the reasonable cost of regulation by the City.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Schedule of Fees (Exhibit A).

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner provided by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a), the fee increases and new fees shall be effective sixty days from the date of adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9th day of September 2024. _____________________________
DOUG STEWART, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
3 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
4 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
5 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
6 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
7 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
8 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
9 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
10 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
11 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
12 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
13 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
14 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
15 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
16 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
17 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
18 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
19 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
20 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
21 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
22 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
23 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
24 Resolution No. 24-25

_____________________
25 Report on Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

CITY OF MALIBU, CALIFORNIA

FINAL REPORT
August 2024

ATTACHMENT B
26 Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1

2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations 5

3. User Fee Study Methodology 9

4. Results Overview 12

5. Administration Fees 13

6. Building 17

7. Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health 29

8. Planning 33

9. Public Works - Engineering 40

10. Community Services 43

11. Development Services Surcharges 47

12. Cost Recovery Considerations 51
Appendix – Comparative Survey 55
27 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 1

1. Introduction and Executive Summary
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Malibu, California.

Project Background and Overview
The City of Malibu last conducted a comprehensive fee analysis in 2015 and has since updated most of its fees based upon an annual inflationary cost. This study aims to evaluate and determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing a variety of City services based upon the existing organizational structure and processes. The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost-of-service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following areas: Administration; Building; Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health; Planning; Community Services, and Public Works – Engineering. The results of this Study provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services.

General Project Approach and Methodology
The methodology employed by the Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for each position within a Department or Division. Once time spent for a fee activity is determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full” cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the City:

Table 1: Overview of Cost Components
Cost Component Description
Direct Fiscal Year 2024 Budgeted salaries, benefits, and allowable expenditures.

Indirect Division, departmental, clerical, and Citywide support.

Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total “full” cost of providing any particular service, regardless of whether a fee for that service is charged.

The work accomplished by the Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed fees for service involved the following steps:
28 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 2
• Department / Division Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department / division staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items, or for addition of new fee items.
• Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit / service, including time estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2024 were entered into the Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model. • Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was established.
• Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department and City management has reviewed and approved these documented results.

A more detailed description of user fee methodology, as well as legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.

Summary of Results
When comparing FY23-24 fee-related budgeted expenditures with fee-related revenue the City is under-recovering its costs by approximately $1.3 million or recovering 85% of its costs. The following table shows by major service area: the revenue collected, the total annual cost, the resulting difference, and the resulting cost recovery percentage.

Table 2: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis
Service Area
Current
Revenue1 Total Cost2 Difference
Cost
Recovery %
Building $2,805,396 $2,843,003 ($37,607) 99%
Geology, Coastal Eng., & Env. Health $2,087,410 $2,189,300 ($101,891) 95% Planning $1,720,595 $2,776,813 ($1,056,218) 62%
Public Works $691,896 $823,612 ($131,716) 84%
Total $7,305,296 $8,632,728 ($1,327,432) 85%
At $1.1 million, the largest source of under-recovery is Planning, which is primarily driven by Coastal Development Permits, Administrative Plan Review and Wireless Communication Facility fees. The typical cost recovery range seen in relation to Planning services is 50% to 80%. At 62% the City is in the lower portion of cost recovery when compared to other jurisdictions.

The next largest deficit is due to Public Works and is a result of proposed modifications to consolidate various fees into the hourly ‘Land Development Permit’ fee. The typical 1 This revenue is based on taking FY23 workload information and multiplying it against current fees to calculate the projected revenue. 2 Fee-related cost represents for that same workload information multiplying it against the full cost (direct, departmental, and citywide overhead) calculated in the study. It will not tie to the total departmental expense, as it is meant to tie to the total fee-related cost incurred based upon application and permits processed.
29 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 3
cost recovery for those fees is 80-100%, and again the City is at the lower end of that range at 84%.

The detailed documentation of this study will show an over-collection for some fees (on a per unit basis), and an undercharge for most others. The results of this analysis will provide the Department and the City with guidance on how to right-size their fees to ensure that each service unit is set at an amount that does not exceed the full cost of providing that service. The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis for policy development discussions among Council members and City staff, and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the Council should act. The setting of the “rate” or “price” for services, whether at 100 percent full cost recovery or lower, is a policy decision to be made only by the Council, with input from City staff and the community.

Considerations for Cost Recovery Policy and Updates
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in this report to make any necessary updates to their formal Cost Recovery policies and continue with their annual updates to fees for service. 1 Adopt a Formal Cost Recovery Policy
The Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) best practices for Establishing Government Charges and fees state that governmental entities should adopt formal policies regarding charges and fees, which include the jurisdiction’s intention to recover the full cost or partial costs of providing services, sets forth circumstances under which the jurisdiction might set a charge or fee at less than or more than 100% of full cost, and outlines the considerations that might influence the jurisdiction’s pricing decision.

Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the City adopt a formalized, individual cost recovery policy for each service area included in this Study. Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through other revenue sources. Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized cost recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice. 2 Continue Annual Fee Update / Increase Mechanism
The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure, service level estimates and assumptions, and to account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures that have occurred since the City’s previous analysis.
30 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 4
GFOA best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should review, and update charges and fees periodically based on factors such as the impact of inflation, other cost increases, adequacy of cost recovery, use of services, and the competitiveness of current rates to avoid large infrequent fee increases. Therefore, it is recommended the City continue the practice of conducting comprehensive analyses every five to seven years as this practice captures any changes to organizational structure, processes, code amendments, as well as any new service areas.

In between comprehensive updates, the City should continue to utilize published industry economic factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to update the cost calculations established in the Study annually. Utilizing an annual increase mechanism ensures that the City receives appropriate fee increases that reflect growth in costs. This annual increase factor should be consistent across all departments / services and be agreed upon by City Council.
31 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 5

2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations
This section of the report is intended to provide an overview regarding overall legal rules and regulations as well as general policy considerations for fees for service. A “user fee” is a charge for service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group. In California, several constitutional laws such as Propositions 13, 4, and 218, State Government Codes 66014 and 66016, and more recently Prop 26 and the Attorney General’s Opinion 92-506 set the parameters under which the user fees typically administered by local government are established and administered. Specifically, California State Law, Government Code 66014(a), stipulates that user fees charged by local agencies “…may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged”.

General Principles and Philosophies Regarding User Fees Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their communities.

While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community benefit received:

Table 3: Services in Relation to Benefit Received
“Global” Community Benefit “Global” Benefit and an
Individual or Group Benefit Individual or Group Benefit • Police
• Park Maintenance
• Fire Suppression
• Recreation / Community
Services
• Fire Prevention
• Building Permits
• Planning and Zoning Permits
• Site Plan Permits
• Engineering Development
Review
• Facility Rentals
Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund. In Table 3, services in the “global benefit” section tend to be funded primarily through voter approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fee, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual / 32 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 6
group benefit” section of the table, lie the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.

The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees:
• Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential to the safety of the community at large.
• A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees.

In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval.

Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service.

General Policy Considerations Regarding User Fees
Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from a tax based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum of benefit received.

Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group recognizes several reasons why City staff or the Council may not advocate the full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery:
• Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee at all. An example includes time spent copying and retrieving public documents and / or transportation permits.
• Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit for charging a water heater in residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit. 33 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 7
• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual.

Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the community as a whole. Examples include Planning Conformance Review, historical dedications, and certain types of special events.

The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable basis for determining the costs of providing services and ensure that the City complies with State law.

Parks and Recreation / Community Services Specific
Regulations
Specific rules and regulations within Proposition 26 impact Parks and Recreation / Community Services related activities directly. These regulations note that Parks and Recreation stands apart from other departments and services, as users are not compelled to participate in recreation programs, or to utilize rental facilities. As such, Parks and Recreation fees can be set based on market rates including both private sector providers as well as other public entities. The regulatory exceptions can be separated into two categories – rental rates and recreation programs. The following points provide further information regarding these items:

1. Rental Rates: One of the exceptions to the tax category under proposition 26 is a charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, or rental, or lease of local government property3. There is no requirement that these rates must be limited to the cost of service, as they can be dependent upon a variety of features of the facility or park being rented.

2. Recreation Programs: Under Proposition 26, the exception to the tax category is a charge that is “imposed”. Based upon the League of California Cities implementation guide for Proposition 26, as well as other legal opinions, recreation classes, youth sports, and adult sports are not a charge that is “imposed upon residents”. Rather residents have the option to voluntarily participate in those programs or utilize a private entity (non-governmental entity) for those activities.

Therefore, these rates are allowed to be set based on the combination of the cost of administering the program and the demand for the program (estimated participation).
3 Proposition 26 Article XIII C(1)(e)(4)
34 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 8
Utilizing these two principles is key to understanding the results generated through this analysis. As such, when setting fees specific to Parks and Recreation (Community Services), fees should be based upon the rates that the market can bear.

Summary of Legal Restrictions and Policy Considerations Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate” or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than the full cost amount.

The Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times fall into a “grey area”. However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee Study, the Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is reasonable, fair, and legal. The City should review all fees for service evaluated though this analysis. Where appropriate, the City can consider adjusting existing subsidies to reduce the deficit, and to remain in compliance with the law, any fees identified as over-recovering must be reduced.
35 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 9

3. User Fee Study Methodology
The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that the cost is calculated for each fee or line-item individually based upon the level of effort associated with that particular fee. The following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation:

The following subsections discuss the two components of the basis of the full cost.

Time Estimation
Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City developed these estimates. The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the following criteria:
• Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored in the analysis. • Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically perform a service.
• Estimates provided by staff are reviewed and approved by the department / division, and often involve multiple iterations before a Study is finalized. • Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their experience with other agencies.
• Estimates are not based on time and motion studies, as they are not practical for the scope of services and time frame for this project.
• Estimates match the current or proposed staffing levels to ensure there is no overallocation of staff resources to fee and non-fee related activities.

Time Assumption by
Position
Fully Burdened Hourly
Rate Total Cost
36 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 10
The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service on which to base a jurisdiction’s fees for service while meeting the requirements of California law.

The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a “time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or sometimes very large and complex projects, the Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons:
• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner. • Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts.
• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for permits or participating in programs.
• Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes.

Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time tracking and billing on a “time and materials” basis. The Matrix Consulting Group has recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate and itemized within the current fee schedule.

Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
The fully burdened hourly rates calculated through this study include the following components:
• Salaries: FY23-24 Budgeted salaries were utilized and consolidated at the positional level.
• Benefits: FY23-24 Budgeted benefits were utilized and consolidated at the positional level.
• Productive Hours: Based on the City of Malibu’s current personnel system rules, working or productive hours were calculated. This means taking the 2,080 starting hours and reducing the hours by vacation, sick, holidays, trainings, and administrative leave.
37 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 11
• Departmental / Divisional Overhead: This captures any internal service charges or operating supply costs such as vehicles, supplies, etc. Additionally, this component includes the cost associated with support from Director, Administrative and Analytical staff that do not directly work on fees. • Citywide Overhead: This captures support provided by City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance, and Human Resources. The costs are based upon the City’s FY23-24 indirect cost allocation plan (provided under separate cover).

Together these components result in the generation of fully burdened hourly rates by position / classification and / or department / division. These rates were multiplied against the time assumptions to calculate the full cost of services noted in this report. 38 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 12

4. Results Overview
The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for the Council and Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for the community, and also to maintain control over the policy and management of these services.

It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement.

In general, a cost-of-service analysis takes a “snapshot in time”, where a fiscal year of financial and operational information is utilized. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of time estimates allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, the Council and Department staff should rely conservatively upon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward.

Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will include detailed cost calculation results for each major permit category including the following:
• Modifications: discussions regarding any proposed revisions to the current fee schedule, including elimination or addition of fees.
• “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service to the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable). • Annualized Results: utilizing volume of activity estimates annual subsidies and revenue impacts were projected.

The full analytical results were provided to City staff under separate cover from this summary report.
39 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 13

5. Administration Fees
The Administrative Fee category encompasses fees for services that are applied Citywide, including copy fees, credit card surcharges, film permits, and alarm fees. While these services can be applied Citywide, the City Clerk and Finance are responsible for overseeing, processing, and administering them. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detail per-unit results for each major service area.

Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, it was proposed to eliminate ‘Passport’ related fees from the City Clerk’s fee schedule as services is no longer offered. This modification ensures that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services currently being provided by the City.

Detailed Results – City Clerk
City Clerk collect fees for copy and reproductions fees, subpoena fees, and filing fees.

The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

Table 4: Total Cost Per Unit Results – City Clerk
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Copies4
Standard $0.10 $0.10 $0.00
Certified $16 $16 $0
Color $0.25 $0.25 $0.00
Oversize Plans:

Per Sheet $5 $5 $0
Actual Cost Direct Cost
Special Projects Direct Cost of Duplication
Reproduction on CD/DVD $5 $2 $3
Document Recording and Filing Fee
Refer to LA County Registrar- Recorder/County
Clerk
Dolphin Decal $5 $6 ($1)
Lobbyist Registration5 $46 $100 ($54)
Subpoena Copies
Standard Copies6 $0.10 $0.10 $0.00
Oversized Documents Direct Cost of Duplication
4 GOV § 70627 (a)
5 GOV § 86102
6 GOV § 70627 (a)
40 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 14
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Clerical Costs7 $24 $24 $0
Retrieval of Records Direct Cost of Retrieval
Subpoena Duces Tecum
Documents8 $15 $15 $0
Persons9 $275 $275 $0
Vehicle Impound Fee10 $150 $150 $0
At $3, ‘Reproduction of CD/DVD’ is the only over-recovery. Under-recoveries range from $1 for ‘Dolphin Decal’ to $54 for Lobbyist Registration.

Detailed Results – Finance
Finance collects fees for alarm permits and non-sufficient fund checks. The total cost calculated for alarm permits shows the total City staff time spent administering these fees and penalties. The calculation includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

Table 5: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Finance
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Alarm Permit
New $71 $76 ($5)
Renewal $43 $51 ($8)
Reinstatement $71 $76 ($5)
False Alarm
Third False Alarm in 12-month period $314 $355 ($41)
Each Add'l False Alarm $105 $127 ($22)
Non-Sufficient Funds Check11
First Check $40 $25 $15
Subsequent Checks $40 $35 $5
Finance is currently under recovery for all of their alarm permits, ranging from a low of $5 for ‘Alarm Permit – New’ to a high of $41 for ‘False Alarm – Third False Alarm in a 12- month period.’ Typically, alarm fees maximums are set by city ordinance, or are increase exponentially to distinctive repeat offenses. Additionally, the cost for non-sufficient fund checks is set by state law, as such, the City would need to adjust their fees accordingly. 7 EVI § 1563(b)(1) 8 EVI § 1563(b)(6)
9 GOV § 68097.2 (b)
10 Fee is set based on Resolution No. 21-15 and has not been changed since that resolution and was not evaluated in this study. 11 CIV § 1719(a) 41 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 15
Filming Fees
In relation to film permits, the City contracts with SWS to oversee and administer film permits. The current contract splits the majority of fees collected; 75% remains with SWS and 25% is passed onto the City to offset the impact filming within City property. SWS sets filming rates based on market rates and in accordance with the LA Film commission, as such these fees were not evaluated through this study.

Credit Card Transaction Fee
The City of Malibu incurs a fee from credit card companies for any transactions that require the use of credit cards. To recover the costs associated with these credit card transaction fees, the City currently charges a 2.90% surcharge on all transactions.

Through this study, the project team worked with City staff to determine the appropriate surcharge amount.

In order to calculate the surcharge, the project team divided the budgeted expenditures associated with bank fees by the potential budgeted revenue made against those credit card transactions. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 6: Credit Card Transaction Fee Calculation
Category Amount
Credit Card Fee Charges $106,448
Credit Card Transaction Amount $3,670,629
Credit Card Fee Rate 3.90%
Based upon this calculation, the City’s full cost associated with credit card fees is 3.90%.

This percentage represents the maximum justifiable amount the City could charge an applicant and remain in compliance with state and federal laws. The following table compares the City’s current fee to the full cost fee calculated through this study:

Table 7: Credit Card Transaction Fee Per Unit Result Comparison Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference
Credit Card Convenience Fee 2.90% 3.90% (1.00%)
The full cost fee represents a cost recovery level of 74%.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of the Credit Card Transaction fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction 42 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 16
and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

Table 8: Credit Card Transaction Fee – Comparative Survey Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Camarillo 2.65% of Fees Paid
Manhattan Beach 2.3% of Fees Paid
Redondo Beach 3% of Fees Paid
West Hollywood $3.95 Per Transaction
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, all assess a fee less than the full cost calculated. At 3%, Redondo Beach charges the most, similar to Malibu’s current fee of 2.90%. West Hollywood is the only jurisdiction that charges a flat fee rather than a percentage.

Annual Results
Due to a majority of these fees being state set, regulated by municipal code, or contracted out no annual results were analyzed.
43 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 17

6. Building
The Building Division is responsible for all plan check and inspection associated with existing or new construction. The fees examined within this study relate to structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing plan check an inspection. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Building.

Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Expanded Fees: For consistency with other fees, staff proposed expanding ‘Battery Backup System’ and ‘Generators and Transfer Switches – Rating 1 to 50 HP / 1 to 37 kW’ and ‘Generators and Transfer Switches – Rating 51 HP or greater HP / 38 or greater kW’ into the following two categories: ‘Plan Check’ and ‘Permit’ • New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fee as they highlight either services already offered but not codified on the fee schedule or new services the City is looking to provide:
- ‘Generators and Transfer Switches – Rating 1 to 50 HP / 1 to 37 kW’ plan check and inspection and ‘Generators and Transfer Switches – Rating 51 HP or greater HP / 38 or greater kW’ plan check and inspection. - ‘Dark Skies Ordinance’ for Residential and Commercial - ‘Elevated Exterior Elements Assessment Report’
• Modified Fees: The following are miscellaneous modifications proposed by staff:
- Staff proposed changing ‘Pile Repair’ from ‘each’ to ‘per pile’. - Staff moved the ‘Change of address / House Number’ to the Planning fee schedule as that department is now responsible for this service. - Staff proposed renaming ‘Solid Waste and Encroachment Permit Application’ to ‘Hauler Permit Annual Fee’.

These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services currently being provided by the Building Division. 44 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 18
Detailed Results
The Building Division collect fees for structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing plan check an inspection. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

Table 9: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Building
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Building - Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Fees
Plan Check Fees (Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Only) $215 $232 ($17) Emergency Inspection Fee - After Hours $323 $293 $29
Electrical Permit Fees
New Residential
Single and Two-Family $0.28 $0.28 $0.00
Garage, Carport (Attached/Detached) $0.15 $0.14 $0.01
Multi-Family 0 - 1,000 SF $0.40 $0.42 ($0.02)
Multi-Family 1,001 - 5,000 SF $0.65 $0.62 $0.03
Multi-Family > 5,000 SF $0.53 $0.52 $0.01
Remodel Residential Buildings $0.28 $0.26 $0.02
New Commercial/Tenant Improvement $0.51 $0.49 $0.02
Outlets/Lighting Fixture $54 $62 ($9)
Branch Circuits
Branch Circuits 1-10 $27 $30 ($3)
Branch Circuits 11-40 $21 $25 ($4)
Branch Circuits 41-Up $18 $20 ($2)
Fixed Appliance (Not Over 1 HP) $43 $50 ($7)
Disconnect $43 $50 ($7)
Battery Backup System
Plan Check $54 $232 ($179)
Permit $54 $250 ($196)
Electric Vehicle Charging Station (Residential)
EV Outlet $108 $125 ($17)
Single Phase Wall Unit:

Plan Check $108 $232 ($125)
Permit $108 $250 ($142)
Three Phase Wall Unit; Stand Alone; Commercial:

Plan Check $430 $407 $23
Permit $430 $437 ($7)
Generators and Transfer Switches
Rating 1 to 50 HP / 1 to 37 kW
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Rating 51 HP or greater HP / 38 or greater kW
Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $430 $375 $55
45 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 19
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Services, Switchboards & Subs
0 To 399 Amps $108 $125 ($17)
400 To 1000 Amps (> 600Amp Requires Plan Check) $161 $187 ($26) > 1000 Amps $215 $250 ($35)
Pedestal Including Meters $215 $250 ($35)
Temporary Power
Temporary Service Pole or Pedestal Incl. Meters $215 $250 ($35) Temp Service Pole Incl. Sub Poles, Switches & Outlets $323 $375 ($52) Temporary Trailer Insp. Fee (Pre-Site) $323 $375 ($52)
Misc. Conduits and Conductors
Apparatus/Equip/Conduits/Conductors - All Other $108 $125 ($17) Change From Overhead to Underground $215 $250 ($35)
Private Swimming Pools
Inground Swimming Pool (Incl. Equipment) $108 $125 ($17) Other Pools (Spas, Hot Tubs, Etc.) $215 $250 ($35)
Alterations to Swimming Pools $54 $82 ($29)
Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees
First Sign and Transformer $215 $250 ($35)
Each Additional Sign, Transformer, Circuit $54 $62 ($9) Alterations/Relocations of Existing Signs $54 $62 ($9)
Time Clock $54 $42 $12
Plumbing Permit Fees
Backflow Prevention Device
Up To 2" Diameter $54 $62 ($9)
Over 2" Diameter $108 $82 $25
Gas System
1 To 5 Outlets $108 $125 ($17)
Each Additional Outlet $21 $25 ($4)
Yard Gas Piping
0 - 300 Feet $108 $125 ($17)
Each Additional 300' Increment $21 $25 ($4)
Service Water Piping
0 - 300 Feet $108 $125 ($17)
Each Additional 300' Increment $21 $25 ($4)
Ejector Pump/Sump With Basin (requires plan check) $108 $125 ($17) Sewer Connection to Wastewater Treatment Facility
Residential:

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Non-Residential:

Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $645 $749 ($104)
Sewer Line Repair and Maintenance $215 $250 ($35)
Hose Bibs $54 $62 ($9)
Irrigation $54 $62 ($9)
Hydrozone $108 $125 ($17)
Graywater
Simple $108 $250 ($142)
46 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 20
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Complex $161 $250 ($89)
Landscape Ordinance Plan Check
Simple $108 $125 ($17)
Complex $215 $250 ($35)
Rain Water Harvesting System
Rain Water Harvesting System $215 $500 ($285)
Storage Tank $215 $500 ($285)
Premanufactured Spa $430 $500 ($70)
Repair/Alter of Piping or Drainage $21 $25 ($4)
Roof Drain $54 $62 ($9)
Lavatory $54 $62 ($9)
Shower / Bath Tub $54 $62 ($9)
Toilet $54 $62 ($9)
Earthquake Shut Off Valve $54 $62 ($9)
Trap Primer $54 $62 ($9)
Water Heater (and/or Vent) $54 $62 ($9)
Mechanical Permit Fees
Split System/Mini Split System $215 $250 ($35)
FAU Heating/AC Units
100K to 500K BTU $108 $125 ($17)
> 500K BTU $161 $167 ($6)
Heating or Cooling Coils $54 $62 ($9)
Radiant Floor Heating (Requires Plan Check) $108 $125 ($17) Air Outlets For Heating/Cooling $54 $62 ($9)
Commercial Air Dist. System (Heating/Cooling/Vent) $43 $50 ($7) Ventilation Fans On Single Duct (Incl. Dryer Exhaust) $43 $50 ($7) Ventilation Fan
To 300 CFM $43 $50 ($7)
301 CFM and Over $43 $50 ($7)
Hood
Commercial Hood (Incl. Duct) $108 $125 ($17)
Residential Hood (Incl. Duct) $108 $125 ($17)
Appliance or Piece of Equipment Not Listed $108 $125 ($17) Premanufactured Fire Place $108 $125 ($17)
Gas System (For projects where plumbing permit has not been issued) 1 to 5 Outlets $108 $125 ($17)
Each Additional Outlet $21 $25 ($4)
Central Vacuum System $215 $250 ($35)
Evaporative Cooler $108 $125 ($17)
Factory Built or Metal Chimney $108 $125 ($17)
Metallic Flues $108 $125 ($17)
Yard Gas Piping (For projects where plumbing permit has not been issued)
0 - 300 Feet $108 $125 ($17)
Each Additional 300' Increment $21 $25 ($4)
Building - Itemized Building Construction Fees
Awning
Plan Check $108 $116 ($9)
47 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 21
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Permit $108 $125 ($17)
Balcony addition
Plan Check $323 $349 ($26)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Bay window
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Carport
Plan Check $323 $349 ($26)
Permit $323 $375 ($52)
Covered Porch
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Deck - Attached (2 Max.) / Detached (each)
Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Deck/Balcony Repair
Minor (Structural):

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Major (Structural):

Plan Check $323 $349 ($26)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Demolition
Demolition (up to 3,000 s.f.):

Plan Check $323 $349 ($26)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Additional demolition Permit $108 $125 ($17)
Excavation Permit $108 $125 ($17)
Masonry Fence/Wall
Masonry fence: up to 6' high (up to 100 ln. ft.):

Plan Check $161 $174 ($13)
Permit $269 $312 ($44)
Additional masonry walls $108 $125 ($17)
Masonry fence: > 6' high (up to 100 ln. ft.):

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $323 $375 ($52)
Additional masonry walls > 6 ' height $161 $175 ($14)
Cabana
Cabana (<300 s.f.):

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Cabana (>300 s.f.):

Plan Check $323 $349 ($26)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Patio Cover/Trellis:

Patio cover/Trellis (<500 s.f.):

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
48 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 22
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Patio cover/Trellis (>500 s.f.):

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Pilaster per city standard (up to 6' high) $54 $62 ($9) Automatic Vehicular Gates (up to 2 access points)
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Retaining Wall
Retaining wall: < 7'' high (up to 50 ln ft.):

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $323 $375 ($52)
Additional retaining wall
Plan Check $108 $116 ($9)
Permit $108 $125 ($17)
Retaining wall: 7 - ≤ 10' high (up to 50 ln ft.):

Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Additional retaining wall
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Retaining wall: 10' + high (up to 30 ln. ft.):

Plan Check $1,075 $1,162 ($87)
Permit $538 $625 ($87)
Additional retaining wall
Plan Check $108 $116 ($9)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Fireplace
Masonry fireplace/Isokern:

Plan Check $323 $349 ($26)
Permit $323 $375 ($52)
Lighting Pole
Lighting pole:

Plan Check $54 $58 ($4)
Permit $108 $125 ($17)
Each add'l pole (up to 5):

Plan Check $54 $58 ($4)
Permit $54 $62 ($9)
Reroof
Reroofing, < 30sq. & < 5.9 lb./sq. (Permit) $430 $500 ($70) Reroofing, < 30sq. & > 5.9 lb./sq.:

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Additional Reroof Permit $161 $175 ($14)
Additional Reroof Flat Roof Only (Permit) $54 $75 ($21) Elective Cool Roof - Residential (Plan Check) $108 $116 ($9) Re-Stucco Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Skylight
49 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 23
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Skylight (less than 10 sq. ft.):

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Skylight (greater than 10 sq. ft. or structural):

Plan Check $323 $349 ($26)
Permit $323 $375 ($52)
Solar
Solar Hot Water Heating:

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Solar Pool Heating:

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Photovoltaic
Plan Check $150 $116 $34
Permit $150 $125 $25
Battery Backup System
Plan Check $108 $116 ($9)
Permit $108 $125 ($17)
Generators and Transfer Switches
Rating 1 to 50 HP / 1 to 37 kW:

Plan Check $215 $465 ($250)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Rating 51 HP or greater HP / 38 or greater kW:

Plan Check $430 $697 ($267)
Permit $430 $375 $55
Signs
Building:

Plan Check $54 $58 ($4)
Permit $108 $62 $45
Electrical:

Plan Check $54 $58 ($4)
Permit $54 $62 ($9)
Swimming Pool/Spa
Swim Pool (Res. < 800 SF) inclusive of MEP:

Plan Check $645 $511 $134
Permit $860 $999 ($139)
Swim Pool (Com. or > 800 SF) inclusive of MEP:

Plan Check $1,290 $1,325 ($35)
Permit $1,075 $1,249 ($174)
Swimming Pool Remodel:

Gunite
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Plaster
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Spa:
50 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 24
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Temporary Constr. Trailer w/ Ramp
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Window/Slider
Replacement (non-structural up to 5) Permit $215 $250 ($35) New Window Retrofit (up to 5):

Plan Check $54 $116 ($62)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
New window (w/ structural; up to 5):

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $323 $375 ($52)
Septic Systems
Residential - Alternative - Inspection $753 $874 ($122) Residential - Conventional - Inspection $538 $625 ($87) Commercial - Alternative - Inspection $1,075 $1,249 ($174) Commercial - Conventional - Inspection $968 $1,124 ($157) Repair / Alteration (1-3 components) $215 $250 ($35)
Repair / Alteration (over 3 components) $215 $250 ($35) Disconnection/Abandonment of system $215 $250 ($35)
Sewer Connection to OWTS $215 $250 ($35)
OWTS System Abandonment $215 $250 ($35)
Grading Inspection and Plan Check
1 - 50 Cubic Yards:

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $860 $999 ($139)
51 - 100 Cubic Yards:

Plan Check $323 $349 ($26)
Permit $1,075 $1,249 ($174)
101 - 500 Cubic Yards:

Plan Check $645 $697 ($52)
Permit $1,290 $1,499 ($209)
501 - 1000 Cubic Yards:

Plan Check $1,075 $1,162 ($87)
Permit $1,505 $1,749 ($244)
> 1000 Cubic Yards:

Plan Check $1,720 $1,859 ($139)
Permit $2,365 $2,748 ($383)
Plus, for each additional 500 Cubic Yards:

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $108 $150 ($42)
Stormwater inspection $215 $250 ($35)
Drainage
Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Biofiltration, Detention Device
Minor:
51 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 25
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Major:

Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $645 $749 ($104)
Caisson
Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $108 $125 ($17)
Pile Repair
Plan Check $430 $232 $198
Permit $430 $125 $305
Foundation Repair
Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Foundation Only 25% 42% (17%)
Underpinning to Existing Foundation - Minor:

Plan Check $215 $232 ($17)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Underpinning to Existing Foundation - Major:

Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Grade Beams
Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $430 $500 ($70)
Bulkheads/Seawalls/Wave Uprush Study
Plan Check $1,075 $1,162 ($87)
Permit $1,075 $1,249 ($174)
Remodel Interior/Exterior:

Minor Non-Structural:

Plan Check 40% 40% 0%
Permit 40% 40% 0%
Minor with Structural:

Plan Check 50% 50% 0%
Permit 50% 50% 0%
Major Non-Structural:

Plan Check 50% 50% 0%
Permit 50% 50% 0%
Major with Structural:

Plan Check 60% 60% 0%
Permit 60% 60% 0%
Parking Lot- Striping/Replacement - Plan Ck & Insp
Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Wireless Telecomm Facility (Antenna Only)
Plan Check $430 $465 ($35)
Permit $215 $250 ($35)
Accessibility Hardship Extension Permit $645 $749 ($104) Permit Time Extension Fee $323 $375 ($52)
52 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 26
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Preliminary Review (Covers 2 Hrs - Add. @ Hrly Rate) $430 $500 ($70) Administrative Fee (Charge @ Hrly Rate) $215 $250 ($35) Administrative Permit Processing Fee $54 $62 ($9)
Administrative Plan Check Processing Fee $54 $58 ($4)
Revised Energy Analysis $430 $465 ($35)
Miscellaneous Fee (Charge @ Hrly Rate) $215 $250 ($35)
As-built Plan Review $430 $500 ($70)
Plan Comparison Check (Hrly Rate - 1 Hr Min.) $215 $250 ($35) Minor Plan Revision (Hrly Rate - 2 Hr Min.) $430 $500 ($70) Permit Processing Fee - Expired Plan Check $860 $999 ($139) Permit Processing Fee - Expired Permit $860 $999 ($139) Plan Check (Application) Extension $215 $250 ($35)
Site Inspections Not Covered by Fees $430 $500 ($70)
Bldg Plan Check Fee (Hrly Rate - 1 Hr Min.) $215 $232 ($17) Excessive Plan Check Fee (Third Review) (Per Hr) $215 $232 ($17) Non-Compliance Fee - Excess Inspection (Per Hr) $215 $250 ($35) Change of Occupant Inspection $215 $375 ($160)
Dark Skies Ordinance
Residential New $2,893 N/A
Commercial New $3,858 N/A
Elevated Exterior Elements Assessment Report
1 - 9 Elements New $241 N/A
10 - 49 Elements New $482 N/A
50 -99 Elements New $964 N/A
100 or More Elements New $1,447 N/A
Building - Structural Inspection and Plan Check
All New Residential Construction (includes additions)
Plan Check $2.28 $2.26 $0.02
Permit $2.28 $2.29 ($0.01)
Residential Remodels
Minor Non-Structural 40% 40% 0%
Minor with Structural 50% 50% 0%
Major Non-Structural 50% 50% 0%
Major with Structural 60% 60% 0%
Residential Non-Structural Interior Remodel
Level 1: Less than or equal to 500 S.F.: $215 $482 ($267) Level 2: 501-1,000 S.F.: $323 $723 ($401)
Level 3: 1,001-1,500 S.F.: $538 $1,206 ($668)
All Non-Residential (includes commercial) $2.86 $2.70 $0.16 Tenant Improvements (TI)
< 5,000 SF $2.84 $1.15 $1.69
> 5,000 SF $3.42 $0.77 $2.65
Utility and Miscellaneous $3.04 $3.05 ($0.01)
Miscellaneous
Building Board of Appeals $430 $500 ($70)
Building Permit Investigation Fee (For Work Without a Permit) $430 $500 ($70) Certificate Of Occupancy - Temporary $430 $500 ($70)
Document Imaging Fee
53 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 27
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Building Permits $8 $9 ($1)
Environmental Health $29 $31 ($2)
Geology, Coastal Engineering & Wave Uprush Reports $29 $31 ($2) Septic Approvals $8 $9 ($1)
Emergency Inspection Fee - After Hours $323 $250 $73
Foundation Only Administrative Fee $430 $250 $180
Permit Renewals
No Inspections 100% 100% 0%
Rough Inspection 50% 50% 0%
Final Inspection 20% 20% 0%
Replacement of Job Card $20 $20 $0
School Processing Fee - SMMUSD $55 $62 ($7)
Hauler Permit Annual Fee
Solid Waste Bin Placement - 0 to 10 Bins $1,343 $1,792 ($449) Solid Waste Bin Placement - Over 10 Bins $90 $163 ($73) Building primarily under-recovers for their fees. The largest deficit at $668 is in relation to ‘Residential Non-Structural Interior Remodel – Level 3: 1,001-1,500 S.F’, followed by at ‘Residential Non-Structural Interior Remodel – Level 2: 501 -1,000 S.F’ and ‘Grading Inspection and Plan Check - >1,000 Cubic Yards – Permit’ at $401 and $383, respectively.

Over-recoveries range from a high of $305 for ‘Pile Repair – Permit’ to a low of $0.01 for ‘Electrical Permit – New Residential – Garage, Carport (Attached/Detached)’.

Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the FY23 permit information, Building has an under-recovery of roughly $38,000.

The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Table 10: Annual Results – Building
Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee
Annual
Cost Difference
MEPs $719,742 $774,224 ($54,483)
Miscellaneous Building Permits $1,168,534 $1,183,603 ($15,069) Square Footage Based Bldg Permits $917,120 $885,175 $31,945 Total $2,805,396 $2,843,003 ($37,607)
Building has an annual cost recovery of 99%, which reflects roughly a $38,000 deficit.

MEP and miscellaneous building permit fees are the primarily reason for the deficit. Most of the MEP deficit is caused by the per fixture plumbing fee and the ‘appliance or piece of equipment not listed fee’. Due to the high instances of these types of permits, even a small increase in their fee would bridge the cost recovery gap. The ‘Dark Skies Ordinance’ 54 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 28
is the main reason for the large difference in miscellaneous building permits. As previously stated, to account for permits relating to this ordinance, staff has proposed codifying this service in the department’s fee schedule. 55 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 29

7. Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health is responsible for mitigating construction impacts on coastal areas, along with focusing on environmental sustainability. The fees examined within this study relate to coastal and geological project review and onsite wastewater treatment (OWTS) review and inspections. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health.

Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating the following fee as these services are no longer offered:
- ‘Geology and Geotechnical Board of Appeals’
- ‘Operating Permit Transfer Fee’
• New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fee as they highlight either services already offered but not codified on the fee schedule or new services the City is looking to provide:
- ‘Operating Fees – Transfer Fee’
- ‘Env Health - OWTS As-Built Review Fee’
• Expanded Fees: Staff proposed expanding ‘OWTS Repairs’ into two fees: ‘Septic Tank Replacement’ and ‘Dispersal Area Replacement’
• Modified Fees: The following points highlight various miscellaneous modifications proposed by staff:
- ‘Replacement/Expansion Tank or Dispersal Field Review’ was renamed ‘OWTS Repairs’.
- ‘OWTS Review of Certificate for Reduced Onsite Wastewater Set Back’ was renamed ‘Env Health - OWTS Reduced Setback Review’.
- ‘Change of Address / House Numbers’ this fee was moved to the Planning fee schedule as that department is now responsible for this service. 56 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 30
These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services provided by Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health.

Detailed Results
Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health collect fees for coastal and geological project review and onsite wastewater treatment (OWTS) review and inspections. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

Table 11: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Coastal Engineering
Building Plan Check Stage Review $870 $870 ($0)
Complex Project Review $3,753 $3,749 $4
Standard Project Review $1,876 $1,875 $1
Minor Project Review $870 $870 ($0)
Time and Materials Fee $264 $268 ($4)
Geology
Bldg and Grading Plan Review (Plans Only) - Following a Plan Approval $1,179 $1,205 ($26) Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Hydrogeolic Reviews $5,053 $5,089 ($36) Lot Line Adjust - SFR
Complex $5,389 $5,490 ($101)
Standard Guest Houses & Second Units $3,704 $3,749 ($45) Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Foundation Repairs $2,527 $2,544 ($17) Single Family Residence
Complex $5,389 $5,490 ($101)
Standard Guest Houses & Second Units $3,704 $3,749 ($45) Subdivisions - SFR
Complex $5,389 $5,490 ($101)
Standard Guest Houses & Second Units $3,704 $3,749 ($45) Miscellaneous
Swimming Pools $3,367 $3,348 $19
Additions $3,367 $3,348 $19
Remodels $3,367 $3,348 $19
Retaining Walls $3,367 $3,348 $19
Seawalls $3,367 $3,348 $19
Slope Repairs $3,367 $3,348 $19
Miscellaneous Geology Projects $264 $268 ($4)
As-built Geotechnical Report Review $538 $536 $2
Environmental Health Review Fees
Non-OWTS Review - Simple
Planning Phase $949 $1,071 ($122)
Building Phase $430 $402 $28
OWTS Repairs
Septic Tank Replacement $430 $536 ($106)
Dispersal Area Replacement $430 $536 ($106)
57 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 31
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
OWTS Review - Complex
Planning Phase $2,493 $2,812 ($319)
Building Phase $1,780 $2,009 ($229)
OWTS Review - Complex Commercial12
Planning Phase $8,072 $8,000 $72
Building Phase $8,000 $8,000 $0
Env Health - OWTS Reduced Setback Review $949 $536 $413 Env Health
Hourly Review Fee $239 $268 ($29)
Env Health - OWTS As-Built Review Fee $239 $268 ($29)
Certificate Of OWTS Inspection $280 $402 ($122)
OWTS Compliance Agreement $280 $402 ($122)
Environmental Health Program Fees
Operating Fees
Residential $560 $670 ($110)
Commercial $1,116 $1,339 ($223)
Multi-Family $1,116 $1,339 ($223)
Transfer Fee $239 $268 ($29)
OWTS Practitioner Application Fee
Initial Registration $275 $402 ($127)
Renewal Registration $275 $402 ($127)
Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health primarily under-recovers for their fees. At $319, the largest deficit is in relation to ‘OWTS Review – Complex – Planning Phase’, followed by ‘OWTS Review – Complex – Building Phase’ and commercial and multi-family ‘Operating Fees’ at $229 and $223.

Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the FY23 permit information, Geology, Coastal Engineering, and Environmental Health have an under-recovery of roughly $102,000. The following table shows revenue at the current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference by major fee category.

Table 12: Annual Results – Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee
Annual
Cost Difference
Coastal Eng $112,784 $112,751 $33
Geology $1,319,715 $1,332,693 ($12,978)
Environmental Health $654,911 $743,857 ($88,946)
Total $2,087,410 $2,189,300 ($101,891)
12 These projects are outsourced and an initial deposit of $8,000 is collected along with an administrative fee. 58 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 32
Geology, Coastal Engineering, & Environmental Health has an annual cost recovery of 95%, which reflects roughly a $102,000 deficit. At $89,000, Environmental Health is the reason for the deficit. Operating Fees for ‘Residential’ and ‘Multi-Family’ accounts for a majority of the deficit. Currently, the City charges $560 and $1,116 for these reviews; the full cost calculated for each is $670 and $1,339, resulting in an $1102 and $223 per unit difference, respectively. Due to the large amount of these permits administered, even a small adjustment would impact cost recovery. Overall, the City should review these fees and others like them, making adjustments to bridge the deficit gap and improve cost recovery.

Over-recoveries, although minimal, are related to coastal engineering and geology fees.

The main contributors to the over-recover are in relation to standard and complex ‘Project Review’ and ‘Single Family Residence – Complex’. Adjusting these fees would bring the City into compliance without impacting cost recovery.
59 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 33

8. Planning
Planning is responsible for overseeing the City's current and future development and growth, focusing on land use, zoning, infrastructure development, and community design to enhance the quality of life for residents. The fees examined within this study relate to annexation, appeal review, development agreements, landscape plans, site plan review, use permits, and more. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by Planning.

Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fee as they highlight either services already offered but not codified on the fee schedule or new services the City is looking to provide:
- ‘Determination of Commencement of Construction’
- ‘Outdoor Lighting Review– Consultant Review’
- ‘Planning Verification’
- ‘Temporary Housing Permit’
- ‘Planning Consultant Services’
• Expanded Fees: Due to large variability in how the fees are administered, staff proposed expanding the following fee categories:
- Staff proposed parsing out ‘Coastal Development Permit – ‘De-Minimis Waiver fee (DMV)’ from Level 1 into its own category with two sub-categories: ‘OWTS’ and ‘Driveway Improvements’.
- Staff proposed expanding ‘Time Extension’ into two fees: ‘Director’ and ‘Planning Commission’.
- Staff proposed expanding ‘Event Permits – Residential’ into two fees: ‘Event Permit – Residential Minor (Rent Property Less than 100 ppl)’ and ‘Event Permit – Residential Major (All Other Events)’.
- Staff proposed expanding ‘Outdoor Lighting Review– Residential’ into two fees:
‘Outdoor Lighting Review– Residential Minor’ and ‘Outdoor Lighting Review– Residential Major (3 or more structures)’.
- Staff proposed expanding the ‘Special Event Permit’ into ‘Major’ and ‘Minor’ categories.
60 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 34
• Modified Fees: The following points highlight various miscellaneous modifications proposed by staff:
- ‘Level 1 - OWTS Only; Foundation Only; Emergency Permit Only; De Minimis OWTS CDP Permit Waiver; TUP Events Requiring CDP’ was renamed ‘Level 1 - OWTS Only; Foundation Only; Emergency Permit Only; TUP Events Requiring CDP’.
- ‘Change of Address / House Numbers’ was moved to the Planning fee schedule from the Geology, Environmental and Coastal schedule as planning staff provide this service and the fee name was changed to ‘Address Assignment’ to further clarify the service offered.
• Eliminated Fees: ‘Solar Panels – Roof Mounted’ were removed as Planning no longer reviews roof-mounted panels.

These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services currently being provided by Planning.

Detailed Results
Planning collects fees for annexation, appeal review, development agreements, landscape plans, site plan review, use permits, and more. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

Table 13: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Planning
Fee Name Current Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Address Assignment $323 $435 ($112)
Administrative Plan Review
Level 1 - Revision to Previously Issued APR 1/2 of current fee $1,129 N/A Level 2 - Landscape Only $396 $1,317 ($921)
Level 3 - Landscape and Site Improvements $860 $2,273 ($1,413) Level 4 - APR Minor $1,590 $3,216 ($1,626)
Level 5 - APR Major $4,652 $6,694 ($2,042)
Level 6 - APR for Major Remodel (<50% of exterior walls) $7,156 $9,024 ($1,868) Appeal Fee $750 $16,502 ($15,752)
Archaeology
Phase 1 $396 $393 $3
Phase 2 $796 $809 ($13)
Consultant Review Actual Cost + 30%
Biology
61 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 35
Fee Name Current Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Review - Hourly $215 $258 ($43)
After Hours - Hourly $250 $301 ($51)
Site Inspection $430 $516 ($86)
Revisions (includes 1 review) $430 $516 ($86)
Review - CDP (With ESHA) (includes 3 reviews) $1,720 $2,064 ($344) Review - CDP (Without ESHA) (includes 2 reviews) $860 $1,032 ($172) CDP for OWTS Only (includes 1 review) $323 $387 ($64)
APR with Development (without landscaping) (includes 1
review) $430 $516 ($86)
APR with Development (with landscaping) (includes 2
reviews) $860 $1,032 ($172)
APR Landscaping Only (includes 2 reviews) $645 $774 ($129) Categorical Exemption $75 $130 ($55)
Certificate of Compliance Planning Review $1,491 $1,780 ($289) Change of Ownership/Occupancy $200 $247 ($47)
Coastal Development Permit
Level 1 - OWTS Only; Foundation Only; Emergency Permit
Only; TUP Events Requiring CDP $994 $5,076 ($4,082)
Level 2 - Water Wells; Lot Merger With No Development $6,965 $7,083 ($118) Level 3 - Accessory Structures; 2nd Units; Additions; Lot Line Adjustments with No Development $10,146 $12,074 ($1,928) Level 4 - NSFR; Remodel Non-Conforming Structures $11,579 $20,248 ($8,669) Level 5 - Development with Lot Line Adjustment;
Tentative Parcel Map With No Development $17,981 $23,727 ($5,746) Level 6 - Tentative Parcel Map with Development $23,266 $29,090 ($5,824) Level 7 - Multi-Family or Commercial; Tentative Tract Map With or Without Development:

Per Hour $200 $174 $26
Deposit $20,000 $20,000 $0
Level 8 - Amendments to City-issued CDP 1/2 of current fee Level 9 - De-minimis Waiver Fee (DMW)
a. OWTS $994 $5,849 ($4,855)
b. Driveway Improvements $994 $5,849 ($4,855)
Code Enforcement Review
Code Violation - Hourly $200 $159 $41
Code Violation - Minor $1,798 $1,968 ($170)
Code Violation - Major $2,996 $5,456 ($2,460)
Commercial Cannabis Permit
New Cannabis Dispensary and/or Compliance Review $4,652 $8,822 ($4,170) Commercial Cannabis Regulatory Permit $798 $1,064 ($266) Conditional Use Permit
Existing Non-Conforming Use / No Change $1,988 $4,474 ($2,486) New/Transferred Liquor License $4,652 $5,343 ($691)
Conditional Use Permit Compliance & Reporting $200 $3,847 ($3,647) All Others $3,977 $8,822 ($4,845)
Department of Fish and Wildlife Fee Set by DFW
Demolition Permit $396 $590 ($194)
Determination of Commencement of Construction New $1,912 N/A Determination Of Use
Director $796 $2,370 ($1,574)
Planning Commission $6,560 $11,266 ($4,706)
Environmental Impact Report Actual Cost + 30%
62 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 36
Fee Name Current Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Environmental Review Board Analysis $3,181 $4,231 ($1,050) Environmental Site Assessment Review Fee Actual Cost + 30% Event Permits
Special Event Permit – Minor $124 $421 ($297)
Special Event Permit – Major $124 $2,297 ($2,173)
Commercial (Temporary Use Permit) $821 $3,045 ($2,224)
Commercial (Temporary Use Permit - Non-Profit) $342 $977 ($635) Road Race (Temporary Use Permit) $1,988 $6,333 ($4,345) Initial Study
Prepared By Consultant Actual Cost + 30%
Prepared By Staff:

Per Hour $200 $174 $26
Deposit $15,000 $15,000 $0
Joint Use Parking Agreement $2,386 $7,442 ($5,056)
Minor Modification $1,192 $3,963 ($2,771)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program $200 $174 $26 Neighborhood Standards Review $6,123 $10,151 ($4,028)
Outdoor Lighting Review
Residential Minor $200 $1,297 ($1,097)
Residential Major (3 or more structures $200 $1,015 ($815) Commercial Minor (Tenant Spaces) $597 $1,015 ($418)
Commercial Major $1,590 $3,624 ($2,034)
Deviation $2,981 $8,040 ($5,059)
Consultant Review Actual Cost
Over the Counter Permit
Level I $200 $407 ($207)
Level II $397 $581 ($184)
Planning Clearance
Regular $396 $1,499 ($1,103)
Formula Retail $3,996 $5,994 ($1,998)
Planning Verification $200 $2,370 ($2,170)
Plan Review
Prior to Planning Conformance/Approval:

CDP - Resubmittal of Plans $1,192 $1,901 ($709)
APR - Resubmittal of Plans $596 $1,258 ($662)
After Planning Conformance/Approval:

Substantial Conformance - Minor $393 $910 ($517)
Substantial Conformance - Major $1,192 $2,370 ($1,178)
Final Planning Approval "red stamp" $448 $494 ($46)
Public Notice (Includes costs for staff and materials)
Mailer $342 $160 $182
Newspaper Legal Notice $329 $368 ($39)
Quarter Page $421 $354 $67
Mailing Data Direct Cost of Time & Materials
Short Term Rental Permit $495 $339 $156
Sign Permit
Individual $248 $750 ($502)
Master Program $2,386 $5,848 ($3,462)
Temporary $48 $455 ($407)
Site Inspection $300 $435 ($135)
Site Plan Review
63 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 37
Fee Name Current Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Height $3,499 $7,418 ($3,919)
All Other Requests $2,981 $3,940 ($959)
Solar Panels – Ground-Mounted $200 $595 ($395)
Stringline Modification $3,380 $4,036 ($656)
Temporary Housing Permit New $544 N/A
Time Extension
Director $596 $660 ($64)
Planning Commission $596 $2,371 ($1,775)
Variance $3,578 $7,515 ($3,937)
View Preservation Permit
Primary View Determination $396 $890 ($494)
View Preservation Permit - Planning Director $396 $4,230 ($3,834) View Preservation Permit - Planning Commission $1,693 $6,212 ($4,519) Wireless Communication Facilities
Level 1 - Waiver from Wireless Design Standards $808 $943 ($135) Level 2 - Upgrade Existing Facilities $1,574 $3,551 ($1,977) Level 3 - Type 1 Wireless Permit (WP) or WP Right-ofWay Permit (WRP) $3,845 $14,302 ($10,457) Level 4 - WP Type 2 $6,966 $14,302 ($7,336)
Level 5 - WP or WRP with CDP $7,245 $9,157 ($1,912)
Consultant Conformance Review/Compliance Actual Cost + 30% Post-Approval Compliance (Staff) $716 $1,812 ($1,096)
Vehicle Impact Protection Device Application $597 $595 $2 Zoning Verification Letter $200 $210 ($10)
Development Agreement; General Plan Amendment; Local Coastal Program Amendment; Specific Plan; Zoning Amendment
Per Hour $200 $174 $26
Deposit $20,000 $20,000 $0
All Other Planning Services $200 $174 $26
Planning Consultant Services Actual Cost
Generally, Planning under-recovers for their fees. The largest deficits are concerning ‘Appeals’ and ‘Wireless Communication Facilities – Level 3 – Type 1 Wireless Permit (WP) or WP Right-of-Way Permit (WRP)’ at $15,752 and $10,457, respectively. Over-recoveries range from a low of $2 for ‘Vehicle Impact Protection Device Application’ to a high of $182 for ‘Public Notice – Mailer’.

Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the FY23 permit information, Planning has an under-recovery of roughly $1.1 million. The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Table 14: Annual Results – Planning
64 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 38
Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Administrative Plan Review $128,350 $254,614 ($126,264) Appeal Fee $2,250 $49,505 ($47,255)
Archaeology $15,048 $14,922 $126
Biology $118,580 $142,287 ($23,707)
Categorical Exemption $9,975 $17,349 ($7,374)
Certificate of Compliance Planning Review $4,473 $5,339 ($866) Change of Ownership/Occupancy $600 $741 ($141)
Coastal Development Permit $434,195 $791,284 ($357,089) Code Enforcement Review $800 $637 $163
Commercial Cannabis Permit $798 $1,064 ($266)
Conditional Use Permit $12,606 $22,987 ($10,381)
Demolition Permit $7,524 $11,215 ($3,691)
Determination Of Use $6,560 $11,266 ($4,706)
Event Permits $22,306 $74,553 ($52,247)
Minor Modification $10,728 $35,670 ($24,942)
Outdoor Lighting Review $18,290 $40,518 ($22,228)
Over the Counter Permit $96,499 $158,382 ($61,883)
Planning Clearance $21,060 $61,441 ($40,381)
Plan Review $22,648 $45,194 ($22,546)
Sign Permit $6,154 $17,556 ($11,402)
Site Inspection $300 $435 ($135)
Site Plan Review $71,925 $145,345 ($73,420)
Solar Panels $1,400 $4,163 ($2,763)
Stringline Modification $277,160 $330,973 ($53,813)
Variance $67,982 $142,780 ($74,798)
View Preservation Permit $10,692 $24,025 ($13,333)
Wireless Communication Facilities $69,692 $163,026 ($93,334) Zoning Verification Letter $4,000 $4,208 ($208)
All Other Planning Services $80,000 $69,569 $10,431
Short-Term Rental Permit $198,000 $135,764 $62,236
Total $1,720,595 $2,776,813 ($1,056,218)
Planning has an annual cost recovery of 62%, which reflects roughly a $1.1 million deficit.

The largest contributor to this deficit at $357,000 is in relation to ‘Coastal Development Permits’, primarily reviews of Level 1 and Level 4 permits. Currently, the City charges $994 and $11,579, for Level 1 and Level 4 permits, respectively. The full cost for each permit review was calculated at $5,076 and $20,248, which represents a $4,182 and $8,669 per unit deficit. Due to the high volume of these types of reviews the per unit deficit greatly impacts the overall departments cost recovery.

Other permit reviews with high under-recovery are ‘Administrative Plan Review’ ($126,000), ‘Wireless Communications Facilities’ ($93,000), and ‘Variance’ ($75,000).

Overall, the department should review the current fees and full cost calculated and make adjustments that are appropriate to address the cost recovery gap. 65 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 39
The largest over-recovery, at $62,000, is in relation to the ‘Short-Term Rental Permits’. The process for these permits was streamlined and as such it costs the City less to provide this service, but there are 400 registered properties.
66 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 40

9. Public Works - Engineering
Public Works is responsible for designing, constructing, and maintaining the City's essential infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and stormwater drains. Additionally, they also oversee the planning and implementation of public projects to meet the community's growing needs. The fees examined within this study relate to engineering plan review and inspection and encroachment permits. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Public Works.

Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating ‘Proposed Changes in Construction Review’ as this service is no longer offered.
• New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of ‘Street Improvements’ as this highlights a service already administered by the department but has not been codified on their fee schedule.
• Condensed Fees: As a means to streamline the fee schedule staff proposed condensing various fees currently charged ‘per hour’ into a single ‘Land Development Permits (including revisions)’ fee which would continue to be charged ‘per hour’. And similarly, rather than charging ‘Grading and Drainage Inspection’ based on cubic yards, staff proposed condensing the fee into a single ‘per hour’ fee
These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services that Public Works provides.

Detailed Results
Public Works collects fees for engineering plan review and inspection and encroachment permits. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. 67 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 41
Table 15: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Public Works
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Land Development Permits (including Revisions) – per hour $254 $326 ($72) Banner Hanging Permit $380 $489 ($109)
Detention Devices $1,273 $1,629 ($356)
Grading and Drainage Inspection New $326 ($72)
Miscellaneous Fee $254
Oversized13 $16 $0
Oversized Transportation Permit – Single $16 $90 ($58)
Oversized Vehicle Permit – Annual $32 $326 ($72)
Over-the-Counter Plan Review $254 $326 ($72)
Plans and Specifications Cost of Materials & Shipping
Preferential Parking Permits
Residential $32 $43 ($11)
Replacement of lost permit $24 $33 ($9)
Sidewalk Vending Permit $32 $43 ($11)
Special Events Permit $380 $489 ($109)
Street Name Change $1,271 $1,629 ($358)
Street Improvements $254 $326 ($72)
Encroachment Permit
Annual Blanket Permit
Annual Blanket Permit $408 $652 ($244)
Per project with 0 - 100 SF of land disturbance, including maintenance $914 $1,792 ($878)
Per project with more than 100 SF of land disturbance, including maintenance $1,169 $2,118 ($949)
Trenching / Boring $534 $1,222 ($688)
Utility pole placement, replacement; equipment placement, replacement $534 $1,222 ($688)
Driveways $660 $896 ($236)
Temporary
Dumpsters $380 $489 ($109)
Moving Container $534 $733 ($199)
Staging $534 $733 ($199)
Tree Trimming and Removal $534 $733 ($199)
Trenching / Boring $914 $1,222 ($308)
Filming on City Streets
Minor $534 $733 ($199)
Major $705 $1,140 ($435)
All Others $254 $326 ($72)
With the exception of state set fees, Public Works under-recovers on all of their fees. The largest deficits are in relation to ‘Annual Blanket Permits’, ‘Per project with more than 100 SF of land disturbance, including maintenance’ and ‘Per project with 0 - 100 SF of land disturbance, including maintenance’ have a deficit of $949 and $878, respectively. 13 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 21 § 1411.3 (a)
68 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 42
Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the FY23 permit information, Public Works has an under-recovery of roughly $132,000. The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Table 16: Annual Results – Public Works
Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee
Annual
Cost Difference
Land Development Permits (including Revisions) $630,936 $746,073 ($114,629) Over-the-Counter Plan Review $60,452 $77,539 ($17,087)
Total $691,896 $823,612 ($131,716)
Public Works has an annual cost recovery of 84%, which reflects a roughly $131,000 deficit. The primarily contributor to the deficit ($114,000) is in relation to the per hour ‘Land Development Permits (including Revisions)’ fee. Currently, the City has a per hour cost of $254, the full cost calculated through this study is $326, resulting in a $72 per unit deficit. Since most of the departments services are administered through this fee, even a small increase to this fee would result in an overall increase in cost recovery. 69 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 43

10. Community Services
In addition to facilitating open space, leisure activities, and events for the community, Community Services oversees the rentals of City-owned facilities. The fees examined within this study relate to this responsibility, including attendant hourly rate, event applications, and rental of City Hall, recreation facilities, and vacant properties, including Heathercliff and Ioki. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Community Services.

Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, it was proposed that the special events application fee be divided into two fees: ‘Application’ and ‘Processing’. This modification allows staff to more accurately capture their time spent coordinating and administering special events permits. Additionally, staff proposed the inclusion of a ‘per hour per arena’ fee for the ‘Equestrian Park Arena’ for rentals for the Equestrian Arena.

These modifications ensures that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services currently being provided by Community Services.

Detailed Results
Community Services collects fees for attendant hourly rate, event applications, and rental of City Hall, Recreation facilities, Heathercliff and Ioki. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

Table 17: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Community Services Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Administrative and Staffing Fees
Attendant Fee
Full-Time Staff $48 $111 ($63)
Part-Time Staff $26 $75 ($49)
Audio Technician $89 $111 ($22)
Audio Visual Fee $36 $77 ($41)
Custodian (if necessary) $413 $403 $10
Table Linen Rental and Cleaning $30 $30 $0
Security $68 $64 $4
Late Processing Fee (Less Than 14 Days) $100 $100 $0
Pre-Event Set-Up/Post Event Clean-Up $50 $50 $0
Refundable Security/Cleaning Deposit Based upon application; cashed prior to event 70 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 44
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Fee for Events With Attendance of
150-500 people:

Application Fee $200 $234 ($34)
Processing Fee $200 $1,709 ($1,509)
501-1,000 people:

Application Fee $500 $234 $266
Processing Fee $500 $5,697 ($5,197)
1,001 people and over:

Application Fee $500 $234 $266
Processing Fee $500 $11,394 ($10,894)
Ioki Lot Clearance $5,000 $5,977 ($977)
City Hall
City Hall / Bluffs Park - Individual Parking Spaces
Group 1 $14 $40 ($26)
Group 2 $14 $40 ($26)
Group 3 $14 $40 ($26)
Sign Removal Fee $30 $27 $3
City Hall - Multi-Purpose Room
Group 1 $86 $202 ($116)
Group 2 $139 $202 ($63)
Group 3 $207 $202 $5
City Hall - Senior Center
Group 1 $86 $221 ($135)
Group 2 $139 $221 ($82)
Group 3 $207 $221 ($14)
City Hall - Multi-Purpose Room & Senior Center
Group 1 $139 $393 ($254)
Group 2 $222 $393 ($171)
Group 3 $332 $393 ($61)
City Hall - Conference Room
Group 1
2 Hours $40 $147 ($107)
Each Additional Hour $40 $87 ($47)
Group 2
2 Hours $55 $147 ($92)
Each Additional Hour $55 $87 ($32)
Group 3
2 Hours $81 $147 ($66)
Each Additional Hour $81 $87 ($6)
City Hall - Malibu Civic Theater
Group 1
1 Hour $173 $916 ($743)
4 Hours $430 $3,663 ($3,233)
Half Day (8 Hours) $691 $7,326 ($6,635)
Full Day (16 Hours) $1,088 $14,651 ($13,563)
Group 2
1 Hour $275 $916 ($641)
4 Hours $693 $3,663 ($2,970)
Half Day (8 Hours) $1,107 $7,326 ($6,219)
Full Day (16 Hours) $1,740 $14,651 ($12,911)
Group 3
1 Hour $416 $916 ($500)
71 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 45
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
4 Hours $1,037 $3,663 ($2,626)
Half Day (8 Hours) $1,658 $7,326 ($5,668)
Full Day (16 Hours) $2,612 $14,651 ($12,039)
Heathercliff Property
Group 1
4 Hours $706 $2,230 ($1,524)
Half Day (12 Hours) $1,591 $2,914 ($1,323)
Each Additional Hour $150 $281 ($131)
Full Day (24 Hours) $2,122 $4,281 ($2,159)
Group 2
4 Hours $1,178 $2,230 ($1,052)
Half Day (12 Hours) $2,653 $2,914 ($261)
Each Additional Hour $250 $281 ($31)
Full Day (24 Hours) $3,537 $4,281 ($744)
Group 3
4 Hours $1,650 $2,230 ($580)
Half Day (12 Hours) $3,713 $2,914 $799
Each Additional Hour $350 $281 $69
Full Day (24 Hours) $4,951 $4,281 $670
Ioki Property
Group I
4 Hours $706 $1,203 ($497)
Half Day (12 Hours) $1,591 $1,887 ($296)
Each Additional Hour $150 $195 ($45)
Full Day (24 Hours) $2,122 $3,254 ($1,132)
Group 2
4 Hours $1,178 $1,203 ($25)
Half Day (12 Hours) $2,653 $1,887 $766
Each Additional Hour $250 $195 $55
Full Day (24 Hours) $3,537 $3,254 $283
Group 3
4 Hours $1,650 $1,203 $447
Half Day (12 Hours) $3,713 $1,887 $1,826
Each Additional Hour $350 $195 $155
Full Day (24 Hours) $4,951 $3,254 $1,697
Community Center (Michael Landon Center)
Community Center Indoor
Group 1 $82 $189 ($107)
Group 2 $133 $189 ($56)
Group 3 $200 $189 $11
Community Center Outdoor Event
Group 1 $126 $5,972 ($5,846)
Group 2 $200 $5,972 ($5,772)
Group 3 $298 $5,972 ($5,674)
Community Center Indoor And Outdoor
Group 1 $166 $6,100 ($5,934)
Group 2 $266 $6,100 ($5,834)
Group 3 $395 $6,100 ($5,705)
Public Meeting Room
Group 1 $40 $87 ($47)
Group 2 $56 $87 ($31)
Group 3 $81 $87 ($6)
Other Recreation Facility Rental Fees
72 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 46
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Picnic Area
Group 1 $90 $171 ($81)
Group 2 $132 $171 ($39)
Group 3 $200 $171 $29
Sports Field
Full Field
Group 1 $39 $85 ($46)
Group 2 $60 $85 ($25)
Group 3 $91 $85 $6
Half Field
Group 1 $25 $43 ($18)
Group 2 $35 $43 ($8)
Group 3 $50 $43 $7
Batting Cage
Group 1 $20 $31 ($11)
Group 2 $30 $31 ($1)
Group 3 $40 $31 $9
Equestrian Park Arena
Group 1 New $103 N/A
Group 2 New $103 N/A
Group 3 New $103 N/A
Most of the rental fees charged by the Malibu show an under-recovery, with various fees in relation to Group 2 and Group 3 applicants showing minimal over-recoveries. This indicates that the City has the ability to increase those rates.

It should be noted that fees for community services can be based in alignment with market rates, as well as the level of amenities being offered. The rates in this report are only meant to capture the costs associated with operating the facilities and processing rentals. It does not take into account qualitative factors such as amenities, uniqueness, and desirability of facilities.
73 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 47

11. Development Services Surcharges
There are two typical surcharges assessed as part of the development review process – General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology fee. Currently, the City of Malibu charges a technology fee but does not charge a general plan maintenance fee. The following subsections discuss the calculation of the General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology Fee.

General Plan Maintenance Fee
A General Plan Maintenance fee is meant to account for updates to the general plan, zoning ordinance, housing elements, and other long-range planning activities that are part of the larger General Plan.

The General Plan Maintenance fee is governed by Government Code Section 66014(b), which states that fees “may include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and recommendations.” This code states that fees can be charged against zoning changes, zoning variances, use permits, building inspections, and filing applications.

More typically, the fee is charged during the building permit phase to ensure that any development project that gets to that phase has enough impact to require an update to the Zoning Code or the General Plan. This fee should only be applied to major building permits (i.e., new or remodel / tenant improvements) rather than standalone permits for water heaters or electrical outlets.

Currently, the City of Malibu utilizes two firms who spend time annually updating the City’s long-range planning efforts. The table below outlines these costs by firm, showing hours spent per year, their rate per hour, and the resulting cost per year.

Table 18: General Plan Maintenance Fee – Annual Consultant Costs Consultant Firm Hours / Yr Hourly Rate Annual Cost
Joyce Parker-Bozylinski 1,000 $150 $150,000
Coastal California Works 500 $285 $142,500
Total Annual Cost $292,500
The annual cost to the City for updating their general plan is roughly $300,000. The two most common methodologies for assessing a General Plan Maintenance fee are:
74 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 48

1. Percentage of Building Permit Fee: The general plan maintenance fee is assessed as a percentage of the total building permit fee assessed to a project. The concept is that the larger the scope of the project, the greater the impact.

2. Percentage of Valuation: This means that the fee is assessed based on the total project valuation. Even if the City doesn’t utilize valuation for calculating fees, it still has to collect that information for SMIP and state surcharges and can utilize it to determine the proportionate General Plan impact.

The project team calculated the full cost of the General Plan Fee based on both methodologies. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 19: General Plan Maintenance Fee Calculation
Category
Building
Permit Fee Valuation
Total Annual Cost $292,500 $292,500
General Plan Fee Basis $2,174,211 $163,098,893
General Plan Maintenance Fee 13% 0.18%
The calculated General Plan Maintenance Fee is 13% of the Building Permit Fee or 0.18% of Building Valuation. The City has the ability to choose one of the above options to charge as its General Plan Maintenance Fee.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of the General Plan Maintenance Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

Table 20: General Plan Maintenance Fee – Comparative Survey Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Agoura Hills 0.14% of Valuation
Redondo Beach 0.17% of Valuation
West Hollywood 3% of Permit Fees
Various surrounding jurisdictions charge a general plan maintenance fee based on a percentage of valuation. At 0.17%, Redondo Beach charges the most comparable fee to Malibu’s full cost calculated. West Hollywood is the only jurisdiction which charges their fee as percentage of permit fees. Their 3% fee is also below Malibu’s full cost calculated of 13%. Despite the full cost calculated being higher than the surrounding jurisdictions the fees reflected in this comparison only reflects the fee being charged, not necessarily the full cost of those services.
75 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 49
Technology Surcharge Fee
A Technology Fee allows the City to support the costs associated with the City’s permitting system, contracted staff time for managing the systems, acquiring the system, etc. The City currently assesses this fee as 7% of the building permit fees. The Building Division currently budgets approximately $145,650 annually as it relates to technologyrelated support. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 21: Technology Surcharge Fee Cost Components
Cost Category Annual Cost
Information Systems Allocation $145,650
Total $145,650
The annual technology-related costs are approximately $146,000 for the Building Division. To arrive at the calculation of the technology fee, the project team took the annual technology-related costs and divided it by the total cost of building permits. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 22: Technology Fee Calculation
Cost Category Amount
Total Annual Technology-Related Costs $145,650
Total Bldg Permit Cost $2,843,003
Technology Fee as % of Bldg Permit Fee 5.12%
Based upon this calculation, the City’s full cost Technology fee would be 5.12% of the permit fee. Therefore, if a permit fee was $100, the Technology fee collected would be $5.12; whereas if a permit fee was $1,000; the Technology fee collected would be $51.12.

This type of structure enables the Technology fee to be proportionately distributed based upon the projects and their impact upon the system.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of a Technology Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

Table 23: Technology Fee – Comparative Survey
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Agoura Hills 0.00127% per Project Valuation
Calabasas 3% of Permit Fee
Camarillo 1.1% of Permit Fee
Laguna Beach 0.0006% of Project Valuation
76 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 50
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Manhattan Beach 3% of Permit Fee
West Hollywood 6.5% of Permit Fees
Apart from Agoura Hills and Laguna Beach, which both charge their fee as a percentage of project valuation, all other surveyed jurisdictions charge their technology fee as a percentage of the permit fee, ranging from 1.1% to 6.5% of permit fees. Malibu’s current fee at 7% is the highest and most comparable to West Hollywood, while its full cost fee at 5.12% would be lower than West Hollywood and higher than Calabasas and Manhattan Beach.

Surcharge Funds
It is a best practice to collect and account for General Plan Maintenance and Technology surcharges in separate accounts as doing so ensures compliance with funding requirements, enables appropriate allocation of funds to long-term planning and technology-related activities, and mitigates any potential issues with the comingling of funds.
77 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 51

12. Cost Recovery Considerations
The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees, determine annual update factors, and develop cost recovery policies and procedures.

Fee Adjustments
This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under and over collecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now need to review the study results and adjust fees per Departmental and City philosophies and policies. The following dot points outline the major options the City has in adjusting its fees.
• Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting for costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line with the full cost of providing the service.
• Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately. • Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low-cost recovery levels, or which would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to increase fees gradually over a set period of time.

The City will need to review the results of the fee study and associated cost recovery levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that currently show an over-recovery are fairly straight forward, the following subsections, provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees.

Full Cost Recovery
Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant increase associated with full cost recovery.

Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often, these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees which are unable to be increased.
78 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 52
The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested, the City is recovering the full cost of its services.

Phased Increases
Depending on current cost recovery levels, some current fees may need to be increased significantly in order to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due to the type of permit or review or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it may be best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching its cost recovery goals.

As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing 20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, in order to be in compliance. Assuming this particular service is something the City provides quite often, and affects various members of the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City could take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period until cost recovery is achieved.

Raising fees over a set period of time not only allows the City to monitor and control the impact to applicants, but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant increases. Continuing with the example laid out above, the City could increase the fee by $150 for the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall increase, and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years by which it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the City not phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum window for which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed.

Annual Adjustments
Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general rule of thumb for comprehensive fee analyses is between three and five years. This allows for jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes such as staffing levels and merit increases, as well as process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements. Currently Malibu updates their fees annually based on a CPI factor, a best practice which the City should continue. Developing annual update mechanisms allow jurisdictions to maintain current levels of cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are 79 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 53
Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further detail on each of these mechanisms. • COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases are not tied to merit or seniority, but rather meant to offset rising costs associated with housing, gas, and other livability factors. Sometimes these factors vary depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally, these factors are around two or three percent annually.
• CPI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index. These factors are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, put out at various intervals within a year, and are specific to states and regions.

The City currently utilizes a CPI factor and should continue this practice of annual updates to ensure fees are modified based upon the economic environment.

Policies and Procedures
This study has identified areas where the City is under-collecting the cost associated with providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City revenue sources.

Development of cost recovery policies and procedures will ensure that current and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward. The following subsections outline typical cost recovery levels and discuss the benefits of developing target cost recovery goals and procedures for achieving and increasing cost recovery.

Typical Cost Recovery
The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery ranges. The following table outlines these cost recovery ranges by major service area.

Table 24: Typical Cost Recovery Ranges by Major Service Area Service Areas Typical Cost Recovery Ranges
Building 80-100%
Geology, Env. & Coastal 80-100%
Planning 50-80%
Public Works 70-100%
80 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 54
Information presented in the table above is based on the Matrix Consulting Group’s experience in analyzing local governments’ operations across the United States and within California and reflects typical cost recovery ranges observed by local adopting authorities. The following graph depicts how Malibu compares to industry cost recovery range standards.

When compared to typical cost recovery ranges, all service areas are within their ranges.

While Building and Geology, Env. & Coastal are at the higher end of their respective ranges, Planning and Public Works are on the mid-to lower end of their ranges.

Development of Cost Recovery Policies and Procedures
The City should review the current cost recovery levels and adopt a formal policy regarding cost recovery. This policy can be general in nature and can apply broadly to the City as a whole, or to each department and division specifically. A department specific cost recovery policy would allow the City to better control the cost recovery associated with different types of services being provided and the community benefit received. 99%
95%
62%
84%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Building
Geology, Env. & Coastal
Planning
Public Works
Cost Recovery %
Current Revenue Cost Recovery vs. Typical Revenue Cost Recovery Typical Cost Recovery Current Cost Recovery
81 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 55
Appendix – Comparative Survey
As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of Malibu, Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of user fees. The City identified seven jurisdictions to be included in the comparative survey: Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Camarillo, Laguna Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and West Hollywood. The project team then reviewed public documents (i.e., agenda items, staff reports, budgets, fee schedules, and ordinances), and or contacted jurisdictions to get comparative information.

While this full report provides the City with a reasonable estimate and understanding of the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to benchmark themselves against other comparable jurisdictions to consider the local “market rates” for services. This type of analysis allows for the City to assess what types of changes in fee levels their community can bear. However, this analysis does not provide adequate information regarding the relationship of other jurisdiction’s costs to their fees (i.e., policy decisions to subsidize, cost recovery goals, etc.).

In relation to Building fees, the city of Camarillo and West Hollywood charge actual cost for a majority of their fee as their cost recovery policy is 100%. Additionally, the city of Calabasas utilizes the Los Angeles County valuation table, adjusting their fee accordingly.

The following sections detail various factors to consider when reviewing comparative survey results, as well as graphical comparisons of current fees and total calculated costs for various permits issued or services provided by the City.

Economic Factors
To provide additional context to the comparative survey information, the project team collected economic factors for the jurisdictions included. Three important economic factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population, budget, and workforce size. These factors can impact how and when fees are administered, as a jurisdiction with a smaller population may choose to not charge a fee, or a smaller workforce size may inhibit their ability to administer a fee.

The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to largest for each of these economic factors:
82 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 56
Table 25: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Population
Jurisdiction Population14
Malibu 12,645
Agoura Hills 19,464
Calabasas 22,491
Laguna Beach 22,583
West Hollywood 34,514
Manhattan Beach 35,377
Camarillo 70,282
Redondo Beach 71,576
Table 26: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Citywide Total Budget15 Jurisdiction FY23-24 Budget
Agoura Hills $27,300,112
Calabasas $83,728,818
Malibu $93,200,353
Camarillo $134,704,879
Laguna Beach $137,405,950
Redondo Beach $161,856,498
Manhattan Beach $188,627,452
West Hollywood $204,542,762
Table 27: Ranking of Jurisdictions by FTE
Jurisdiction FY23-24 FTE
Agoura Hills 43
Calabasas 79
Malibu 115
Camarillo 156
West Hollywood 213
Manhattan Beach 333
Laguna Beach 337
Redondo Beach 440
When compared to surveyed jurisdictions, the City of Malibu ranks the lowest in terms of population and third lowest in relation to budget and staffing.

Recency Factor
While the above comparative information can provide some perspective when paralleling Malibu’s fees with surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to consider are when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last comprehensive analysis was undertaken. It is important to note that even though jurisdictions may have conducted recent fee studies their fees are not always adopted at full cost recovery. The 14 2022 US Census data was used to determine each jurisdictions population. 15 To ensure appropriate comparisons, full operating budget (all funds) has been used for all jurisdictions. 83 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 57
comparative results only show the adopted fee for the surveyed jurisdiction, not necessarily the full cost associated with the comparable service.

The following tables detail when each surveyed jurisdiction last conducted a fee analysis and when they last updated their fee schedule.

Table 28: Last Fee Schedule Updated
Jurisdiction Response
Agoura Hills 2017
Laguna Beach 2022
West Hollywood 2023
Redondo Beach 2023
Calabasas 2024
Camarillo 2024
Manhattan Beach 2024
Table 29: Last Fee Study Conducted
Jurisdiction Response
Agoura Hills 2017
Manhattan Beach 2020
Laguna Beach 2021
Redondo Beach 2021
West Hollywood 2022
Calabasas N/A
Camarillo N/A
With the exception of Agoura Hills, all of the surveyed jurisdictions have published a new fee schedule within the past three years. Additionally, most jurisdictions have conducted a fee study in the last five years. The City of Agoura Hills is currently undergoing a fee study. The project team could not determine when or if a fee study was conducted within the past ten years for Calabasas and Camarillo.

Additional Factors
Along with keeping the statistics outlined in the previous sections in mind, the following issues should also be noted regarding the use of market surveys in the setting of fees for service:
• Cost Recovery Factors: Each jurisdiction and its fees are different, and many are not based on the actual cost of providing services as various policy decision may subsidize services.
84 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 58
• Fee Variance Factors: The same “fee” with the same name may include different steps or sub-activities. In addition, jurisdictions provide varying levels of service and have varying levels of costs associated with providing services such as staffing levels, salary levels, indirect overhead costs, etc.

In addition to the issues noted, market surveys can also run the risk of creating a confusing excess of data that will obscure rather than clarify policy issues. Because each jurisdiction is different, the Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the information contained in the market comparison of fees be used as a secondary decision-making tool, rather than a tool for establishing an acceptable price point for services.

Comparative Survey Results
As part of this study, the project team conducted a survey of how the City’s current user fees and calculated full cost compare to other identified jurisdictions. The following subsections provide a comparative look at several fee-related services provided by the City versus the surveyed jurisdictions.
1 Masonry Fence / Wall: 4ft high, 100 lf, valued at $10,000 Malibu currently charges a $430 fee for four-foot-high masonry fence / wall permit.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $487. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu charges the lowest for this service. Malibu’s full cost is calculated as the second lowest, most comparable to Calabasas at $655. Manhattan Beach ($855) and Redondo $0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
Masonry Fence / Wall: 4ft high, 100 lf, valued at $10,000 85 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 59
Beach ($801) charge the highest for this service and are both higher than the jurisdictional average of $762.
2 Reroofing, < 30sq. & < 5.9 lb./sq. (Permit): 3,000 sf, valued at $15,000 - Residential
Malibu currently charges a $430 fee for a residential re-roof less than 30 squares and less than 5.9 pounds per square. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $500. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee and full cost are the second and third lowest, most comparable to West Hollywood ($373) and Manhattan Beach ($573). At $1,041 Redondo Beach charges the most for this service and is significantly above the jurisdictional average of $737. 3 Commercial TI: sf. 103,884, valued at $11,185,720
Malibu currently charges a $355,283 for a 103,884 square foot commercial tenant improvement valued at $11,185,720. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $80,454. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna
Beach
Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
Reroofing , < 30sq. & < 5.9 lb./sq. (Permit): 3,000 sf, valued at $15,000 - Residential 86 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 60
Malibu’s current fee is the highest and is significantly above the jurisdictional average of $155,993. The city’s full cost calculated is the second lowest and most comparable to Laguna Beach's at $59,112.
4 Commercial New: sf. 200,730, valued at $21,260,177 – B-Occupancy Malibu currently charges a $574,088 for a new 200,730 square foot commercial building valued at $21,260,177. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $542,630. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are slightly above the jurisdictional average of $420,309 and most comparable to Redondo Beach's at $361,847. $0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
Malibu - Current
Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo Beach
Commercial TI: sf. 103,884, valued at $11,185,720
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
Commercial New: sf. 200,730, valued at $21,260,177 - B Occupancy 87 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 61
5 SFR New: 3,000, valued at $1,054,181
Malibu currently charges $13,680 for a new 3,000 square foot single-family residence valued at $1,054,181. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $13,649. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are below the jurisdictional average of $18,255 and are most comparable to Manhattan Beach ($14,096) and Agoura Hills ($14,867). At $22,386, Redondo Beach charges the highest fee for this service. 6 SFR Remodel: 500 s.f., valued at $75,000
Malibu currently charges a $570 for a 500 square foot remodel at a single-family residence, valued at $75,000. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $565. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
Malibu - Current
Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo Beach
SFR New: sf 3,000, valued at $1,054,181
88 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 62
Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are significantly below the jurisdictional average of $2,037. Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Redondo Beach ($3,099) and Agoura Hills ($2,373) charge the highest for this service.
7 Water Heater
Malibu currently charges a $54 for water heater permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $62. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are below the jurisdictional average of $116 and are most comparable to Agoura Hills ($55) and Calabasas ($65). At $300, Manhattan Beach charges the most for this service. The wide variety of costs for this service is common and is a result of water heater permits typically being subsidized, as a means to encourage compliance.
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
Malibu - Current
Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo Beach
SFR Remodel: sf 500, valued at $75,000
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
Water Heater
89 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 63
8 Window / Slider – replacement non-structural: 5 window / sliders, valued at $5,000
Malibu currently charges a $215 for the non-structural, replacement of five window / sliders. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $250. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are below the jurisdictional average of $484 and are most comparable to Calabasas at $415. Laguna Beach ($789) charges the most for this service. At $75, while Agoura Hill’s charges the least there was a note their fee schedule that the service is subsidized due to Council decision. 9 Demolition Plan Check & Permit: 2,500 s.f
Malibu currently charges a $753 for the plan check and permitting of a 2,500 square foot demolition. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $848. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
Malibu - Current
Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo Beach
Window / Slider - replacement non-structural: 5 window/sliders, valued at $5,000 90 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 64
When compared to surveyed jurisdictions, Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are the highest for this service and both are above the jurisdictional average of $470. At $737, Laguna Beach charges the most comparable fee.
10 Variance
Malibu currently charges a $3,578 for a variance permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $7,515. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

When compared to surveyed jurisdictions, Malibu’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $5,644 and most comparable to Agoura Hills at $3,341. The full cost calculated is above the average and most comparable to Camarillo at $8,247. $0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
Demolition Plan Check & Permit: sf 2,500
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
Malibu -
Current
Fee
Malibu -
Full Cost
Agoura
Hills
Calabasas Camarillo Laguna
Beach
Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
Variance
91 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 65
11 Appeal Fee
Malibu currently charges $750 for an appeal. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $16,503. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

When compared to surveyed jurisdictions, Malibu’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $1,398 and most comparable to Redondo Beach at $3,341. Typically, appeals fees are subsidized to allow for fair access to appeals; hence the lower fees for other jurisdictions, and Malibu’s current fee amount. Most jurisdictions do not typically charge the full cost of service. Similar to Malibu, which has subsidized this fee in the past. 12 Conditional Use Permit – Existing Non-Conforming Use / No Change Malibu currently charges a $1,988 for conditional use permit of an existing nonconforming use / no change. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $4,474. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Camarillo Laguna
Beach
Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
Appeal Fee
92 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 66
Malibu’s current fee is the lowest fee, most comparable to Agoura Hills at $2,220. The full cost calculated is the third highest fees, behind Manhattan Beach ($8,836) and West Hollywood ($6,309).
13 Sign Permit: Individual
Malibu currently charges $248 for an individual sign permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $750. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee is slightly below the jurisdictional average of $296, and most comparable to Manhattan Beach at $383. The full cost calculated is the highest, most comparable to Laguna Beach at $604.
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
Malibu -
Current
Fee
Malibu -
Full Cost
Agoura
Hills
Calabasas Camarillo Laguna
Beach
Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
Conditional Use Permit - Existing Non-Conforming Use / No Change $0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Malibu -
Current
Fee
Malibu -
Full Cost
Agoura
Hills
Calabasas Camarillo Laguna
Beach
Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
Sign Permit: Individual
93 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 67
14 Zoning Verification Letter
Malibu currently charges $200 for a zoning verification letter. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $210. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are both below the jurisdictional average of $271 and are most comparable to Calabasas at $183. At $585, Manhattan Beach charges the highest fee.
15 Coastal Development Permit (CDP) – Level 4
Malibu currently charges $11,579 for a new single-family residential coastal development permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $20,248. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Calabasas Camarillo Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
Zoning Verification Letter
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
Malibu - Current
Fee
Malibu - Full Cost Laguna Beach Manhattan Beach Redondo Beach Coastal Development Permit (CDP) - Level 4 - NSFR; Remodel Non-Conforming Structures
94 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 68
Of the jurisdictions that charge this permit, all charge their fee less than Malibu’s current and full cost calculated. At $4,151, Manhattan Beach charges more than the jurisdictional average of $2,658. Laguna Beach and Redondo Beach charge less than the average, at $2,218 and $1,605, respectively.
16 Administrative Plan Review (APR)
Malibu currently charges $1,590 for a minor administrative plan review. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $3,216. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $2,847. Its full cost is in alignment with Camarillo and Laguna Beach but less than Manhattan Beach’s fee ($6,722).
17 Temporary Dumpster
Malibu currently charges $380 for a temporary dumpster permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $489. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
Malibu -
Current
Fee
Malibu -
Full Cost
Agoura
Hills
Calabasas Camarillo Laguna
Beach
Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
Administrative Plan Review APR - Minor
95 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 69
Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are both above the jurisdictional average of $249 and are most comparable to Manhattan Beach at $424. 18 Encroachment Permit: 100 sf of Land Disturbance, 24 lf Malibu currently charges $914 for a 100 square foot of land disturbance encroachment permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $1,792. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee is roughly in alignment with the jurisdictional average of $961 and is most comparable to West Hollywood at $1,268. The full cost calculated is the second highest after Agoura Hills at $2,235.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
West
Hollywood
Temporary Dumpster
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Camarillo Laguna
Beach
Manhattan
Beach
West
Hollywood
Encroachment Permit: 100 sf of Land Disturbance, 24 lf
96 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 70
19 Encroachment Permit: Driveway
Malibu currently charges $660 for a driveway encroachment permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $896. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are both above the jurisdictional average of $349 and are most comparable to Camarillo at $749.
20 Land Development Permits (including Revisions) - Eng. Review & Inspection - 6 hours; Valued at $10,000
Malibu currently charges a $1,524 for a six-hour land development permit valued at $10,955. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $1,971. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Camarillo Laguna
Beach
Manhattan
Beach
West
Hollywood
Encroachment Permit: Driveway
97 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 71
Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are both below the jurisdictional average of $3,385 and are most comparable to Laguna Beach at $1,000. At $5,749 Agoura Hills has the charges the highest fee for this service.
21 City Hall – Multi-Purpose Room (Private Use): Residential Malibu currently charges a $139 for a private rental of the City Hall multi-purpose room by a resident. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $202. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee and full cost calculated are both above the jurisdictional average of $92, and are most comparable to Laguna Beach at $124.
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
Malibu - Current
Fee
Malibu - Full Cost Agoura Hills Camarillo Laguna Beach
Land Development Permits (including Revisions) - Eng. Review & Inspection - 6 hours; Valued at $10,000
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
City Hall - Multi-Purpose Room (Private Use): Residential 98 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 72
22 City Hall – Conference Room (Private Use): 2 Hours
Malibu currently charges a $55 for a two-hour private rental of the City Hall conference room. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $147. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee is the second lowest, behind Calabasas which charges $50. The full cost calculated is in roughly aligned with the jurisdictional average of $134 and is most comparable to Agoura Hills at $140.
23 Picnic Area (Private Use): 4 Hours
Malibu currently charges a $132 for a four-hour private rental of a picnic area. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $200. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Malibu -
Current Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Manhattan
Beach
Redondo
Beach
West
Hollywood
City Hall - Conference Room (Private Use): 2 Hours
99 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 73
Malibu’s current fee roughly aligns with the jurisdictional average of $126. The full cost calculated is above the average and most comparable to Calabasas at $185. At $220, Redondo Beach charges the highest rate for this rental. 24 Sports Field – Full Field (Private Use): 2 Hours
Malibu currently charges a $60 for a two-hour private rental of a full sports field. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $85. The following graph compares Malibu's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

Malibu’s current fee of $65 roughly aligns with the jurisdictional average and is most comparable to Calabasas at $65. The full cost is above the average and most comparable to Redondo Beach at $88.
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Malibu - Current
Fee
Malibu - Full
Cost
Agoura Hills Calabasas Manhattan
Beach
Redondo Beach West Hollywood
Picnic Area (Private Use): 4 Hours
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
Malibu - Current
Fee
Malibu - Full Cost Agoura Hills Calabasas Laguna Beach Redondo Beach Sports Field - Full Field (Private Use): 2 Hours
100
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Malibu, CA Matrix Consulting Group 74
Summary
Overall, Malibu generally has current fees that are lower than those of the surveyed jurisdictions, other than for Building services. Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Malibu’s current fees are most comparable with Calabasas, while the City’s full cost calculated is most comparable to fee charged in Agoura Hills. It is important to note that the results of this survey only show the fees adopted by the council, not the cost recovery policy decisions for departments or a jurisdiction. As such, the results of this survey should be used as a secondary decision-making tool.
101