Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, August 10, 2026 (part 4 of 4)

EXHIBIT B
Current City Attorney’s Office
Rates for Private Projects
Best Best & Krieger LLP Services Rate
Partners / Of Counsel $ 395
Associates $ 298
Paralegals / Clerks $ 220
Analysts / Admin. Assistants / Other $ 130
Docusign Envelope ID: F79BAF96-B63E-86BB-80E7-54486BD2EF60

Page 1 of 7 ends

Agenda Item # 5.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director and Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Approved by: Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager
Date prepared: July 30, 2026 Meeting date: August 10, 2026 Subject: Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 26-002 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 26-002 – An Amendment to Chapter 2 (Definitions) of the Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Malibu Municipal Code to Add a Definition of Beachfront RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) After the City Attorney reads the title of the ordinance, introduce on first reading Ordinance No. 537 (Attachment 1), approving Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 26-002 and Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 26-002 to add a definition of Beachfront to Chapter 2 (Definitions) of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and finding the action to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2) Direct staff to schedule second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 537 for the August 24, 2026 City Council Regular meeting and, if adopted, direct the filing of LCPA No. 26-002 (Ordinance No. 537) with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for certification.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project is included in the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item advances Goal 1, Objective 1.2 of the 2025-2028 Strategic Plan by modernizing development policies to improve clarity and consistency.

DISCUSSION: The item before the City Council is consideration of amendments to add a new definition of Beachfront to LIP Section 2.1 (General Definitions) and MMC Section City Council Meeting
8-10-2026
Item

5.A.

Page 2 of 7 ends

Agenda Item # 5.A.

17.02.060 (Definitions). This term is currently not defined in the LIP or MMC and its inclusion would be beneficial when applying development standards to projects whether on the beach or not. The proposed definition would not change any City practices or policies but would memorialize the City’s longstanding application of this term in its codes.

Preparation of the Beachfront definition was directed by the City Council on December 8, 2025, by Resolution No. 25-56.

The ordinance amendments are provided within Attachment 1 and represent the operative ordinance text recommended for adoption.

Planning Commission Recommendation
On May 18, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 26-20 (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Council approve LCPA No. 26-002 and ZTA No. 26-002.

No changes to the draft ordinance presented to the Planning Commission were recommended and Ordinance No. 537 remains unchanged. The Planning Commission discussed what standards would be applied in the event of a lot merger between a nonbeachfront parcel and beachfront parcel. Staff clarified that non-beachfront standards would still be applied to the newly formed parcel based on the criteria in the definition.

Zoning Ordinance Revisions and Code Enforcement Subcommittee Feedback The proposed definition was reviewed by the City Council’s Zoning Ordinance Revisions and Code Enforcement Subcommittee (ZORACES) at its meeting on March 26, 2026. The subcommittee voted 2-0 to proceed with the definition as recommended by staff to the Planning Commission for review. For clarity to the public, the subcommittee provided the following feedback:
1) Clarify that the LCPA/ZTA would not be changing any City practices or policies but rather memorializing the City’s longstanding practice when applying beachfront development standards; (Achieved on both the Planning Commission staff report and this Council report)
2) In the staff presentation, include enhanced mapping of example areas using the City’s GIS and Google Earth; (Achieved on both the Planning Commission presentation and further strengthened in the Council presentation) and 3) In the staff presentation, include Broad Beach Road in the examples of when beachfront development standards apply. (Achieved on both the Planning Commission presentation and in the Council presentation) Background
When applying development standards to projects requiring setbacks, height, impermeable coverage, two-thirds calculation, and Total Development Square Footage

Page 3 of 7 ends

Agenda Item # 5.A.
(TDSF), the LIP and MMC provide a different set of development standards for beachfront and non-beachfront projects. Beachfront development standards allow less setbacks and increased height than non-beachfront development standards. Additionally, beachfront development is not subject to the impermeable coverage, two-thirds calculation, and TDSF limitations that are otherwise applied to non-beachfront development. Since these limitations do not apply to beachfront development, it is important for the City to clearly define what parcels are subject to beachfront development standards to prevent nonbeachfront development from mistakenly leveraging those allowances. Beachfront parcels are generally smaller and more constrained in size, which is why previous City policymakers established reduced development standards to account for their limited developable area. In contrast, many non-beachfront parcels are larger, reflecting Malibu’s rural nature and providing ample space for development. Non-beachfront parcels have limitations on development area, stricter setback and regulations related to clustering development in order to preserve natural areas while on beachfront parcels, the primary goal of the development standards is to protect beach resources related to environmental quality, public access, and scenic corridors. There are distinct differences in the characteristics of these two types of parcels in Malibu that warrant a clear definition so their purpose is not misused.

Neither the LIP nor MMC provide a definition of Beachfront or Non-Beachfront and, while in most cases the distinction between the two is obvious, there are nuances with the location of development and configuration of some ocean-fronting parcels in the City that have resulted in ambiguity for applicants, the City’s reviewers, and decision-makers. In practice, the Planning Division and the CCC through their review of development projects in the City, have historically qualified that beachfront development standards apply based on a parcel’s orientation to the coast, the zoning designation, and the location of the structure. It should be noted that the City and CCC have historically agreed on what is considered a beachfront parcel. Geologic characteristics associated with the location of the primary use structure, such as the footprint of a residence as it is situated on a parcel, is a defining factor and not just the location of the parcel itself.

Establishing a definition of Beachfront in the LIP and MMC would provide clarity to the public and City, improve consistency in project review, and reduce the need for case-bybase interpretations. It would also better position the City if challenges to a project's development standards were made by an applicant looking to maximize the extra code allowances of beachfront development that are intended to be for the typical constrained beachfront parcel.

Page 4 of 7 ends

Agenda Item # 5.A.

Proposed Definition
The proposed definition would read:

BEACHFRONT: A parcel is considered beachfront when one of its parcel boundary lines is the Pacific Ocean or beach directly adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, the parcel does not have a zoning designation of Rural Residential, and the site of proposed development is either directly on the beach or within a low-lying shoreline area contiguous with the beach and not separated from the beach by a coastal bluff, cliff, hill, or other elevated coastal landform. Parcels not meeting these criteria shall be considered non-beachfront. Beachfront development standards shall only apply to parcels meeting this definition where the primary use structure is located in one of these areas. An ancillary structure on the beach shall not constitute a parcel to be beachfront if the primary use structure is not located on the beach.

The proposed definition would align LIP Section 2.1 (General Definitions) and MMC Section 17.02.060 (Definitions) with the City’s longstanding practice for qualifying when beachfront development standards apply.

The structure of the proposed definition was based on the following three components:
1) Physical Relationship to the Pacific Ocean: A parcel must directly abut the ocean.

This component is important to ensure beachfront development standards are applied to parcels adjacent to the coast and not parcels adjacent to other low-lying areas, such as lagoons or blue-line streams; and
2) Consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Maps: A parcel must not be located within the General Plan, zoning code, or LCP land use designation of Rural Residential (RR) due to the lower-intensity development pattern envisioned for the RR residential land use and minimum lot size of one acre. This component is important because several parcels in the City are designated as RR and are oriented along the coast, as well as typically being larger in lot size. These lots are typically larger in size and have development that is separated from the beach by elevated landforms covered in the paragraph below. Allowing the use of beachfront development standards for these large RR parcels along the coast could allow for the parcels to develop in a relatively dense pattern that would not be consistent with the rural ambiance envisioned by the General Plan for such areas; and 3) Geologic Characteristics of a Beachfront Environment: The footprint of the primary use structure of a parcel must be reflective of geologic characteristics of a beachfront environment such as representing a low-lying coastal landform contiguous to the beach and not being separated from the beach by a coastal bluff, cliff, hill, or other prominent elevated coastal landform. This component is important

Page 5 of 7 ends

Agenda Item # 5.A.
because some parcels in the City are oriented along the coast and not within the RR land use designation, such as parcels in the Single Family Medium (SFM) land use designation; however, the location of proposed development for a primary use is separated from the beach by a coastal bluff, hill, or some other prominent coastal landform. Typically, parcels that include coastal bluffs or other prominent elevated coastal landforms are also larger in lot size than the parcels that are reflective of a beachfront environment. Allowing the use of beachfront development standards for parcels along the coast that are separated from the beach by a coastal bluff or some other prominent coastal landform would allow for development much larger than intended by the General Plan.

General Plan & LCP Consistency
The proposed amendment is supported by the following General Plan Mission Statement and Land Use (LU) Element, and LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) policies.

General Plan
1) Mission Statement (excerpt): Malibu will maintain its rural character by establishing programs and policies that avoid suburbanization and commercialization of its natural and cultural resources.
2) LU Policy 1.1.1: The City shall protect the natural environment by regulating design and permitting only land uses compatible with the natural environment. 3) LU Policy 1.1.4: The City shall preserve the City's rural residential character. 4) LU Policy 1.1.5: The City shall require careful site planning which blends development with the natural topography.
5) LU Policy 2.3.2: The City shall discourage “mansionization” by establishing limits on height, bulk, and square footage for all new and remodel single-family residences. 6) LU Policy 2.4.1: The City shall preserve and protect vistas and large open areas that contribute to the rural feeling of the area.
7) LU Policy 6.1.1: The City shall use development standards and procedures that protect the property owners' reasonable use of their land consistent with the goals and policies of this General Plan.

LUP
1) LUP Policy 5.7: New development shall conform to the hillside management provisions of the LIP, including measures to minimize impacts to scenic and visual resources and to minimize the risk from hazards. The measures include but are not limited to limiting grading and retaining walls, restricting development on steep slopes, protecting ridgelines, and applying siting and design restrictions (scenic and visual policies). The slope density criteria of the subdivision ordinance shall apply

Page 6 of 7 ends

Agenda Item # 5.A.
to sloping terrain and be applied in combination with the base land use designation in order to determine the maximum allowable density.
2) LUP Policy 5.25: In order to protect the rural character, improvements, which create a suburban atmosphere such as sidewalks and streetlights, shall be avoided in any rural residential designation.
3) LUP Policy 6.5: New development shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on scenic areas visible from scenic roads or public viewing areas to the maximum feasible extent. If there is no feasible building site location on the proposed project site where development would not be visible, then the development shall be sited and designed to minimize impacts on scenic areas visible from scenic highways or public viewing areas, through measures including, but not limited to, siting development in the least visible portion of the site, breaking up the mass of new structures, designing structures to blend into the natural hillside setting, restricting the building maximum size, reducing maximum height standards, clustering development, minimizing grading, incorporating landscape elements, and where appropriate, berming.
4) LUP Policy 6.7: The height of structures shall be limited to minimize impacts to visual resources. The maximum allowable height, except for beachfront lots, shall be 18 feet above existing or finished grade, whichever is lower. On beachfront lots, or where found appropriate through Site Plan Review, the maximum height shall be 24 feet (flat roofs) or 28 feet (pitched roofs) above existing or finished grade, whichever is lower. Chimneys and rooftop antennas may be permitted to extend above the permitted height of the structure.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to CEQA, the proposed LCP and MMC amendment actions have been analyzed by the Planning Commission and determined to be Statutorily Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 because CEQA does not apply to activities or approvals by a local government as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA for review and certification by the CCC as set forth in Section 21080.9 of the Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the certified City of Malibu LCP constitutes a plan for use in the CCC’s regulatory program as certified under Section 21080.5 of the Public Resources Code.

PUBLIC NOTICE: The City published a Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability of LCP Amendments in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu on July 16, 2026 (Attachment 3). Additionally, the interested parties list for LCPAs and ZTAs were sent a courtesy email with the date of the agendized City Council item and instructions for participation. As of the writing of the report, staff has not received public comments.

SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 537 approving LCPA No. 26-002 and ZTA No. 26-002 to add a definition of Beachfront to LIP Section 2.1 (General Definitions) and MMC Section 17.02.060 (Definitions). If adopted

Page 7 of 7 ends

Agenda Item # 5.A.
after a second reading of the ordinance on August 24, 2026, staff would file LCPA No. 26- 002 with the CCC for certification. The LCPA (and ZTA as a corollary amendment) would become effective upon certification by the CCC.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Ordinance No. 537

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-20

3. Public Hearing Notice
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. 537

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MALIBU APPROVING LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 26-002 AND ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT NO. 26-002 TO ADD A DEFINITION OF BEACHFRONT TO CHAPTER 2 (DEFINITIONS) OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE MALIBU MUNICIPAL CODE; TO DIRECT THE FILING OF THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR CERTIFICATION; AND

FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Malibu does ordain as follows.

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On December 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-56 to initiate the preparation of a Beachfront definition.

B. On March 26, 2026, the City Council Zoning Ordinance Revision and Code Enforcement Subcommittee (ZORACES) met to discuss the proposed amendments and provided feedback for staff to incorporate as the ordinance advances to the Planning Commission.

C. On April 23, 2026, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to interested parties.

D. On May 18, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendment in Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 26-002 and Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 26-002, reviewed and considered the agenda report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information on the record, and adopted Resolution No. 26-20 recommending the City Council approval. No changes to the draft ordinance presented to the Planning Commission were recommended.

E. On July 26, 2026, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing Notice of Availability of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendments was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to interested parties indicating that the City Council would hold a public hearing on August 10, 2026, to consider the proposed ordinance.

F. On August 10, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed LCPA No. 26-002 and ZTA No 26-002, reviewed and considered the agenda report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information on the record.

The City Council conducted a first reading and introduction of the Ordinance and directed staff to set a second reading for adoption of Ordinance No. XXX, approving LCPA No. 26-002 and ZTA No. 26-002. If adopted, the City Council directed staff to file the LCPA with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for certification.

Ordinance No. 537

Page 2 of 5 ends

____________________

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

The City Council finds that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed LCP and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) amendment actions have been analyzed and determined to be Statutorily Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 because CEQA does not apply to activities or approvals by a local government as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA for review and certification by the CCC as set forth in Section 21080.9 of the Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the certified City of Malibu LCP constitutes a plan for use in the CCC’s regulatory program as certified under Section 21080.5 of the Public Resources Code.

SECTION 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment Findings.

Pursuant to LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 19.6, the City Council hereby makes the following findings to approve LCPA No. 26-002 as stated in Section 4 of this ordinance.

A. Section 30251 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act states that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. The Section requires that coastal development must protect scenic views, be visually compatible with surroundings, and, where feasible, restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

Highly scenic areas, including areas to and along the ocean, scenic roads, and public viewing areas, require development to be subordinate to the setting. Establishing a proper definition of “Beachfront” will ensure that only true beachfront development utilize the standards which are meant for more constrained parcels along the coast bound by the ocean and limited parcel width, and further preserve more scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas in Malibu.

B. Chapters 5 and 6 of the Malibu LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) incorporate the Coastal Act’s development policies, including Section 30251, to minimize impacts on scenic resources.

This includes restricting development and applying siting and design restrictions.

C. LIP Chapter 3 implements the LUP by requiring development standards applicable to beachfront and non-beachfront development. Non-beachfront development standards require increased setbacks and lower heights than beachfront development standards, as well as restrictions on impermeable coverage, limits on the volume of development above 18 feet (twothirds calculation), and Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) limitations. This is due to nonbeachfront parcels being larger in size where those extra limitations help to preserve Malibu’s coastal resources. Historically, the City and CCC through its review of coastal development have qualified that beachfront development standards apply based on a parcel’s orientation to the coast, the zoning designation, and the location of the structure. Geologic characteristics associated with the location of the primary use structure, such as the footprint of a single-family residence as it is situated on a parcel, is a defining factor and not just the location of the parcel itself. Establishing a definition of Beachfront in the LIP would further implement Chapters 5 and 6 of the LUP and Section 30251 of the Coastal Act by ensuring the appropriate application of non-beachfront development standards are being applied to parcels that do not meet the eligibility components of a beachfront parcel.

Ordinance No. 537

Page 3 of 5 ends

____________________

SECTION 4. Local Coastal Program Amendment.

Section 2.1 (General Definitions) of the LIP is hereby amended to add the following new definition as follows:

Beachfront development standards shall only apply to parcels meeting this definition where the primary use structure is located in one of these areas. An ancillary structure on the beach shall not constitute a parcel to be beachfront if the primary use structure is not located on the beach.

SECTION 5. Zoning Text Amendment Findings.

Pursuant to MMC Section 17.74.040(C), the City Council hereby makes the following findings to approve ZTA No. 26-002 as stated in Section 6 of this ordinance.

A. The subject zoning text amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The proposed amendment serves to enhance the Malibu General Plan Mission Statement and protect the natural environment and rural residential character by regulating land use, discouraging “mansionization,” and preserving vistas and open areas.

B. The City Council held a public hearing, reviewed the subject zoning text amendment application for compliance with the City of Malibu General Plan and MMC, and finds that ZTA No. 26-002 is consistent with the General Plan. The City Council found that the Beachfront definition is consistent with the historical application of the MMC and LCP by the City and CCC and does not change how Malibu has applied beachfront development standards previously. Rather, it clarifies what is and is not subject to beachfront development standards which differs from non-beachfront development standards.

SECTION 6. Zoning Text Amendment.

Section 17.02.060 (Definitions) of the MMC is hereby amended to add the following new definition as follows:
“Beachfront” means that a parcel is considered beachfront when one of its parcel boundary lines is the Pacific Ocean or beach directly adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, the parcel does not have a zoning designation of Rural Residential, and the site of proposed development is either directly on the beach or within a low-lying shoreline area contiguous with the beach and not separated from the beach by a coastal bluff, cliff, hill, or other elevated Ordinance No. 537

Page 4 of 5 ends

____________________
coastal landform. Parcels not meeting these criteria shall be considered non-beachfront.

SECTION 7. Submittal to California Coastal Commission.

The City Council hereby directs staff to submit the LCPA to the CCC per Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 13544(c).

SECTION 8. Effective Date.

LCPA No. 26-002 and corollary ZTA No. 26-002 approved in this Ordinance shall become effective only upon final certification of the LCPA by the CCC.

SECTION 9. Severability.

Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared and this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved, and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ____ 2026. ____________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
Date: _________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Ordinance No. 537

Page 5 of 5 ends

____________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 26—20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU DETERMINING THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 26-002 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 26—002 TO ADD A DEFINITION OF BEACHFRONT TO CHAPTER 2 (DEFINITIONS) OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE MALIBU MUNICIPAL CODE The Planning Commission Ofthe City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

Section I. Recitals.

A. On December 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-56 to initiate the preparation of a Beachfront definition.

B. On March 26, 2026, the Zoning Ordinance Revision and Code Enforcement Subcommittee (ZORACES) met to discuss the proposed amendments and provided feedback for staff to incorporate as the ordinance advances to the Planning Commission.

C. On April 23, 2026, a Notice ofPlanning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to interested parties.

D. On May l8, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendment in Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 26—002 and Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 26—002, reviewed and considered the agenda report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information on the record.

Section 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) amendment actions have been analyzed by the Planning Commission and determined to be Statutorily Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 because CEQA does not apply to activities or approvals by a local government as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA for review and certification by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as set forth in Section 21080.9 of the Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the certified City of Malibu LCP constitutes a plan for use in the CCC’s regulatory program as ceitifled under Section 21 080.5 of the Public Resources Code.

Section 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment Findings.

Pursuant to LIP Section 19.6, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings and recommends the City Council adopt the ordinance in Exhibit A amending the LIP as stated in Section 4 of the ordinance.

Attachment 2
Resolution NO 26-20

Page 2 ends

A. Section 30251 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act states that the scenic and Visual qualities of coastal areas be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. The Section requires that coastal development must protect scenic views, be Visually compatible with surroundings, and, where feasible, restore and enhance Visual quality in Visually degraded areas. Highly scenic areas, including areas to and along the ocean, scenic roads, and public Viewing areasi require development to be subordinate to the setting. Establishing a proper definition of “Beachfront” will ensure that only true beachfront development utilizes the standards which are meant for more constrained parcels along the coast bound by the ocean and limited parcel width, and further preserve more scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas in Malibu.

B. Chapters 5 and 6 of the Malibu LUP incorporate the Coastal Act’s development policiesa including Section 30251, to minimize impacts on scenic resources. This includes restricting development and applying siting and design restrictions.

C. LIP Chapter 3 implements the LUP by requiring development standards applicable to beachfront and non—beachfront development. Non-beachfront development standards require increased setbacks and lower heights than beachfront development standards, as well as restrictions on impermeable coverage, limits on the volume of development above 18 feet (two- thirds calculation), and Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) limitations. This is due to non- beachfront parcels being larger in size where those extra limitations help to preserve Malibu’s coastal resources. Historically, the City and CCC through its review ofcoastal development have qualified that beachfront development standards apply based on a parcel’s orientation to the coast, the zoning designation, and the location of the structure. Geologic characteristics associated with the location of the primary use structure, such as the footprint of a single—family residence as it is situated on a parcel, is a defining factor and not just the location of the parcel itself. Establishing a definition of Beachfront in the LIP would further implement Chapters 5 and 6 of the LUP and Section 30251 of the Coastal Act by ensuring the appropriate application of non-beachfront development standards are being applied to parcels that do not meet the eligibility components of a beachfront parcel.

Section 4. Zoning Text Amendment Findings.

Pursuant to MMC Section 17.74.040, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings and recommends the City Council adopt the ordinance in Exhibit A amending the MMC Title 17 (Zoning) as stated in Section 6 of the ordinance.

B. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the subject zoning text amendment application for compliance with the City of Malibu General Plan and MMC, and finds Resolution NO 26—20

Page 3 of 9 ends

that ZTA N0. 26—002 is consistent and recommends approval. The Planning Commission found that the Beachfront definition is consistent with the historical application ofthe MMC and LCP by the City and CCC and does not change how Malibu has applied beachfront development standards previously. Rather, it clarifies what is and is not subject to beachfront development standards which differs from non-beachfront development standards.

Section 5. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained in the record the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve LCPA No. 26—002 and ZTA No. 26—002 contained in Sections 3 and 4 ofthis resolution.

Section 6. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18”‘ day ofMay 2026.
{/6 // g/ ié SKTLAdlPEAK, Plarining Commission Chair
ATTEST:
a‘x ‘ c §c< i3 ‘ vvs
j
1 ¥ f"_ar med, t ’“T‘vgik
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
Exhibit A: Recommended Ordinance for Council Adoption
l CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 26-20 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City oflVlalibu at the regular meeting thereof held on the 1811‘ day of May, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 Commissioners: Leonard, Riddick, Mazza, Kamins. Peak NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
0 0
0 Resolution NO 26—20

Page 5 ends

Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MALIBU APPROVING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 26—002 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 26-002 TO ADD A DEFINITION OF BEACHFRONT TO CHAPTER 2 (DEFINITIONS) OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE MALIBU MUNICIPAL CODE; AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The City Council ofthe City of Malibu does ordain as follows:

SECTION l. Findings.

A. On December 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-56 to initiate the preparation of a Beachfront definition.

B. On March 26. 2026, the Zoning Ordinance Revision and Code Enforcement Subcommittee (ZORACES) met to discuss the proposed amendments and provided feedback for staffto incorporate as the ordinance advances to the Planning Commission.

C. On April 23, 2026, aNotice ofPlanning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to interested parties.

D. On May l8. 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendment in Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 26-002 and Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 26—002, reviewed and considered the agenda report, reviewed and considered written reports. public testimony. and other information on the record.

E. On xxx xx, 2026, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing and Notice of Availability of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendments was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to interested parties indicating that the City Council would a hold public hearing on XXX xx, 2026 to consider the proposed Ordinance.

E. On xxx xx. 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments, reviewed and considered the agenda report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. The City Council conducted a first reading and introduction of the Ordinance and directed staff to set a second reading for adoption of Ordinance No. xxx, approving LCPA No. 26-002 and ZTA No. 26-002.

Resoluti0n NO 26—20

Page 6 ends

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

The City Council finds that pursuant t0 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed LCP and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) amendment actions have been analyzed and determined to be Statutorily Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 because CEQA does not apply to activities or approvals by a local government as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA for review and certification by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as set forth in Section 21080.9 of the Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the ceitifled City of Malibu LCP constitutes a plan for use in the CCC’s regulatory program as certified under Section 21080.5 ofthe Public Resources Code.

SECTION 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment Findings.

Pursuant to LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 19.6, the City Council hereby makes the following findings to approve LCPA No. 26-002 as stated in Section 4 ofthis ordinance.

B. Chapters 5 and 6 ofthe Malibu LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) incorporate the Coastal Act’s development policies, including Section 30251, to minimize impacts on scenic resources.

This includes restricting development and applying siting and design restrictions.

C. LIP Chapter 3 implements the LUP by requiring development standards applicable to beachfront and non—beachfront development. Non—beachfront development standards require increased setbacks and lower heights than beachfront development standards, as well as restrictions on impermeable coverage, limits on the volume of development above 18 feet (two- thirds calculation), and Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) limitations. This is due to nonbeachfront parcels being larger in size where those extra limitations help to preserve Malibu’s coastal resources. Historically, the City and CCC through its review of coastal development have qualified that beachfront development standards apply based on a parcel’s orientation to the coast, the zoning designation, and the location of the structure. Geologic characteristics associated with the location of the primary use structure, such as the footprint of a single-family residence as it is situated on a parcel, is a defining factor and notjust the location ofthe parcel itself. Establishing a definition of Beachfront in the LIP would further implement Chapters 5 and 6 of the LUP and Section 30251 of the Coastal Act by ensuring the appropriate application of non—beachfront Resolution NO 26-20

Page 7 ends

development standards are being applied to parcels that do not meet the eligibility components of a beachfront parcel.

SECTION 4. Local Coastal Program Amendments.

Pursuant to LIP Section 19.5(B), the LIP shall be amended as follows:

A. Amend LIP Section 2.1 (Definitions) to include a new definition as follows:

Beachfront development standards shall only apply to parcels meeting this definition where the primary use structure is located in one of these areas. An ancillary structure on the beach shall not constitute a parcel to be beachfront ifthe primary use structure is not located on the beach.

SECTION 5. Zoning Text Amendment Findings.

Pursuant to MMC Section 17.74.040(C). the City Council hereby makes the following findings to approve ZTA No. 26—002 as stated in Section 6 ofthis ordinance.

A. The subject zoning text amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, gcneral land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The proposed amendment serves to enhance the Malibu General Plan Mission Statement and protect the natural environment and rural residential character by regulating land use, discouraging “mansionization,” and preserving vistas and open areas.

B. The City Council held a public hearing, reviewed the subject zoning text amendment application for compliance with the City ofMalibu General Plan and MMC. and finds that ZTA No. 26-002 is consistent with the General Plan. The City Council found that the Beachfront definition is consistent with the historical application ofthe MMC and LCP by the City and CCC and does not change how Malibu has applied beachfront development standards previously. Rather, it clarifies what is and is not subject to beachfront development standards which differs from non—beachfront development standards.

SECTION 6. Zoning Text Amendments.

Pursuant to MMC Section 17.74.040(D). the MMC shall be amended as follows:

A. Amend MMC Section 17.02.060 (Definitions) to include a new definition as follows:

Resolution NO 26—20
Pag€ 8 of 9
“Beachfront” means that a parcel is considered beachfront when one of its parcel boundary lines is the Pacific Ocean or beach directly adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, the parcel does not have a zoning designation of Rural Residentialj and the site ofproposed development is either directly on the beach or within a low-lying shoreline area contiguous with the beach and not separated from the beach by a coastal bluff, cliff, hill, 0r other elevated coastal landform, Parcels not meeting these criteria shall be considered non—beachfront.

Beachfront development standards shall only apply to parcels meeting this definition where the primaiy use structure is located in one of these areas. An ancillary structure on the beach shall not constitute a parcel to be beachfront ifthe primary use structure is not located on the beach.

SECTION 7. Submittal to California Coastal Commission.

The City Council hereby directs staff to submit the LCPA to the CCC per Title l4, California Code ofRegulations Section l3544(c).

SECTION 8. Effective Date.

LCPA No. 26—002 and corollary ZTA No. 26-002 approved in this Ordinance shall become effective only upon final certification of the LCPA by the CCC.

SECTION 9. Severabilitv.

Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional. such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions ofthis Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared and this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved, and ratified irrespective ofthe fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 10. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of . 2026.

BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
Resolution NO 26—20

Page 9 ends

ATTEST:

KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(saal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Attachment 3

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

OF LCP AMENDMENT MATERIALS
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, August 10, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the project identified below.

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

BEACHFRONT DEFINITION
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 26-002 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 26-002 – Consider the proposed amendments to Chapter 2 (Definitions) of the Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Malibu Municipal Code to add a definition of Beachfront
The proposed amendments were previously considered by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2026, during which the Commission provided recommendations to the City Council.

Location: Citywide Project
Case Planner: Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director (310) 456-2489, extension 273
[email protected]
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code amendment actions have been analyzed by the Community Development Director and determined to be Statutorily Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 because CEQA does not apply to activities or approvals by a local government as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCP Amendment for review and certification by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as set forth in Section 21080.9 of the Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the certified City of Malibu LCP constitutes a plan for use in the CCC regulatory program as certified under Section 21080.5 of the Public Resources Code.

The amendments must be approved by the City Council and the LCP amendment (LCPA) requires certification by the CCC before it takes effect.

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

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS – Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall, Malibu Public Library, and the CCC District office 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.

Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
Publish Date: July 16, 2026

Page 1 of 9 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Nadia Fahoum, Associate Engineer
Reviewed by: Tatiana Holden, Assistant Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer
Approved by: Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager
Date prepared: June 24, 2026 Meeting date: August 10, 2026 Subject: Pacific Coast Highway Quick Build Roundabouts Project Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Receive an update on the Pacific Coast Highway Quick Build Roundabouts project and 2) Provide direction to staff on whether to proceed with this project.

FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation is required. Funding for this project is included in the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 in Account No. 310-9078-5100 (Pacific Coast Highway Quick Build Roundabouts Project).

This project is funded through the Los Angeles County Metro Measure M Subregional Highway Funds in the amount of $2,000,000, which was the original project cost estimate outlined below. However, this cost estimate assumes a temporary installation of the Quick Build Roundabouts renders the project ineligible for Metro funding for construction costs.

Staff have identified different alternatives that would allow the City to leverage the Metro funding provided by Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath. However, depending on Council’s direction, additional funding may be required to complete the project. This is discussed below with the options forward in the staff report.

Project Funding
Metro Measure M $2,000,000
Project Total Funding $2,000,000
Project Estimate
Design $464,356
City Council Meeting
08-10-26
Item

6.A.

Page 2 of 9 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Construction $1,535,644
Project Total Costs $2,000,000
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: This item supports the City’s 2025-2028 Strategic Plan Goal 4: Improve Public Safety.

Goal 4: Improve Public Safety
Objective 4.1: Reduce injury and fatal collisions on Pacific Coast Highway Strategy: Commit to setting speed limits based on crash risk, street type, and presence of vulnerable users, in addition to the 85th percentile speed, and using legislative advocacy.

DISCUSSION:

The Pacific Coast Highway Quick Build Roundabouts project (Project) has the objective of improving safety, operations, and accessibility of the highway through strategically placing and constructing “quick build” modular roundabouts at the intersections of Encinal Canyon Road and El Matador Beach along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); providing continuous traffic flow, speed control, and improved accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.

Project Background
Below is a timeline of key project dates
• On June 22, 2015, the Malibu’s City Council adopted the Pacific Coast Highway Safety Study, developed in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which authorized recommendations for measures to improve safety along the PCH corridor to reduce vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian conflicts.
• On October 17, 2023, four Pepperdine University students were fatally struck by a motorist traveling 104-mph in a 45 zone.
• On November 13, 2023, the Malibu City Council declared a Local Emergency aimed at addressing the risks to public safety of dangerous, illegal, reckless, and/or distracted driving on Pacific Coast Highway in the City. The City of Malibu hosted a special public meeting of the PCH Taskforce with City, County and State elected officials, Caltrans and the LA County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) to discuss efforts to make PCH safer.
• On January 22, 2024, City staff presented the new 2024 Pacific Coast Highway Safety Report meant to track and update City’s and Caltrans’ public safety

Page 3 of 9 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.
improvement projects on Pacific Coast Highway. The Council directed staff to perform a feasibility study of all potential calming measures on PCH that could be implemented immediately.

Following direction by the Council, Caltrans, Supervisor’s Lindsey Horvath’s Office and City staff evaluated potential improvements and identified the segment of Pacific Coast Highway in Western Malibu as experiencing high speeds and in need of an improvement that could be implemented more quickly than a traditional capital project, otherwise as rapidly deployable solution. This segment was selected for a “quick-build” project to address the ongoing safety concerns. Roundabouts were identified as the preferred "quick-build" solution. Roundabouts could be delivered using readily available and quick to construct materials, allowing traffic-calming measures to be installed rapidly while reducing vehicle speeds and improving safety. To support the project development and rapid implementation, Supervisor Horvath’s Office allocated $2,000,000 in Measure M funds to the City for the purpose of designing and constructing “quick-build” roundabouts. • On November 1, 2024, Funding Scoping & Allocation for these identified roundabouts began its processing with Metro.
• On November 25, 2024, a presentation was given to Council with updates on new and ongoing initiatives to make PCH safer, addressing critical concerns of the community which included: 1) Timeline to Implement Speed Cameras on PCH, 2) Caltrans to Install Temporary Roundabouts for Safety in Western Malibu, 3) Progress on the PCH Master Plan.
• On February 27, 2025, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors approved funding in the amount of $2 million for the design and installation of “quick-build” roundabouts at two locations on PCH, El Matador State Beach and Encinal Canyon Road.
• On March 24, 2025, the City Council added the Pacific Coast Highway Quick Build Roundabouts Project to the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25; and authorized the execution of a Professional Services Agreements with Kimley-Horn for engineering design services for the PCH Quick Build Roundabouts Project.
• On April 9, 2025, a kickoff meeting was held to begin the design of the Pacific Coast Highway Quick Build Roundabouts Project.

Page 4 of 9 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.
• On September 9, 2025, the City Public Works Department mailed project notification letters to nearby property owners and occupants regarding the upcoming project and Public Works Commission hearing.
• On September 15, 2025, the City Public Works Department held a virtual town hall meeting to gain community insight on the proposed project. • On September 24, 2025, the City Public Works Department presented the proposed project to the City Public Works Commission.
• On October 22, 2025, the City Public Works Department held a virtual town hall meeting to gain community insight on the proposed project. • On December 2, 2025, the City Public Works Department held a second town hall meeting in person to gain community insight on the proposed project. • On December 16, 2025, the City Planning Commission approved the project with added conditions under Resolution No. 25-78.
• On January 6, 2026, Appeal No. 26-001 was filed by a resident group. • On March 18, 2026, the City Council denied the appeal and approved CDP No. 25- 041, subject to added conditions.
• On April 28, 2026, Appeal No. A-4-MAL-26-0011 was filed by a resident group to the California Coastal Commission.
• On June 11, 2026, the California Coastal Commission unanimously denied the appeal and approved the project.

Responding to Council Direction
On March 18, 2026, staff presented the Project application before City Council in which the staff report, written reports, public testimony, and all other information in the record was reviewed and considered. Council directed staff to return with more information at a future public meeting date for determination on whether the project is to proceed forward.

Within the last several weeks, staff and Kimley Horn worked to perform the following Council-directed items:
• Conduct an evaluation of roadway performance in the context of wildfire evacuation scenarios in Malibu, California, specifically testing performance

Page 5 of 9 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.
impacts with inclusion of the proposed pilot quick-build roundabout improvements on PCH at El Matador Beach Road and at Encinal Road.

The Wildfire Evacuation Assessment Report (Attachment 1) indicates that evacuation performance is influenced far more by regional roadway constraints than by the proposed roundabouts. It concludes that the proposed quick build roundabouts would have minimal impact on overall wildfire evacuation performance and clearance. Under conservative PSPS conditions, the amount of time it would take residents to evacuate the evacuation zone under the proposed project sees a marginal increase of 1.4% in comparison to the existing (No Project) evacuation conditions.

Page 6 of 9 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

It is worth noting that Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events, in which all existing traffic signals operate as all-way stops, have a greater impact on evacuation than the proposed roundabouts themselves. The study demonstrates that under the existing conditions of the highway (otherwise “No Project”), the amount of time it would take residents to evacuate the evacuation zone under PSPS conditions is increased by approximately 45 minutes.
• Develop a simulation for the following scenario under normal roundabout operations: groups of cyclist’s movement through roundabout.

A multi-modal simulation was developed and will be shown to Council during the staff presentation at the scheduled August 10, 2026, City Council meeting. The simulation was developed to evaluate how groups of cyclists interact with typical vehicular traffic under standard operating conditions.

The simulation provides a visual and analytical assessment of how groups of cyclists progress through the roundabout and illustrates the operational impacts on surrounding traffic.

The roundabouts yield-controlled design and continuous flow characteristics allow traffic to recover quickly following each cyclist movement. The simulation demonstrates that the roundabout continues to operate successfully under normal conditions while accommodating groups of cyclists.
• Develop a simulation for the following scenario under normal roundabout operations: navigation of all roadway users.

A multi-modal simulation was developed and will be shown to Council during the staff presentation at the scheduled August 10, 2026, City Council meeting. The simulation analyzed the movements and circulation through the roundabouts of various users such as cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists.

Page 7 of 9 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Motorists approaching the roundabout reduce speed, assess circulating traffic, yield as required, enter when an acceptable gap is available, travel through the circulatory roadway, and exit at their intended destination. Pedestrians use the designated crosswalks and splitter islands to cross each approach in two stages, while the drivers yield where required. Cyclists are shown navigating the roundabout in accordance with FHWA accepted operating practices, traveling as part of the traffic stream.

The simulation highlights safe gap acceptance, yielding behavior, lane discipline, and continuous traffic circulation. Demonstrating how the roundabout accommodates multiple modes of transportation while maintaining efficient traffic operations and minimizing delays.
• Develop a simulation for the following scenario under normal roundabout operations: turn templates and access for vehicles (waste management, fire, ambulance, mail services, error) to the private driveways – mobility movement.

A vehicle-turning simulation was developed and will be shown to Council during the staff presentation at the scheduled August 10, 2026 City Council meeting. The simulation analyzed vehicle turning movements, circulation through the roundabouts, and access to adjacent private driveways to confirm that mobility would be maintained.

The simulation included turn templates for a range of vehicle types, including passenger vehicles, waste collection trucks, fire apparatus, ambulances, mail delivery vehicles, and other large service vehicles. The simulation evaluated each vehicle's ability to safely navigate the roundabouts while maintaining access to private driveways and minimizing conflicts with opposing traffic.

The simulation demonstrated that the proposed roundabout design accommodates the anticipated vehicle types and preserves access to properties along the corridor while providing the intended traffic-calming benefits, operational efficiency, emergency access, and roadway safety.

Options Forward
The following options are before Council for consideration, unless otherwise determined:

1. Proceed with the construction of the quick build roundabouts at the intersections of El Matador State Beach and Encinal Canyon Road along PCH.

Page 8 of 9 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Due to the constraints of LA County Metro Measure M funds, the funding source cannot support the construction of “temporary” or otherwise safety improvements intended to be removed. Should Council direct staff to proceed with this option, the roundabouts would remain indefinite unless replaced with permanent improvements.

The direction to staff under this option would also include revising the City’s Coastal Development Permit, revising Caltrans documents and permits, and working with the design consultant Kimley-Horn to modify the plan set as necessary. The additional work required under this option would exceed the available fund of $2 million, and staff estimate it would require an additional six to eight months to complete pushing project completion to Summer 2027. Staff estimate the current project funding gap to be approximately $500,000. Should Council direct staff to proceed with this option, staff would return to request the funding when there is a more refined cost estimate and identified funding source. The additional funding could come from Measure M, speed camera revenues, or another source.

Project Estimate
Design $700,000
Construction $1,800,000
Project Total Costs $2,500,000

2. Proceed with the construction of one quick build roundabout at the intersection of El Matador State Beach along PCH.

If Council wishes to proceed with some traffic calming measures in this area, Council could direct staff to pursue the implementation of one quick build roundabout at El Matador State Beach. This option would still require staff work to remove the “temporary” aspects of the current project permitting but would reduce the overall project costs and eliminate concerns regarding driveways entering and exiting at the Encinal Canyon location.

The direction to staff under this option would also include revising the City’s Coastal Development Permit, revising Caltrans documents and permits, and modifying the plan set as necessary. The additional work required under this option is supported by the available fund of $2 million and requires an additional 6 months to complete.

Project Estimate
Design $600,000
Construction $1,000,000

Page 9 of 9 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Project Total Costs $1,600,000

3. Place a hold on the project and remove it from the City’s Capital Improvement Program at this time. With Council guidance, should there be future consideration for roundabouts at these locations, the following project may be reactivated.

The direction to staff under this option would also include submitting reimbursement requests to Metro for the design costs incurred and withdrawing from the remainder of the approved project scope. It should be noted that if this is Council’s direction, the funds provided by Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s Office were applied to and approved solely for the design and construction of quick-build roundabouts. If this scope is no longer pursued, the remainder of funds are not approved for other use or allocation to other project scopes; and are required to be returned to Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s Office to be considered against other regional transportation priorities.

Project Estimate
Design $464,356
Construction $0
Project Total Costs $464,356
Staff is seeking Council direction on how to proceed with the project. Should Council approve this project in either options 1 or 2, staff anticipates awarding a construction contract in Spring 2027 with a construction completion date of Summer 2027. However, seeking a modified or new Coastal Development Permit may subject the project to another round of appeals, which could further delay project implementation and increase project costs.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. PCH Quick Build Roundabouts - Wildfire Evacuation Assessment Report kimley-horn.com 25152 Springfield Ct, Suite 200, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 661-347-5627 To: Travis Hart, Deputy Public Works Director, Malibu, California Nadia Fahoum, Associate Engineer, Malibu, California
From: Ayberk Kocatepe, Ph.D., PTP
Asher Cipinko
Sri Chakravarthy, P.E., T.E.

Subject: Wildfire Evacuation Assessment – Pilot Quick-Build Roundabouts, Malibu, California Date: June 26, 2026
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (“Kimley-Horn” or the “Consultant”) is tasked to conduct a wildfire evacuation assessment for the proposed Pilot Quick Build Roundabout project (“Project” or “proposed Project”). This memorandum provides an assessment under existing and with Project conditions and impacts to roadway capacity and clearance times under wildfire evacuation scenarios.

Introduction and Purpose
This document presents an evaluation of roadway performance in the context of wildfire evacuation scenarios in Malibu, California, specifically testing performance impacts with inclusion of the proposed pilot quick-build roundabout improvements on Pacific Coast Highway at El Matador Beach Road and at Encinal Road. The objective of this evaluation is to assess the immediate Project-level effects on evacuation performance. The proposed improvements are single lane roundabouts that maintain one entry travel lanes and one exit travel lanes per direction.

Methodology
This assessment applies evacuation modeling to evaluate the Project’s impact on roadway performance during wildfire scenarios and impacts on the broader regional roadway network. To this end, Kimley-Horn has utilized AEGIS1 (Adaptative Evacuation and Geographic Intelligence System), a tool specifically designed for comparative evacuation analysis using multiple national and localized datasets, geospatial analysis software, and advanced modeling algorithms to create dynamic assignment, agent-based models capable of capturing the detailed interactions between vehicles and operational statistics of the roadway network, second-by-second throughout the length of the evacuation. Analysis under AEGIS is conducted by collecting local data, developing hazard scenarios and modeling assumptions based on local conditions, modelling the selected scenarios within the AEGIS software, and analyzing results to assess operational impacts directly tied to the Project.

Scenario Description
This assessment analyzes an evacuation scenario based on the Woolsey Fire (2018) to stress test the roadway network in Malibu. The Woolsey Fire was a multi-day event which began south of Simi Valley and rapidly burned through Ventura and Los Angeles Counites. The fire event occurred concurrently with the Hill Fire, an earlier ignition in Ventura County. Impacts of the Hill Fire caused closures on PCH in the west and northbound direction, and evacuees were routed east and southbound. To assess performance on the 1 Kimley-Horn’s proprietary evacuation analysis tool designed to analyze custom evacuation scenarios

Wildfire Evacuation Assessment Page 2 of 8
Pilot Quick-Build Roundabouts June 26, 2026
study intersections on PCH west of the City of Malibu, this study analyzes an alternative scenario considering the impacts of the Woolsey Fire in isolationwithout Hill Fire-related PCH closures, and evacuees are directed west and north on PCH toward Ventura County. This alternative scenario was selected to represent severe wildfire evacuation conditions, including rapid fire progression into Malibu, broad mandatory evacuation messaging, constrained evacuation routes, and significant westbound PCH delays to stress test the Project.

Evacuation events are inherently stochastic, influenced by many variables from human behavior to the sudden onset of the event making it impractical to evaluate every possible scenario. Given this complexity, it is essential to introduce assumptions to create a manageable framework to allow the model to run specific scenarios and derive meaningful insights and conclusions that can guide further detailed investigations and refinements of the models. This analysis reflects a single potential scenario developed based on assumptions informed by historical events, as well as input received from City Council and discussions with City staff, and considers worst-case evacuation demand conditions.

This methodological process is supported by recent court decisions upholding that evaluating a single evacuation scenario can be as valid as any other, given the countless variables that shape real-world outcomes. In League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain v. County of Placer (2022), the court recognized that with factors such as human behavior, timing, and fire dynamics, it is impossible to model every potential condition. Instead, selecting a representative scenario and metric such as total time to exit provides a manageable framework that provides meaningful analysis.

This analysis does not attempt to recreate the actual Woolsey Fire evacuation event or traffic-control strategy, but instead is a counterfactual scenario applying Woolsey-based evacuation demand and behavior to a westbound PCH routing scenario to evaluate the proposed project effects at El Matador Beach Road and at Encinal Road. Any analysis results are intended as a planning level guide to compare roadway configuration conditions and assess specific operations at the Project site, rather than inform general operational strategy utilized by law enforcement in the event of an evacuation.

Modeling Assumptions
When undertaking this review, reasonable assumptions were made to facilitate the analysis and allow for more streamlined and focused research. All modeling assumptions are described below, based on the Review of Woolsey Fire Response by Malibu City Management2 . Modeling scenarios, reflecting one wildfire
scenario across four different roadway condition scenarios are described in Table 1.  The study area spans the City of Malibu jurisdiction limits to the “PCH lane reduction”, the location where the PCH reduces from 2-lanes to 1-lane in each direction. The study area, proposed roundabout locations, and signalized intersections located on the PCH within the City limits are shown in Figure 1. For the purposes of this study, evacuees are considered “cleared” and evacuated once able to pass the PCH lane reduction. Detailed imagery of the Project site and signalized intersection locations are included in Appendix A.
 To calculate evacuee demand on PCH, US Census blocks3 within the study area were assessed to determine overlap with the Woolsey Fire burn perimeter and regional highway access. All zones 2 Review of Woolsey Fire Response by Malibu City Management, City of Malibu, July 26, 2019 3 Table B08201: Household Size by Vehicles Available, 2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates, US Census Bureau

Wildfire Evacuation Assessment Page 3 of 8
Pilot Quick-Build Roundabouts June 26, 2026
within the City of Malibu and zones intersecting the burn perimeter north of the City without direct access to US-101 were selected as evacuation zones within this study, shown in Figure 2.Under the evacuation scenario the number of vehicles on the roadway network during an evacuation was determined using household and vehicle ownership information obtained directly from socioeconomic data in US Census estimates under the most recent 2024 American Community Survey 5-Year dataset.
 Based on observed evacuation behavior during the Woolsey Fire, evacuee departures are not assumed to be simultaneous but instead follow an S-curve pattern, with departures starting gradually, peaking shortly after notification, and tapering over time. For this analysis, the evacuation response was modeled using an S-curve beginning at approximately 7:00 AM, consistent with the initial evacuation alert, and extending over an estimated eight-hour period, reflecting input from observed conditions including evolving notifications, a citywide evacuation order, and documented delays, confusion, and staggered response behavior.  The 2026 roadway network reflects existing conditions, with capacities and speed limit data derived from OpenStreetMaps4 data.
 The modeling approach applied a 20 percent reduction to roadway capacity to account for evacuees departing before the explicit evacuation notice and disruptions to typical travel patterns during wildfire conditions. The Woolsey Fire evacuation did not occur under normal traffic operating conditions: the City’s alert log documented traffic signal outages at PCH and Coastline by 7:25 AM, subsequent PCH closures and lane-control changes, and an urgent evacuation reinforcement at 12:29 PM. Reports began emerging in the early afternoon of traffic backups, instances of delayed or noncompliant evacuation response, and impacts associated with constrained route availability.
 Households without access to a personal vehicle would inherently depend on external support to evacuate. Additionally, it is presumed that employment centers will be unoccupied during the time of evacuation for both scenarios. Under occupied circumstances, it is assumed employment centers would undertake the responsibility of facilitating the evacuation of employees lacking personal vehicles, to the extent that employees would be at their place of work during an evacuation event.
4 https://www.openstreetmap.org/

Wildfire Evacuation Assessment Page 4 of 8
Pilot Quick-Build Roundabouts June 26, 2026
Figure 1 – Study Area
Figure 2 – Impacted Evacuation Zones

Wildfire Evacuation Assessment Page 5 of 8
Pilot Quick-Build Roundabouts June 26, 2026
Table 1 – Modeling Scenarios
Modeling Scenarios
No Project without PSPS5 Existing El Matador Beach Rd and Encinal Rd intersections, with existing roadway conditions throughout Malibu.

Plus Project without PSPS Proposed Roundabouts at El Matador Beach Rd and Encinal Rd intersections, with existing roadway conditions throughout Malibu.

No Project with PSPS Existing El Matador Beach Rd and Encinal Rd intersections, with PSPS conditions between Malibu Canyon Rd and Trancas.

Plus Project with PSP
Proposed Roundabouts at El Matador Beach Rd and Encinal Rd intersections, with PSPS conditions between Malibu Canyon Rd and Trancas.
5 Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), during which signalized intersections operate as all-way stop controlled intersections Evacuation Route Assessment
Model Analysis and Results
AEGIS, A Kimley-Horn platform, was used to develop an evacuation model to simulate the evacuation scenario. The modeling platform is capable of producing a range of metrics to assess network performance during an evacuation event. Several key metrics include roadway vehicle demand, queueing, experienced delay, and clearance or evacuation times. Key results are summarized below. A data dashboard with interactive maps and animations of model results are accessible here, and in Appendix A.

Average Vehicle Delay
Average delay during the peak hour of the evacuation, when vehicle demand is at its greatest, grew by 4.2 and 2.9 seconds at Encincal and El Matador Beach Roads respectively with the addition of the Project under no PSPS conditions. With PSPS active, the delay grew by 4.9 and 2.1 seconds respectively. It should be noted that the side-street delay decreased with the addition of the Project, while PCH delay increased. Delay in seconds per vehicle experienced at both El Matador Beach Rd and Encinal Rd are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds) during Peak Hour Intersection
Average Delay per Vehicle during Peak Hour
No Project without PSPS Plus Project without PSPS No Project with PSP Plus Project with PSPS El Matador
Beach Rd 3.3 Seconds 6.2 Seconds 8.1 Seconds 10.2 Seconds Encinal Rd 17.8 Seconds 22.0 Seconds 41.4 Seconds 46.3 Seconds

Wildfire Evacuation Assessment Page 6 of 8
Pilot Quick-Build Roundabouts June 26, 2026
Delay increased under PSPS conditions at the 10 signalized intersections between Malibu Canyon Rd and Trancas Canyon Rd are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 – Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds) at Signalized Intersections with and without PSPS Intersection Without PSPS With PSPS Delta
Malibu Canyon Rd 8.51 2.36 -6.15
John Tyler Dr 11.51 3.19 -8.32
Corral Canyon Rd 11.93 3.18 -8.75
Zumirez Dr 14.74 3.44 -11.3
Kanan Dume Rd 14.55 2.59 -11.96
Heathercliff Rd 10.99 3.65 -7.34
Busch Dr 8.31 17.79 +9.48
Morning View Dr 14.33 9.45 -4.88
Guernsey Ave 25.00 51.12 +26.12
Trancas Canyon Rd 15.52 31.56 +16.04
Signalized intersections show varying degrees of delay increase and decrease. Decreases in delay at signalized intersections may be associated to lower side street vehicle utilization as a component of the model’s rerouting behavior in response to travel time changes with the inclusion of PSPS conditions, reflected in larger overall increases in delay at downstream intersections such as Encinal as a result of vehicle rerouting.

It is important to note that while the worst approach at an intersection may show improvements to delay under these conditions, the overall performance of the intersection may decrease, as reflected by increases to the overall time taken to evacuate (discussed below). However, the delay is shifted from primarily being experienced at the side street, to across all approaches.

Wildfire Evacuation Assessment Page 7 of 8
Pilot Quick-Build Roundabouts June 26, 2026
Vehicle Queueing
The maximum queue length observed during the evacuation increased by approximately 25 feet at Encinal (about one vehicle), with no change at El Matador Beach under no-PSPS conditions. Under PSPS conditions, the queue at Encinal increased by approximately 118 feet (about 4–5 vehicles), while conditions at El Matador Beach remained unchanged.

The lack of change at El Matador Beach reflects minimal conflicting demand at that location, whereas increases at Encinal are attributable to existing local demand combined with downstream congestion near the convergence of canyon roadways with PCH. Maximum queue lengths at both locations are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 – Maximum Vehicle Queue (feet) during Evacuation Intersection
Maximum Vehicle Queue during Evacuation
No Project without PSPS Plus Project without PSPS No Project with PSP Plus Project with PSPS El Matador
Beach Rd 132 ft 157 ft (+25 ft) 196 ft 314 ft (+118 ft) Encinal Rd 25 ft 25 ft 25 ft 25 ft
Queue lengths at the 10 signalized intersections between Malibu Canyon Rd and Trancas Canyon Rd under PSPS conditions generally grew, with the highest increases between Trancas Canyon Rd and Guernsey Rd, where the dual signalized intersections converting to all-way stops introduces queues stretching the storage length of the roadways between them. Queue lengths did not increase with Project, as queues tied to the roundabouts did not extend beyond their localized impacts.

Systemwide Clearance Time and Average Time to Clear
The amount of time it takes residents to evacuate the evacuation zone is referred to as “clearance time”.

This metric measures the time taken from the initial evacuation notice until the full evacuation impact zone is able to “clear”, or pass a selected boundary, including the departure period and travel time until the final evacuee is able to pass the boundary. For the purposes of this analysis, evacuees are considered cleared once reaching the PCH lane reduction, where westbound lanes are reduced from 2-lane to 1-lane. The addition of the Project under no PSPS conditions increases the system-wide clearance time by 8 minutes (0.8%). Under PSPS conditions with Project between Malibu Canyon Rd and Trancas Rd, system-wide clearance time increases by 14 minutes (1.4%). The amount of time it takes each scenario to completely evacuate and clear past the PCH lane reduction is presented in Table 6 below.

Wildfire Evacuation Assessment Page 8 of 8
Pilot Quick-Build Roundabouts June 26, 2026
Table 5 – Systemwide Clearance Times by Scenario (Since 7 AM Notice) Clearance Time Without PSPS With PSPS
No Project 11:13 PM 11:58 PM
Plus Project 11:21 PM 12:12 AM (Next Day)
Increase in
Clearance Time +8 Minutes (0.82%) +14 Minutes (1.38%)
The average time per evacuee to clear measures the time on average that each individual evacuee takes to cross the clearance boundary (PCH lane reduction) from the moment they left their home location. The average time taken from departure to clearing the PCH lane reduction for a single vehicle increased by 19 seconds (0.12%) with the addition of the Project under no PSPS conditions. Under PSPS conditions, the Project increases individual vehicle evacuation time by 21 seconds (0.16%). The average time to clear for a single evacuee is shown in Table 7.

Table 6 – Average Time per Evacuee to Clear
Average Time per
Evacuee to Clear Without PSPS With PSPS
No Project 4 Hours, 30 Minutes, 44 Seconds 4 Hours, 36 Minutes, 12 Seconds Plus Project 4 Hours, 31 Minutes, 3 Seconds 4 Hours, 36 Minutes, 38 Seconds Increase in
Clearance Time +19 Seconds (0.12%) +26 Seconds (0.16%)
Appendix A
Data dashboard accessible here, and at QR code below:

Proposed Roundabout Locations

Signalized Intersection Locations

Page 1 of 5 ends

Agenda Item # 7.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Nadia Fahoum, Associate Engineer
Susan Duenas, Public Safety Director
Reviewed by: Tatiana Holden, Assistant Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer
Approved by: Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager
Date prepared: July 8, 2026 Meeting date: August 10, 2026 Subject: Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Signal Synchronization Project Update RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1) Receive an update on the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Signal Synchronization System Improvements Project; more specifically, the Speed Enforcement System component.
2)Appropriate $1,250,000 in Account No. 310-9066-5100 (PCH Signal Synchronization System Improvements Project).
3) Authorize the increase to the Public Works Director’s authority to approve potential change orders up to $1,000,000 for a total contingency amount of $5,829,396 not to exceed total construction contract with GMZ Engineering, Inc. amount of $15,606,387 for the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Signal Synchronization System Improvements Project.
4) Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 6 to the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) in the amount of $108,300 for a total not to exceed $4,184,942.47. This proposed amendment includes additional engineering design services for speed enforcement cameras for the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Signal Synchronization System Improvements Project.
5) Receive an update on the Speed Enforcement System’s programmatic implementation.

City Council Meeting
08-10-26
Item

7.A.

Page 2 of 5 ends

Agenda Item # 7.A.

FISCAL IMPACT:

An additional appropriation is required. Funding for this project is included in the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 in Account No. 310-9066-5100 (PCH Signal Synchronization System Improvements Project).

This project is funded through Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Measure R and Measure M allocations in the amount of $19,100,000. Additionally, this project was impacted by the Palisades Fire, City staff are working with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for potential reimbursement up to $246,000.

The project expenses, design, construction, and contingencies include a total amount of $20,596,000; this amount incorporates the costs associated with PCH Signal Synchronization, Safety Adaptive, Speed Enforcement Systems, in addition to other safety enhancements. The estimated budget for the Speed Enforcement Systems is currently $2.1 million. However, the current funds are insufficient to complete the installation of the speed enforcement systems and its components; an additional $1,250,000 is required to complete the project.

Project Funding
Metro Measure R $17,600,000
Metro Measure M $1,500,000
FHWA (repairs for damages from the
Palisades Fire)
$246,000
Project Total Funding $19,346,000
Project Estimate
Design $4,358,080
Construction $15,606,388
Construction Support $556,532
SCE (Energization) $75,000
Project Total Costs $20,596,000
Funding Shortfall $1,250,000
Project Estimate by Project
Components
PCH Signal Synchronization $16,896,000
PCH Safety Adaptative $1,600,000
PCH Speed Enforcement System $2,100,000
Project Total Costs $20,596,000

Page 3 of 5 ends

Agenda Item # 7.A.

The appropriation in the amount of $1,250,000 will support:
• Construction costs in the amount of $900,000 to complete power source connections to operate the speed enforcement systems. Change Order to GMZ to perform work will only occur if an appropriation is approved. • Amendment to Kimley-Horn's agreement in the amount of $108,000 for support services. Additional services were needed from Kimley-Horn to modify the design plans and perform structural calculations to determine if the equipment provided could sustain the loads now required. This work was needed to obtain Caltrans’ approval and issuance of the encroachment permit.
• SCE contracts and invoices for energization (approx. $75,000) until transfer to a new account code takes place. To energize the systems, SCE contracts and invoices for new service connections will need to be paid and range in varying amounts depending on region and work (typical for new service processes). • The remainder of money is not anticipated to be expended, rather it's to provide unforeseen difficulty support.

Staff are requesting to utilize the General Fund to offset the funding shortfall to successfully complete the installation of the speed enforcement systems. The Speed Enforcement System is being installed per Senate Bill 1297, which states under section 22436, "Revenues derived from any program utilizing a speed safety system for speed limit enforcement shall first be used to recover program costs. Program costs include, but are not limited to, the installation of speed safety systems, the adjudication of violations, and reporting requirements as specified in this section". The appropriation of $1,250,000 is reimbursable to the city and sees first recovery from the revenues of the program.

Seeking additional allocations from Metro would take approximately 12 months, in which all work would need to halt until an approval is received. This timeframe would greatly impact the project by significantly reducing city’s participation in the program as its sunset date per the bill is January 1, 2032. This delay would also result in the City not receiving estimated revenues of $4.5 Million.

Therefore, staff recommend an appropriation to this project in the amount of $1,250,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Reserves to Account No. 310-9066-5100 (PCH Signal Synchronization System Improvements Project) for a total revised project budget of $20,596,000.

The projected General Fund Undesignated Reserve balance as of July 1, 2026, is $51.2 million.

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: This item supports the City’s 2025-2028 Strategic Plan Goal 4: Improve Public Safety.

Page 4 of 5 ends

Agenda Item # 7.A.

Goal 4: Improve Public Safety
Objective 4.1: Reduce injury and fatal collisions on Pacific Coast Highway Strategy: Installation of speed enforcement systems
DISCUSSION: The Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Signal Synchronization System Improvements project (Project) has the objective of enhancing and improving traffic signals throughout the Malibu PCH corridor; which reduces congestion, regulates vehicle speeds, improves intersection performance, and enhances safety for motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. Spanning approximately eight miles from Topanga Canyon Boulevard to John Tyler Drive, the project includes: upgrading traffic signal hardware and controllers, installing fiber optic communication infrastructure, deploying CCTV cameras, establishing real-time communication with Caltrans District 7 Traffic Management Center, implementing coordinated signal timing and adaptive safety technology.

On February 27, 2023, the City Council approved a construction agreement with GMZ Engineering, Inc. for the PCH Signal Synchronization System Improvements Project.

Following the tragic October 2023 fatal crash involving four Pepperdine University students, the City expanded the project scope to include the installation of speed enforcement systems along PCH to address the growing concerns of safety on PCH. Staff were directed to proceed with a layout and design of a speed enforcement system.

On September 23, 2024, the City Council approved Amendment No. 5 to the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn for the PCH Signal Synchronization System Improvements Project; which included assistance to prepare a plan for the placement and design of the speed enforcement systems.

On June 16, 2025, the City of Malibu Planning Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. 25-024 to install speed enforcement systems at five regions along PCH.

On April 13, 2026, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Blue Line Solutions-CA, LLC (Blue Line) to implement and operate a Speed Safety Camera System Pilot Program. After which, it was discovered that the initial design required modification to be in alignment with the performance ability of the vendor’s camera system and Senate Bill 1297. The level of construction effort needed to address these design modifications and successfully install and operate the systems was much more extensive than the available project budget. Most specifically, it was discovered that hard power connections were required for all poles - the cost of supplying hard power connections is the bulk of the appropriation needed.

Page 5 of 5 ends

Agenda Item # 7.A.

On August 5, 2026, the PCH Signal Synchronization project was presented to the Administrative and Finance (A&F) Subcommittee. The recommendation of the A&F Subcommittee meeting will be provided to Council in the verbal report of the PCH Signal Synchronization System Improvements Project during the scheduled August 10, 2026, Council meeting.

Program Implementation Update
In addition to the progress on the infrastructure needed for the Speed Enforcement System, Public Safety staff are making significant progress on the full program implementation. The staff needed to implement the program are in place and are preparing to be trained on Blue Line Solution’s web-based platform used for reviewing and managing citations. Staff are also finalizing the required processes for providing reduced citation fines and community service options for individuals who can verify indigent status. Since the City does not currently have a means of offering community service, staff are establishing an educational option, which the City of Oakland (another Pilot city) has also done to meet this requirement. Staff plan to enter into a license agreement with The Emily Shane Foundation to use the movie 21 Miles in Malibu as the core component of an educational option.

Senate Bill 1297 also requires that a public education campaign be implemented at least 30 days prior to activating the Speed Safety System. Staff are currently working with Blue Line Solutions to develop a variety of outreach strategies to inform both Malibu residents and visitors about the program. Outreach will include comprehensive social media campaigns, paid advertising, press releases, and inserts to be included in the Warning Notices that will be issued in the first 60 days. A launch event is also being planned. It is anticipated that the public education campaign will begin the first week of August 2026.

Below are the program implementation milestones:
• Public Information and Education – The City will provide information about the Speed Safety System, including explanation of how it works, its implementation schedule, and the program's safety goals.
• Warning Period – A 60-day warning period will begin when the system is activated.

During this period, motorists who exceed the speed threshold will receive warnings only.
• Enforcement Phase – After the warning period concludes, qualifying speeding violations will result in civil penalties.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 6 to Agreement with Kimley-Horn

2. Updated 4/27/2026
AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (the “Amendment” is made and entered in the City of Malibu on August 10, 2026, by and between the City of Malibu, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, hereinafter referred to as Consultant. City and Consultant are herein collectively referred to as “Parties” and separately as a “Party”.

The City and the Consultant agree as follows:

R E C I T A L S
A. On May 8, 2017, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Consultant for traffic engineering design services for the Pacific Coast Highway Signal System Improvements Project (the “Agreement”).

B. On June 10, 2019, the City amended the Agreement to modify the scope of work to include additional traffic engineering services for planning, design, and environmental analysis for a Traffic Operations Center at City Hall, extend the term of the Agreement, and modify the compensation of services.

C. On March 8, 2021, the City amended the Agreement to modify the scope of work to include the Nobu traffic signal modification, additional environmental technical studies, and system integration services for the overall PCH signal system.

D. On May 9, 2022, the City amended the Agreement to extend the term and modify the scope of work to include support during the bidding and construction phases.

E. On February 12, 2024, the City amended the Agreement to extend the term and modify the scope of work to include rest in red traffic signal operation, red light camera enforcement, speed management using traffic signals, conversion of flashing beacons to traffic signals, and conceptual plans for corridor reconfiguration.

F. On September 23, 2024, the City amended the Agreement to increase the total compensation and modify the scope of work to develop and implement safety adaptive operations for PCH between John Tyler Drive and Big Rock Drive including design assistance to prepare a detailed plan for the placement of new speed feedback signs for the upcoming speed enforcement cameras.

G. The Parties desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term and modify the scope of work to include support around permitting requirements, Caltrans coordination, agency comments, or evolving field conditions and support implementation and construction activities for the Speed Camera Pilot Program through technical review and construction phase services, and Consultant has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Section 1.0 of the Agreement (Scope of Work), is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. The services set forth in Exhibit A shall be in addition to the services that are currently performed under the Agreement. The Scope of Work shall now Docusign Envelope ID: B1F4247F-F62C-8709-8079-4756041BE636 Amendment No. 6 to Agreement
Kimley-Horn and Associates

Page 2 of 5 ends

_____________________
255-2
include structural calculations packages prepared for Caltrans review, revised and supplemental design plan sets; updated plans and supporting documentation for encroachment permit resubmittals; email-based review comments to the City; and RFI, material submittal, and show drawing review responses.

2. Section 2.0 of the Agreement (Term of Agreement), is hereby extended to December 31, 2026.

3. Section 4.0 of the Agreement (Compensation for Services), is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. The cost of services for this Agreement is increased in the amount of $108,300 for a total not to exceed $4,335,610.00 as shown in Exhibit B attached to this Amendment.

4. Incorporation of Exhibits. All exhibits attached to this Amendment are hereby incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. To the extent there is any conflict between an exhibit attached to this Amendment and the exhibits attached to the original Agreement, the exhibits attached to this Amendment shall control.

5. Authority to Execute. Each person executing this Amendment represents and warrants that they are duly authorized to execute this Amendment on behalf of the Party for whom they are signing and to bind that Party to the terms herein.

6. The Parties agree that this Amendment will be considered signed when the signature of a Party is delivered physically or by facsimile transmission or scanned and delivered via electronic mail. Such facsimile or electronic mail copies will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

7. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by this Amendment remain in full force and effect.

8. The effective date of this Amendment is May 4, 2026.

This Amendment is executed on ______________________.

Docusign Envelope ID: B1F4247F-F62C-8709-8079-4756041BE636 Amendment No. 6 to Agreement
Kimley-Horn and Associates

Page 3 of 5 ends

_____________________
255-3
CITY OF MALIBU, a municipal corporation:
____________________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: KIMBERLY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES,
INC., a North Carolina corporation

____________________________________ By: _________________________________ TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney Name: Sri Chakravarthy, PE, TE Title: Vice President
Docusign Envelope ID: B1F4247F-F62C-8709-8079-4756041BE636 Amendment No. 6 to Agreement
Kimley-Horn and Associates

Page 4 of 5 ends

_____________________
255-4
EXHIBIT A - Scope of Services
Kimley-Horn will provide the following scope of services as outlined below:

Task 1: Additional Design Services
Additional design services were required beyond the original scope to address permitting requirements, Caltrans coordination, agency comments, or evolving field conditions • Prepare structural calculations for poles to support Caltrans review and approval (up to two versions of calculations each with two rounds of comments) • Attend additional meetings with City and Caltrans staff and participate in field reviews • Prepare two (2) additional rounds of design plan submittals and more detailed plan sets than initially anticipated
• Provide construction-phase review of electrical connections and pole installations prior to contractor’s procurement of material
• Modify pole locations based on field conditions, agency direction, or constructability considerations
• Coordinate with Blueline Solutions to evaluate and develop alternative design options • Revise design plans (up to two rounds)
Task 1 Deliverables
• Structural calculation packages prepared for Caltrans review • Revised and supplemental design plan sets (PDF and CAD, as applicable) • Updated plans and supporting documentation for encroachment permit resubmittals Task 2: Implementation and Construction Phase Services
Kimley-Horn will support the City of Malibu through implementation and construction activities for the Speed Camera Pilot Program, providing technical review, and construction phase services. • Review the contractor’s proposed Speed Safety System for consistency with the City’s Impact Report, Use Policy, and SB-1297
• Review the contractor’s proposed acceptance testing procedures • Review infraction data provided by the contractor
• Coordinate with City staff and the contractor throughout implementation and construction • Respond to Requests for Information (RFIs)
• Review and provide recommendations on material submittals and shop drawings Task 2 Deliverables
• Email-based review comments to the City
• RFI, material submittal, and shop drawing review responses (within seven business days) Docusign Envelope ID: B1F4247F-F62C-8709-8079-4756041BE636 Amendment No. 6 to Agreement
Kimley-Horn and Associates

Page 5 of 5 ends

_____________________
255-5
EXHIBIT B - Fee and Billing
Kimley-Horn will perform the services described in Tasks 1 and 2 in the Scope of Services for an hourly not to exceed fee based on our current hourly rate schedule:

Task No. Task Description Total Project Cost
Task 1 Additional Design Services $65,700
Task 2 Implementation and Construction Phase Services $42,600 Total Cost: $108,300
Docusign Envelope ID: B1F4247F-F62C-8709-8079-4756041BE636

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 7.B.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Jorge Rubalcava, Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Tatiana Holden, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager
Date prepared: April 13, 2026 Meeting date: August 10, 2026 Subject: Review of Application Process for Additional Wastewater Allocation in the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility (CCWTF)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Authorize the development of an application process for properties seeking additional wastewater allocation within Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Phase One; and 2) Provide direction to staff on the development of such process.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

Should upgrades to the CCWTF be required, funding would be provided through the existing assessment district, which may require modification. Any costs associated with property-specific improvements or revisions would be the responsibility of the requesting property owner.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item supports the City’s 2025 -2028 Strategic Plan Goal 3:

Advance Infrastructure Resilience.

DISCUSSION: On November 5, 2009, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved a resolution prohibiting the use of septic systems in the Malibu Civic Center Area. On September 21, 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) approved the action taken by the RWQCB, thereby amending the State Basin Plan. The plan established certain dates by which properties in the Civic Center area were required to cease discharge and provided for a municipally owned wastewater treatment facility to be constructed.

City Council Meeting
08-10-26
Item

7.B.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 7.B.

On June 27, 2011, the Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City, the RWQCB and the SWRCB regarding the implementation of the Basin Plan Amendment for the Malibu Civic Center Area Prohibition. The MOU was amended in December 2014 and again in February 2017 to extend certain dates. Under the amended MOU, properties in Phase One of the Prohibition Area (primarily the commercial core of the Civic Center) were required to connect to a centralized wastewater treatment facility by September 30, 2018. All of the developed properties in Phase One were successfully connected by the mandated date, and the facility is completely operational.

The CCWTF was designed with a modular approach, allowing additional equipment and infrastructure required for future Phases Two and Three to be incorporated as needed.

The CCWTF was originally designed with a maximum day flow capacity of 276,000 gallons per day (gpd) and a maximum day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loading capacity of 668 pounds per day (lb/day). The projected Phase One buildout values assumed that vacant Phase One parcels would ultimately be developed in accordance with the assumptions outlined in the Assessment District (AD) Report, including projected future flows and loading conditions. Based on these projections, the estimated Phase One buildout maximum day flow would be approximately 215,439 gpd, utilizing approximately 78 percent of the facility’s current hydraulic capacity. However, the projected Phase One buildout maximum day BOD loading would be approximately 665 lb/day, utilizing approximately 99 percent of the facility’s current BOD treatment capacity. Therefore, it is assumed that the CCWTF has no excess treatment capacity within the existing Phase One facilities if all vacant Phase One parcels are fully developed as described in the AD Report.

If Phase One property owners seek to increase their wastewater flows or organic loading beyond the assumptions identified in the AD Report, the City would need to carefully evaluate the impacts on the treatment facility’s capacity. This evaluation would include quantifying the additional BOD loading and hydraulic flows, assessing hydraulic and process impacts to the various treatment systems, and identifying any necessary facility upgrades required to accommodate the proposed increases.

The assigned wastewater allocations per the Modified Engineer’s Report for each parcel are critical to ensuring that the wastewater treatment plant operates efficiently, remains within its permitted capacity, and complies with applicable regulatory standards.

During the Phase One implementation process, City staff conducted numerous stakeholder meetings. Property owners were provided with the opportunity at that time to negotiate and agree on wastewater allocation based on existing developments and anticipated future development plans.

The City received a land development application from the property owners of 3700 La Paz Lane (APN 4458-022-025) to construct a new single-family residence, a second-unit

Page 3 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 7.B.
guest house, and twenty proposed multi-family residential units on the parcel. The property is zoned Community Commercial. Per the Modified Engineer’s Report (2015), this parcel has existing wastewater allocation of 1,469.3125 gpd. As proposed, the development has a total projected demand of 4,900 gpd. This demand exceeds the parcel’s assigned wastewater allocation by 3,430.6865 gpd. As part of the review of the land development application, the applicant inquired about the potential availability of additional wastewater allocation for future development within the Phase One boundary.

To evaluate if the process of allowing Phase One parcels to request additional allocations is feasible, staff reviewed the data demonstrating at what capacity the plant currently operates. At present, CCWTF operates below its permitted maximum capacity. On the highest recorded operating day, the plant has operated at approximately 47% of its maximum day design capacity.

However, this operating margin is largely attributable to the fact that Phase One has undeveloped parcels which are not connected to the treatment plant using their allocated wastewater flows. As additional parcels develop and connect using their assigned allocations, this operational buffer will decrease proportionally.

While sufficient hydraulic capacity currently exists within the treatment plant, the wastewater allocation framework established under Phase One was designed to manage long-term buildout conditions and ensure equitable distribution of capacity among properties within the service area.

Staff is seeking Council direction to develop and implement an application process for property owners within the Phase One boundary to request additional wastewater allocation. If approved, the following steps will be implemented:

1. Staff will conduct public outreach to notify property owners within Phase One of the additional wastewater allocation request procedure.

2. Staff will create and distribute the application form for a 60-day period.

3. The submitted requests will be evaluated using engineering, operational, and regulatory criteria to determine whether additional allocation capacity may be available within Phase One. If it is determined that additional capacity can be accommodated within Phase One, modifications to Assessment District will be required.

4. If evaluation results reveal that upgrades to the Treatment Plant are necessary and feasible, staff will report back to Council to seek further direction.

ATTACHMENTS:

1.) Approved Modified Engineer’s Report, December 2015

MODIFIED

ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF MALIBU
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY -
PHASE 1)
December 9, 2015
Prepared for

CITY OF MALIBU
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by
DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5000 Birch Street, Suite 6000
Newport Beach, CA 92660

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY-PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU
Pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913," being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California and as amended (the "Act"), and in accordance with the Resolution Ordering Changes to the Engineer's Report, being Resolution No. 15-51, adopted by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Malibu (the "City Council"), STATE OF CALIFORNIA, in connection with the proceedings for ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1 (Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility - Phase I) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"), the undersigned herewith submits the Modified Engineer's Report for the Assessment District (the "Modified Report"), consisting of seven (7) parts ("Parts") as follows:

PART I -PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements are on file in the Offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works of the City of Malibu (the "City") and are referenced herein and incorporated as if attached and a part of this Modified Report. This Part also contains a description of the proposed improvements to be installed by the Assessment District.

PART II -IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE
This Part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith.

PART III -ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
This Part contains the maximum annual amount to be assessed to pay costs associated with the administration and collection of assessments, administration or registration of bonds, and/or reserve or other related funds.

PART IV -ASSESSMENT ROLL
This Part contains the following information:

1. A proposed assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several subdivisions of land within the Assessment District, in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such subdivisions, from said improvements, as set forth upon the assessment roll filed herewith and made a part thereof; and

2. A proposed maximum annual assessment upon the several subdivisions of land within the Assessment District to pay costs incurred by the City and not otherwise reimbursed which result from the administration and collection of assessments.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Pagel
December 9, 2015

PART V - ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
This Part contains a diagram showing the Assessment District, the boundaries and the dimensions of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment District, as the same existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution No. 15-27 ("Resolution of Intention"), and is filed herewith and made a part hereof, and part of the assessment.

PART VI - REPORT UNDER PART 7.5 OF DIVISION 4

OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
This Part satisfies the requirements of Part 7.5 of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931," which is Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. This Part identifies the total principal amount of all unpaid special assessments required or proposed to be levied, the total true value of the parcels within the Assessment District, and the total amount of the principal sum of unpaid special assessments proposed by this Assessment District.

PART VII- CERTIFICATES
This Part shall consist of sub-parts with the following information:

A. Rights-of-way certificate; and
B. Environmental certification.

Dated this 3_ day of '/;ec., 2015.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
David Taussig & Associates, Inc.
,��n� R.C.E. C23473
Assessment Engineer
City of Malibu
State of California
Page2
December 9, 2015

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BY THJ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, CALIFORNIA,ON THE�DAYOF une. ,2015.

City Clerk
City of Malibu
State of California

FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, CALIFORNIA, ON THE2.Sth DAY OF UWll..ltlrr� 2016.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
City of Malibu
State of California
Page3
December 9, 2015

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY -PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU
PART I

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The plans and specifications which describe the general nature, location, and extent of the improvements for the Assessment District are on file in the Offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works of the City and are referenced herein and incorporated as if attached and a part of this Modified Report. A map showing the general location and improvements for the Assessment District is attached as Exhibit A. A general description of the improvements is set forth below.

DESCRIPTION OF WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT
The works of improvements to be financed by the Assessment District will include the design and construction of the wastewater treatment plant, wastewater collection and recycled water distribution system, and a recycled water injection system required pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Phased Implementation of Basin Plan Amendment Prohibiting OnSite Wastewater Disposal Systems in the Malibu Civic Center Area entered into by and between the City of Malibu, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles, and the State Water Resources Control Board (the "MOU"). It should be noted that the purpose of the recycled water distribution and injection system is the disposal of treated wastewater. The Assessment District will also finance the acquisition of the land on which the wastewater treatment plant will be located.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page4
December 9, 2015

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU

PART II

IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE
This Part presents the estimated cost of the works of improvements. Table II-1 shows the gross and net cost of the works of improvements. There are three adjustments made to the gross cost of the works of improvements to arrive at the net assessable costs. First, pursuant to Article XIII D, Section l(a) of the California Constitution, the cost of the works of improvements necessary to serve only those parcels within the Assessment District is separated from the total cost of the works of improvements. In the case of the works of improvements for the Assessment District, the wastewater collection system and recycled water distribution system have been oversized in order to accommodate potential wastewater flow and recycled water attributable to property located in future phases identified in and subject to the provisions of the MOU. This Assessment District will not pay for the cost of this oversizing. Second, excess County of Los Angeles sewer project funds in the amount of $1,172,652 are applied as a credit against the estimated design cost of the works of improvements. Third, the estimated cost of the works of improvement are adjusted to reflect the funding of a portion of the design costs by Community Facilities District No. 2012-1 of the City of Malibu ("CPD 2012-1"). In January of 2013, CPD 2012-1 issued $6,500,000 in bonds to fund $5,000,000 of design costs. The Assessment District will pay off and refinance the CPD No. 2012-1 indebtedness. Therefore, the cost of the retirement of the CPD 2012-1 indebtedness ($6,346,324.27) is added and the amount of the design costs funded by CPD 2012-1 ($5,000,000) are deducted from the cost of the works of improvements. Fourth, the estimated cost of the works of improvement are further adjusted to reflect the funding of a portion of the construction costs by a grant through the Water Recycling Funding Program of the California State Water Resources Control Board.

The estimated assessment amount corresponding to the financing of the net cost of the works of improvements is shown in Table II-2. The net improvement costs will be assessed to each property in accordance with the Method of Assessment set forth in Exhibit B. The Assessment Roll identifying each parcel of real property within the Assessment District and its assessment is included in Exhibit C. As with the description of the improvements, the improvement costs are preliminary estimates.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
PageS
December 9, 2015
TABLE 11-1
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY -PHASE 1)

IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE
Net
Gross Assessable
Costs Adjustments Costs
I. Construction
A. Wastewater Treatment Plant $22,305,666.00 $21,889,666.00

1. Grant ($416,000.00)
B. Wastewater Treatment Plant Site $4,100,000.00 $4,100,000.00 C. Collection/Distribution System $17,825,684.00

1. Collection System $14,076,845.00

2. Distribution System $6,933,372.00

3. Oversizing Credit ($1,600,533.00) I

4. Grant ($1,584,000.00) I
D. Recycled Water Injection System $2,186,445.00 $2,186,445.00 II. Design $7,416,873.00 $7,391,545.27

1. Oversizing Credit ($199,000.00)

2. Los Angeles County Credit ($1,172,652.00)

3. CPD 2012-1 Credit ($5,000,000.00)

4. Payoff of CPD 2012-1 $6,346,324.27
III. CM/Engineering Services $4,017,000.00 $4,017,000.00 TOTAL $61,036,201.00 ($3,625,860.73) $57,410,340.27
1 The oversizing credit and grant shown under LC are allocated between the wastewater collection system and the recycled water distribution system in proportion to the associated hard costs.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1

Page 6 ends

December 9, 2015
TABLE 11-2
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

BOND ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE
Description
I. Total Amount to Assessment
II. Facility Construction
A. Treatment Plant
B. Collection/Distribution System
C. Design/CM/Engineering Services
III. Assessment District Procedural and Formation Costs IV. Bond Issuance Costs
A. Capitalized Interest/Construction Period Interest
B. Bond/Loan Reserve Fund
C. Underwriting, Legal, Professional Costs
Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Estimated Costs and Expenses
As
Preliminarily
Approved
$49,725,000.00
$19,893,500.00
$8,532,000.00
$11,291,225.13
$158,990.00
$5,469,750.00
$3,709,114.62
$670,420.25
As
Confirmed
$63,688,774.33
$25,989,666.00
$20,012,129.00
$11,408,545.27
$158,990.00
$1,547,708.33
$4,244,648.73
$327,087.00

Page 7 ends

December 9, 2015
TABLE 11-3
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

RECAPITULATION OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS AND AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENT Description
I. Total Amount to Assessment
II. Works of Improvements Design and Construction
III. Assessment District Procedural and Formation Costs IV. Bond/Loan Issuance Costs
Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Estimated Costs and Expenses
As
Preliminarily
Approved
$49,725,000.00
$39,716,725.13
$158,990.00
$9,849,284.87
As
Confirmed
$63,688,774.33
$57,410,340.27
$158,990.00
$6,119,444.06
Page8
December 9, 2015

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY -PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU

PART III

ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Subdivision (f) of Section 10204 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, an Annual Administrative Assessment shall be levied on each parcel and subdivision of land within the Assessment District to pay for the necessary costs and expenses incurred, and not otherwise reimbursed, resulting from the administration and collection of assessments and from the administration or registration of any bonds and/or reserve or other related funds.

The maximum amount of such Annual Administrative Assessment for the Assessment District shall not exceed a total of $25,000 which may increase annually at a compound rate beginning January 1, 2016 by the lesser of (i) five percent (5%), or (ii) the annualized positive change, if any, in the U.S. Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange County, as of January 1 of each year. The Annual Administrative Assessment for each such parcel of land shall be computed based on that parcel's proportionate share of the total annual assessment (exclusive of the Annual Administrative Assessment). The Annual Administrative Assessment is in lieu of the $8.00 per assessment installment allowed by law.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page9
December 9, 2015

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU

PART IV

ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2015, the City Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, adopt its Resolution of Intention declaring its intention to order the construction of certain improvements, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith, and to form the Assessment District; and,
WHEREAS, said Resolution of Intention, as required by law, did direct the appointed Assessment Engineer to make and file a report (the "Engineer's Report"), consisting of the following:

1. Plans;

2. Specifications;

3. General Descriptions;

4. Cost estimate;

5. Assessment Diagram showing the Assessment District and the subdivisions of land contained therein; and

6. A proposed assessment of the costs and expenses of the works of improvement levied upon the parcels and lots of land within the boundaries of the Assessment District.

For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention as previously adopted; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2015, the City Council did adopt its Resolution No. 15-28 heretofore preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report; and,
WHEREAS, subsequent to June 8, 2015, (i) RMC Water and Assessment Engineer notified the City that there was an error in the methodology it used to determine the organic load (the "BOD"), (ii) the City has agreed to purchase the site on which the wastewater treatment facility will be constructed for $4,100,00 rather than $5,892,500 as set forth in the Engineer's Report, (iii) the wastewater treatment facility will be constructed for $13,001,0000 rather than $14,001,0000 as set forth in the Engineer's Report, and (iv) the property owner of Assessment No. 3 (APN 4452-011-035) has petitioned the City to increase the flow allocated to its parcel from 1,118 gallons per day to 2,300 gallons per day (collectively, the "Changes"); and, WHEREAS, on August 10, 2015, the City Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, adopt its Resolution No. 15-51 to direct the Assessment Engineer to revise and modify the Engineer's Report to reflect the Changes; and,
Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1

Page 10 ends

December 9, 2015
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2015, the City Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, adopt Resolution No. 15-65 continuing the Public Hearing to January 25, 2016 and ordering further changes to the Assessment Engineer's Report for the City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1 (Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility- Phase One) to reflect the opening of construction bids on December 8, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the assessments for the parcels identified herein as Assessment No. 36 and Assessment No. 37 have been reduced to zero as they were acquired by the County of Los Angeles (the "County") for purposes of road right-of-way and are anticipated to be quitclaimed by the County to the City with the condition that the property can only be used for those purposes authorized in Sections 2 and 9 of Article XIX of the California Constitution and Section 2101 of the California Streets and Highways Code thereby rendering these properties undevelopable for private purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, the undersigned, authorized representative of David Taussig & Associates, Inc., the duly appointed ASSESSMENT ENGINEER, pursuant to the Act, do hereby submit the following:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of law and the Resolution of Intention, I have assessed the modified costs and expenses of the works of improvements to be performed in the Assessment District upon the parcels of land in the Assessment District benefited thereby in direct proportion and relation to the estimated benefits to be received by each of said parcels. For particulars as to the identification of said parcels, reference is made to the Assessment Diagram, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D;

2. As required by law, the Assessment Diagram is hereto attached, showing the Assessment District, as well as the boundaries and dimensions of the respective parcels and subdivisions of land within said Assessment District as the same existed at the time of the passage of said Resolution of Intention, each of which subdivisions of land or parcels or lots respectively have been identified by Assessor's Parcel Number and Assessment Number upon said Assessment Diagram and in said Assessment Roll;

3. The subdivisions and parcels of land and the numbers shown on the respective Assessment Diagram as attached hereto correspond with the numbers as appearing on the Assessment Roll as contained herein as Exhibit C;

4. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that serial bonds to represent unpaid assessments, which bear interest at a fixed or variable interest rate and term of not to exceed twelve percent per annum or such higher maximum interest rate as may be permitted by law, may be issued in the manner provided in Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code (the Improvement Bond Act of 1915) and the last installment of such bonds shall mature in not to exceed 39 years from the second of September next succeeding 12 months from their date and/or one or more contracts for loans funded by the State (the "State Loans") and secured by the assessments to be levied on property in the Assessment District may be entered Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1

Page 11 ends

December 9, 2015
into pursuant to Section 10550 of the 1913 Act. The alternate procedure for collecting assessments and advance retirement of bonds as set forth in Part 11.1 of Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code shall apply to these proceedings.

Pursuant to Section 8650.1 of said Code, the City Council may determine to issue said bonds so that other than an equal annual proportion of the principal amount shall mature each year;

5. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Subdivision (f) of Section 10204 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, an annual assessment shall be levied on each parcel and subdivision of land within the Assessment District to pay for the necessary costs and expenses incurred, and not otherwise reimbursed, resulting from the administration and collection of assessments and from the administration or registration of any bonds and/or reserve or other related funds (the "Annual Administrative Assessment"); The maximum amount of such Annual Administrative Assessment for the Assessment District shall not exceed a total of $25,000 which may increase annually at a compound rate beginning January 1, 2016, by the lesser of (i) five percent (5%), or (ii) the annualized positive change, if any, in the U.S. Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange County, as of January 1 of each year. The Annual Administrative Assessment for each such parcel of land shall be computed based ori that parcel's proportionate share of the total annual assessment ( exclusive of the Annual Administrative Assessment). The Annual Administrative Assessment is in lieu of the $8.00 per assessment installment allowed by law;

6. By virtue of the authority contained in the Act and by further direction and order of the legislative body, I hereby make the following Assessment to cover the costs and expenses of the works of improvements for the Assessment District based on the costs and expenses as set forth below:

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1

Page 12 ends

December 9, 2015
TABLE IV-1
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

BALANCE TO ASSESSMENT
As
Preliminarily As
Description Approved Confirmed
I. Total Amount to Assessment $49,725,000.00 $63,688,774.33 II. Treatment Plant $19,893,500.00 $25,989,666.00
III. Collection/Distribution System $8,532,000.00 $20,012,129.00 IV. Design, Construction Ma.nagement, and Engineering Services $11,291,225.13 $11,408,545.27 V. Assessment District Procedural and Formation Costs $158,990.00 $158,990.00 VI. Capitalized Interest/Construction Period Interest $5,469,750.001 $1,547,708.332 VII. Bond/Loan Reserve Fund $3,709,114.623 $4,244,648.734 VIII. Underwriting, Legal, and Professional Costs $670,420.25 $327,087.00 1 As preliminarily approved, capitalized interest was equal to twenty-two (22) months of estimated interest on $49,725,000 in bonds.

No construction period interest was included.
2 As confirmed, capitalized interest is equal to eighteen (18) months of estimated interest on $6,790,000 in bonds. Construction period interest on the Clear Water State Revolving Fund Loans is estimated based on the anticipated construction period of eighteen (18) months.
3 As preliminarily approved, the bond reserve was equal to the estimated maximum annual debt service on $49,725,000 in bonds. 4 As confirmed, the bond reserve is equal to the estimated maximum annual debt service on $6,790,000 in bonds, and the loan reserve is equal to one-hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the estimated maximum annual debt service on $56,898,774.33 in Clear Water State Revolving Fund Loans.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1

Page 13 ends

December 9, 2015

7. The Method of Assessment is as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto, referenced and so incorporated.

Dated: De:--c. tJ , 2015.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
David Taussig & Associates, Inc.

Steve Runk
R.C.E. C23473
Assessment Engineer
City of Malibu
State of California

Page 14 ends

December 9, 2015

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU

PART VI
REPORT UNDER PART 7.5 OF DIVISION 4

OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
Pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution of Intention, it has been provided that the requirements of Division 4 of the California Streets and Highways Code shall be satisfied with Part 7.5 of said Division 4.

Accordingly, the following is presented:

1. The total amount, as near as can be determined, of the total principal amount of all unpaid special assessments and special assessments required or proposed to be levied under any completed or pending assessment proceedings, other than contemplated in the instant proceedings is: $10,2431.

2. The total true value, as near as may be determined, of the parcels of land and improvements which are proposed to be assessed in the instant proceedings, as determined by the full cash value of the parcels as shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles is:
$349,015,620.

3. The total amount of the principal sum of the special assessments proposed to be levied in the instant proceedings is: $63,688,774.33.

4. The total amount of the principal sum of unpaid special assessments levied against the parcels proposed to be assessed, as computed pursuant to paragraph 1 above, plus the principal amount of the special assessment proposed to be levied in the instant proceedings from paragraph 3 above is:
$63,699,017.33.

Dated: bee, Cf, '2bl5'
J
Assessment Engineer
City of Malibu
State of California
1 This figure excludes the principal amount of bonds outstanding for City of Malibu CFD No. 2012-1 because these bonds will be paid off with Assessment District bonds and/or State Loans.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1

Page 16 ends

December 9, 2015

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU

PART VII (A)

RIGHTS-OF-WAY CERTIFICATE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF MALIBU
The undersigned hereby CERTIFIES UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY that the following is all true and correct.

At all times herein mentioned, the undersigned was, and now is, the duly appointed Director of Public Works of the City of Malibu, State of California.

That proceedings have now been instituted under the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913," being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction of certain improvements in a special Assessment District known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1 (CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District").

THE UNDERSIGNED STATES AND CERTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

All easements, rights-of-way, or land necessary for the accomplishment of improvements for the above referenced Assessment District will be in the possession of the Assessment District prior to the ordering of the works of improvements.

EXECUTED this2 f day of��201G, at City of Malibu, California.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
,
Director of Public Works
City of Malibu
State of California

Page 17 ends

December 9, 2015

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU

PART VII (B)

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION OF

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF MALIBU

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS
The undersigned, under penalty of perjury, CERTIFIES as follows:

1. That I am the person authorized to prepare and process all environmental documentation as needed as it relates to the formation of the special assessment district being formed pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913," being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1 (CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY - PHASE 1) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District");

2. The specific environmental proceedings relating to this Assessment District that have been completed are as follows:

The City has considered the effects of the proposed Improvements on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and its implementing guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) (the "Guidelines") and in accordance therewith has prepared and certified an Environmental Impact Report which was approved by the City on January 12, 2015.

3. I do hereby certify that all environmental evaluation proceedings necessary for the formation of the Assessment District have been completed to my satisfaction, and that no further environmental proceedings are necessary.

EXECUTED this 2 �
-rh
day of <J C1.�"'� \CcVl'/ , 2016, at City of Malibu, California.

I
Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Director of Planning
City of Malibu
State of California

Page 18 ends

December 9, 2015

EXHIBIT A

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU

MAP OF GENERAL LOCATION AND IMPROVEMENTS

EXHIBIT B

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY -PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU
A. Background

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
Assessment District jurisprudence requires that assessments levied pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 be based on the "special benefit" properties receive from the Works of Improvement. However, the law does not specify the method or formula that should be used to apportion the assessments in Assessment District proceedings. In addition, Article XIIID of the California Constitution, added in November 1996 through the passage of Proposition 218 by voters of the State of California, requires, inter alia, that (i) only special benefits be assessable, (ii) no assessment may exceed the proportional special benefit confen-ed on the parcel assessed, and (iii) publicly owned parcels shall not be exempt from assessment unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that such publicly owned parcels receive no special benefits from the improvements for which the assessment is levied.
"Special benefit" is a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the District or to the public at large. Importantly, the general enhancement of property value does not constitute special benefit. As such, this Engineer's Report has been designed to comply with these requirements, as well as to incorporate recent California court decisions such as: Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008), Beutz v. County of Riverside (2010), Golden Hills Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego (2011), and Concerned Citizens v. West Point Fire Protection District (2011).

Methodologically, it is necessary and essential to identify the special benefit that the Works of Improvement will render to the properties within the District. It is also necessary that the properties receive a special and direct benefit as distinguished from benefit to the general public.

All costs associated with the financing of the works of improvement are to be fairly distributed among the lots and parcels within the District based upon the special benefit received by each lot and parcel. Additionally, in compliance with the California Constitution Article XIIID Section 4, each parcel's assessment may not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred upon it. In sum, each of the properties benefiting from the works of improvement proposed for Assessment District No. 2015-1 will be assessed only for the special benefit conferred on such properties.

The Assessment Engineer is appointed for the purpose of analyzing the facts and determining the method and formula for apportionment of the assessment obligation to the benefited properties.

For these proceedings, the City has retained the firm of David Taussig & Associates, Inc. as the Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-1
December 9, 2015
Assessment Engineer.

The Assessment Engineer makes his or her recommendation for the method of apportionment in this Engineer's Report for consideration at the public hearing. The final authority and action rests with the City after hearing all testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing and the tabulation of the assessment ballots. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the City must make the final action in determining that the assessment has been made in direct proportion to the special benefit received. Ballot tabulation will then be completed, and if a majority of ballots received, weighted by assessment amount, do not protest the assessment, then the City may establish the Assessment District.

B. Special Benefit
The special benefit conferred to each of the properties within the Assessment District is the ability to discharge wastewater flows to a centralized wastewater treatment facility in compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Phased Implementation of Basin Plan Amendment Prohibiting On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems in the Malibu Civic Center Area entered into by and between the City of Malibu, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles, and the State Water Resources Control Board (the "MOU"). Resolution R4-2009-007 adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (the "Basin Plan Amendment") prohibits on-site wastewater disposal systems in the City of Malibu Civic Center Area, and the MOU requires the construction of the works of improvements in lieu of on-site wastewater disposal systems. In addition to the wastewater treatment plant, the Assessment District will install wastewater collection and recycled water distribution facilities in existing public streets and/or public easements as shown in Exhibit A; the cost of connecting to these facilities will be borne separately by each property owner and will not be installed by the Assessment District. The Assessment District will provide each property the right to discharge up to the wastewater flow and load calculated in Section C.3 below.

The works of improvements constitute the least expensive facilities with a factor of safety that can be built to serve the properties within the Assessment District. The treatment plant will be comprised of the minimum sized treatment processing units, headworks, and lab facilities as determined by the design engineer and in accordance with customary and prudent engineering design standards. Specifically, the treatment plant will consist of two (2) modules; two modules are required in order that one may be taken off line for maintenance and/or repair. The treatment plant site to be acquired is similarly the least expensive available parcel of land that is in a suitable location from an engineering standpoint. In contrast to the wastewater treatment plant, the wastewater collection and recycled water distribution lines (i.e., the diameters of certain of the collection and distribution pipes) will be constructed to accommodate wastewater flows and recycled water from properties located outside the Assessment District that are also the subject of the MOU and may be required to discharge wastewater flows off-site for treatment. The cost associated with this oversizing of the wastewater collection and recycled water distribution lines is therefore not assessed to the properties within the Assessment District.

C. Apportionment Methodology
The extent of the special benefit conferred to the parcels in the Assessment District is quantified in terms of wastewater flow and organic load. The cost of the wastewater collection and recycled Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-2
December 9, 2015
water distribution and injection system is allocated in proportion to wastewater flow as it is the primary determinant in the design and cost of the collection and distribution facilities. The cost of the wastewater treatment plant is allocated in proportion to organic load as it is the primary determinant in the design and cost of the treatment facilities. With certain exceptions discussed in Section D below, wastewater flows and organic load for developed parcels are based on actual building square footage and uses. Wastewater flows and organic load for vacant parcels are based on (i) the maximum floor area ratio permitted by the City (0.15) and the anticipated mix of uses or (ii) development plans submitted to the City, including wastewater analyses for such development plans, if any. Standard wastewater flow rates and organic load concentrations are discussed in Sections C.l and C.2 below. Special cases and/or exceptions are discussed in Section C.3 below.

1. Wastewater Flow Rates
Non-residential wastewater flow rate assumptions are 0.0216 gallons per day for retail,

0.6750 gallons per day for restaurant, and 0.0625 gallons per day per building square foot for office. Wastewater flow rate assumptions for church uses are 3.0000 gallons per day per seat2
• Wastewater flow rate assumptions for school uses are 11.0000 gallons per day per student and faculty/staff3
. The wastewater flow rate assumption for retail use is an average and is calculated using a factor of ten (10.0000) gallons per day per employee, two (2.0000) gallons per day per parking space, one (1.0000) parking space per employee, and a range of building square feet per employee of 500 to 6254 • The
wastewater flow rate assumption for restaurant is calculated by applying a factor of nine (9 .0000) gallons per day per customer5 to an existing restaurant located in the City of Malibu which averages three hundred (300) customer per day and occupies four thousand (4,000) building square feet. The wastewater flow rate assumption for office is calculated using an average of two hundred eight (208) building square feet per employee and a factor of thirteen (13.0000) gallons per day per employee 6.

Residential wastewater flow rate assumptions are 366 gallons per day for a typical singlefamily home and 700 gallons per day for large, estate-sized homes. The wastewater flow rate for the typical single family home is calculated assuming a household size, including housekeepers and visitors, of 5.2, a wastewater flow per capita of 69 gallons per day7 ,
and a 1.02 infiltration rate. The wastewater flow rate for large, estate-sized homes is based on the proposed wastewater treatment system design prepared in connection with the development plans for Assessor's Parcel Number 4458-018-019. 2 The source for the flow rate per church seat is United States Environmental Protection Agency Publication 625/R00/008-Chapter 3. 3 The source for the flow rate per school seat is United States Environmental Protection Agency Publication 625/R00/008-Chapter 3. 4 The source for the flow rate per employee and per parking space is Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, Fifth Edition.
5 The source for the flow rate per restaurant customer is United States Environmental Protection Agency Publication 625/R-00/008-Chapter 3.
6 The source for the flow rate per office employee is United States Environmental Protection Agency Publication 625/R-00/008-Chapter 3.
7 The source for the flow rate per capita is United States Environmental Protection Agency Publication 625/R00/008-Chapter 3.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-3
December 9, 2015

2. Organic Load Concentration
Organic load concentration, a measure of the strength of the wastewater to be treated, is used to design the treatment process. Residential organic load concentrations are estimated to be 313 milligrams per liter ("mg/L") using per capita BOD loads from EPA guidelines8
. Non-residential organic load concentrations were estimated to be similar to residential concentrations at 313 mg/L for retail, office, school, and church uses. For restaurants the BOD concentration was estimated to be 544 mg/L based on wastewater sampling conducted at shopping centers within the Civic Center area of the City. Total organic load is expressed in pounds per day and is calculated using the following formula: wastewater flow x organic load concentration x 8.345 / 1,000,0009• The specific wastewater flow and treatment plant load calculations for each parcel are discussed in Section C.3 below.

3. Wastewater Flow and Load Calculations
The wastewater flow and load estimates are summarized below. The terms BSF, GPD and PPD mean, respectively, building square feet, gallons per day and pounds per day. • 4452-011-029 (Assessment No. 1)
This is land with certain existing structures located at 3730 Cross Creek Road.

The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Total future building area is estimated at 11,801 square feet using an FAR of 0.15 (78,670 parcel square feet x

0.15). The City indicates that the property has the potential to include retail and restaurant uses and therefore, wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 1,797.0563 GPD (11,801 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 11,801 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is 7.7650 PPD ((203.9213 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 1,593.1350 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000). • 4452-011-033 (Assessment No. 2)
This is a Shell service station located at 23387 Pacific Coast Highway and occupies the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Cross Creek Road.

The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Total existing building area is 1,731 square feet. While there are no existing restaurant or other "wet" uses, the City indicates that there is the potential for restaurant/food service use(s) in the future. Therefore, wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 263.5967 GPD (1,731 x

0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 1,731 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)).

Estimated organic load is 1.1390 PPD ((29.9117 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 233.6850 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
8 The source for the BOD load per capita is United States Environmental Protection Agency Publication 625/R00/008-Chapter 3. 9 The source for the equation for total organic load is Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, Fifth Edition.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-4
December 9, 2015
• 4452-011-035 (Assessment No. 3)
This is a commercial development with office, retail, and storage uses located on the east side of Cross Creek Road near the intersection of Cross Creek Road and Civic Center Way (3806 Cross Creek Road). The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. The City anticipates that this property will tend toward higher intensity uses following completion of the works of improvements, and the property owner has petitioned the City to increase the estimated wastewater flow to 2,300 GPD to accommodate future restaurant use. Estimated wastewater flow of 2,300 GPD would accommodate 1,930 square feet of restaurant and 15,967 square feet of office; no retail use is assumed because of the City's expectation that the property will tend toward higher intensity uses. Total building area is 17,897 square feet based on the November 26, 2013 site plan for The Courtyard development. Total estimated wastewater flow is 2,300.6875 GPD (1,930 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)+ 15,967 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office)). Estimated organic load is 8.5207 PPD ((1,302.7500 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)+ 997.9375 GPD x 313 (Office)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4452-011-036 (Assessment No. 4)
This is vacant land located north of Pacific Coast Highway just west of Malibu Lagoon. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Total future building area is estimated at 15,968 square feet using an FAR of 0.15 (106,450 total parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that the property has the potential to include retail and restaurant uses, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 2,431.6070 GPD (15,968 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail)+ 15,968 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is 10.5068 PPD ((275.9270 GPD x 313 (Retail) + 2,155.6800 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x

8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4452-011-037 (Assessment No. 5)
This is a commercial development located at 3728 Cross Creek Road. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Actual building square footage data are not available. Therefore, building area is estimated at 4,494 using an FAR of 0.15 (29,960 parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that there is the potential for restaurant and/or other wet use(s) in the future, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 684.3463 GPD (4,494 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail)+ 4,494 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is

2.9570 PPD ((77.6563 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 606.6900 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x

8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4452-011-039 (Assessment No. 6)
This is a restaurant, retail, and office development located at 3900 Cross Creek Road. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Total building area is 13,061 square feet (4,686 square feet of retail, 5,245 square feet of restaurant, and 3,130 square feet of office). Total estimated wastewater flow is 3,837.2176 Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-5
December 9, 2015
GPD (4,686 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail)+ 5,245 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant) + 3,130 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office)). Estimated organic load is 16.8475 PPD ((101.2176 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 3,540.3750 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)+ 195.6250 GPD x 313 (Office)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4452-011-042 (Assessment No. 7) and 4452-011-043 (Assessment No. 8) These parcels comprise the Malibu Creek/Malibu Village development located on Cross Creek Road (3822 - 3896 Cross Creek Road) and Pacific Coast Highway (23357 - 23361 Pacific Coast Highway). The properties are zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I.

Total building area for 4452-011-042 is 25,832 square feet (23,332 square feet of retail and 2,500 square feet of restaurant). Total estimated wastewater flow for 4452-011-042 is 2,191.4712 GPD (23,332 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 2,500 x

0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load for 4452-011-042 is

8.9771 PPD ((503.9712 GPD x 313 (Retail) + 1,687.5000 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Total building area for 4452-011-043 is 25,990 square feet (21,150 square feet of retail and 4,840 square feet of restaurant). Total estimated wastewater flow for 4452-011-043 is 3,723.8400 GPD (21,150 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 4,840 x

0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load for 4452-011-043 is

16.0244 PPD ((456.8400 GPD x 313 (Retail) + 3,267.0000 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4452-011-803 (Assessment No. 9)
This is an unmanned Southern California Edison facility located at 3808 Cross Creek Road. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Actual building square footage data are not available. Therefore, building area is estimated at 2,875 using an FAR of 0.15 (19,166 parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that there is the potential for redevelopment of the property for nonutility use in the future, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 437.8050 GPD (2,875 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 2,875 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is 1.8917 PPD ((49.6800 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 388.1250 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000). • 4452-012-024 (Assessment No. 10)
This is vacant land located at 3738 Cross Creek Road, north of 4452-011-029.

The property is zoned Commercial General. Total future building area is estimated at 34,042 square feet using an FAR of 0.15 (226,948 parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that the property has the potential to include retail and restaurant uses, and therefore, wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 5,183.9158 GPD (34,042 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 34,042 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is 22.3994 PPD ((588.2458 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 4,595.6700 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-6
December 9, 2015
• 4458-001-003 (Assessment No. 11)
This is a parking lot that serves the development located on 4458-002-019 (Assessment No. 13). Therefore flow and load is zero and there will be no assessment. The property is zoned Commercial General.
• 4458-002-018 (Assessment No. 12)
This is an office development located at 23730 Malibu Road. Total building area is 3,224 square feet. The property is zoned Commercial General. There are no existing restaurant or other "wet" uses, and the City does not anticipate any in the future. Estimated wastewater flow is 201.5000 GPD (3,224 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF).

Estimated organic load is 0.5263 PPD ((201.5000 GPD x 313) x 8.345 I 1,000,000).
• 4458-002-019 (Assessment No. 13)
This is an office development located along Malibu Road (23676 - 23712 Malibu Road). The property is zoned Commercial General. Total building area is 12,050 square feet. There are no existing restaurant or other "wet" uses, and the City does not anticipate any in the future. Estimated wastewater flow is 753.1250 GPD (12,050 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF). Estimated organic load is 1.9672 PPD ((753.1250 GPD x 313) x 8.345 I 1,000,000).
• 4458-002-900 (Assessment No. 14)
This property is Los Angeles County Fire Station #88 and is located at 23720 Malibu Road. The property is zoned Commercial General. The number of fire fighters housed at the fire station is comparable to the household size for a typical single family home, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated at 366 GPD.

Estimated organic load is 0.9560 PPD ((366.0000 GPD x 313) x 8.345 I 1,000,000).
• 4458-018-002 (Assessment No. 15), 4458-018-018 (Assessment No. 16), and 4458-018-019 (Assessment No. 17)
This is vacant land located approximately at the southeast comer of Pacific Coast Highway and Malibu Canyon Road. The property is zoned Planned Development. Estimated wastewater flow is based on plans for the development of five (5) large, estate sized residential dwelling units plus a gatehouse and equals 3,560.0000 GPD (5 DUs x 700 GPD/DU + 60 GPD for the gatehouse).

Estimated organic load is 9.2987 PPD ((3,500.0000 GPD x 313 + 60.0000 GPD x 313) x 8.345 / 1,000,000). All dwelling units are anticipated to be located on 4458-018-019.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-7
December 9, 2015
• 4458-018-027 (Assessment No. 18), 4458-018-028 (Assessment No. 19), 4458- 018-029 (Assessment No. 20), 4458-018-030 (Assessment No. 21), 4458-018-031 (Assessment No. 22), 4458-018-032 (Assessment No. 23), and 4458-018-033 (Assessment No. 24)
This is vacant land located south of Pacific Coast Highway and east of 4458-018- 019. The property is zoned Single Family Medium. Estimated wastewater flow is based on plans for the development of four ( 4) large, estate sized residential dwelling units plus an unmanned gatehouse. Estimated wastewater flow for each residential parcel is 700 GPD. Estimated organic load for each residential parcel is 1.8284 PPD ((700.0000 GPD x 313) x 8.345 / 1,000,000). The residential parcels are 4458-018-027, 4458-018-028, 4458-018-029, and 4458-018-030. The unmanned gatehouse will be located on 4458-018-031. 4458-018-032 and 4458- 018-033 are open space, non-buildable lots.
• 4458-018-902 (Assessment No. 25)
The property is zoned Public Open Space. This is the entrance to Bluffs Park and therefore will produce no wastewater flow. There will be no assessment. • 4458-018-904 (Assessment No. 26)
This is Bluffs Park. The property is zoned Public Open Space. Estimated wastewater flow is attributable to the public restroom facilities which are projected to generate 220 GPD. Estimated organic load is 0.5746 PPD ((220.0000 GPD x 313) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-019-003 (Assessment No. 27)
This is vacant land located south of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Civic Center Way and north of Malibu Road. The property is zoned Single Family Medium. Estimated wastewater flow is based on plans for the development of one (1) large, estate sized residential dwelling unit and equals 700 GPD. Estimated organic load is 1.8284 PPD ((700.0000 GPD x 313) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-019-008 (Assessment No. 28)
This is vacant land located at 23614 Pacific Coast Highway, at the merger of Pacific Coast Highway and Malibu Road. The property is zoned Commercial General. Total future building area is estimated at 3,511 square feet using an FAR of 0.15 (23,409 total parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that the property has the potential to include retail and restaurant uses, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 534.6551 GPD (3,511 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail)+ 3,511 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is

2.3102 PPD ((60.6701 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 473.9850 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x

8.345 / 1,000,000).

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-8
December 9, 2015
• 4458-019-009 (Assessment No. 29)
This is a commercial development located at 23670 Pacific Coast Highway, on the southeast comer of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Webb Way.

The property is zoned Commercial General. Total building area is 8,434 square feet. While there are no existing restaurant or other "wet" uses, the City indicates that there is the potential for restaurant/food service use(s) in the future.

Therefore, wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 1,284.3295 GPD (8,434 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 8,434 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is 5.5495 PPD ((145.7395 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 1,138.5900 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-019-010 (Assessment No. 30)
This is the Malibu Colony Plaza development located at 23841 Malibu Road. The property is zoned Commercial General. Total building area is 116,925 square feet (68,014 square feet of retail and 48,911 square feet of restaurant). Total estimated wastewater flow is 34,484.0274 GPD (68,014 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 48,911 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is 153.7145 PPD ((1,469.1024 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 33,014.9250 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 I 1,000,000).
• 4458-020-002 (Assessment No. 31)
This is an office development located at 23405 Pacific Coast Highway. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Total building area is 2,386 square feet (284 square feet of retail and 2,102 square feet of office). Total estimated wastewater flow is 137.5094 GPD (284 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 2,102 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office)). Estimated organic load is 0.3592 PPD ((6.1344 GPD x 313 (Retail) + 131.3750 GPD x 313 (Office)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-020-004 (Assessment No. 32)
This is the Malibu Professional Arts office development located at 23440 Civic Center Way. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Total building area is 12,644 square feet. Estimated wastewater flow is 790.2500 GPD (12,644 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF). Estimated organic load is 2.0641 PPD ((790.2500 GPD x 313) X 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-020-010 (Assessment No. 33)
This is the Malibu Country Mart II development located at 23410 Civic Center Way. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Total building area is 39,076 square feet (19,996 square feet of retail, 4,700 square feet of restaurant, and 14,380 square feet of office). Estimated wastewater flow is 4,503.1636 GPD (19,996 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 4,700 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant) + 14,380 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office)). Estimated organic load is 17.8778 PPD ((431.9136 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 3,172.5000 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)+ 898.7500 GPD x 313 (Office)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-9
December 9, 2015
• 4458-020-014 (Assessment No. 34)
This is the Malibu Country Mart I development located at 3835 Cross Creek Road. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Total building area is 29,068 square feet (19,737 square feet of retail, 8,025 square feet of restaurant, and 1,306 square feet of office). Total estimated wastewater flow is 5,924.8192 GPD (19,737 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail)+ 8,025 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant) + 1,306 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office)). Estimated organic load is 25.9176 PPD ((426.3192 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 5,416.8750 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)+ 81.6250 GPD x 313 (Office)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-020-015 (Assessment No. 35)
This parcel of vacant land is located south of Civic Center Way, north of Pacific Coast Highway, and west of Webb Way. The property is zoned Commercial General. Total future building area for 4458-020-015 is estimated at 7,242 square feet using an FAR of 0.15 (48,280 total parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that the property has the potential to include retail and restaurant uses, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 1,102.8118 GPD (7,242 x 0.8 x

0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 7,242 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)).

Estimated organic load is 4.7652 PPD ((125.1418 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 977.6700 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-020-900 (Assessment No. 36) and 4458-020-901 (Assessment No. 37) Assessment No. 36 is a parcel of vacant land located south of Civic Center Way, north of Pacific Coast Highway, and west of Webb Way. Assessment No. 37 is vacant land located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Webb Way and Pacific Coast Highway. These two parcels were acquired by the County of Los Angeles for purposes of road right-of-way, and are anticipated to be quitclaimed to the City with the condition that the property can only be used for those purposes authorized in Sections 2 and 9 of Article XIX of the California Constitution and Section 2101 of the California Streets and Highways Code which renders these properties undevelopable for private purposes. Therefore, flow and load is zero and there will be no assessment.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-10
December 9, 2015
• 4458-020-902 (Assessment No. 38)
This is part of Legacy Park. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I and will have no restroom or other facilities which would discharge to the wastewater treatment system. Therefore, estimated wastewater flow organic load are zero (0) and there will be no assessment.
• 4458-020-903 (Assessment No. 39)
This is a commercial development that includes the Lumber Yard (3939 Cross Creek Road), Super Care building (23661 and 23461 Pacific Coast Highway), and animal hospital facilities (23431 Pacific Coast Highway). The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Total building area is 37,862 square feet (30,049 square feet of retail, 6,605 square feet of restaurant, and 1,208 square feet of office). Total estimated wastewater flow is 5,182.9334 GPD (30,049 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 6,605 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant) + 1,208 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office)). Estimated organic load is 22.1321 PPD ((649.0584 GPD x 313 (Retail) + 4,458.3750 GPD x 544 (Restaurant) + 75.5000 GPD x 313 (Office)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-021-173 (Assessment No. 40)
This is an office development located adjacent and south of Malibu City Hall (23805 - 23815 Stuart Ranch Road). The property is zoned Community Commercial. Total building area is 40,528 square feet. Estimated wastewater flow is 2,533.0000 GPD (40,528 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF). Estimated organic load is

6.6162 PPD ((2,533.0000 GPD x 313) x 8.345 / 1,000,000). • 4458-021-175 (Assessment No. 41)
This is vacant land located at the northwest corner of Civic Center Way and Stuart Ranch Road. The property is zoned Community Commercial. Total future building area is estimated at 44,105 square feet using an FAR of 0.15 (294,030 total parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that the property has the potential to include retail and restaurant uses, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 6,716.3094 GPD (44,105 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 44,105 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is 29.0207 PPD ((762.1344 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 5,954.1750 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x

8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-021-901 (Assessment No. 42)
This property is Malibu City Hall. The property is zoned Community Commercial. Total building area is 37,359 square feet. Estimated wastewater flow is 2,334.9375 GPD (37,359 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF). Estimated organic load is

6.0988 PPD ((2,334.9375 GPD x 313) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-11
December 9, 2015
• 4458-022-001 (Assessment No. 43)
This is vacant land located at the northwest corner of the Civic Center Way and Cross Creek Road. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Along with 4458-022-022, this property is proposed to be developed as a Whole Foods Store. Total future building area is 38,425 square feet (9,222 square feet of retail and 29,203 square feet of restaurant). Total estimated wastewater flow is 9,340 GPD and is based on a September 2, 2011 study prepared EPD Consultants, which estimates that 710 GPD is attributable to the retail use and the remaining 8,630 GPD is attributable to the restaurant use. The wastewater flow from each land use is split between Assessor's Parcels 4458-022-001 and 4458-022-022 proportionately on the basis of land area. Estimated wastewater flow for Assessor's Parcel 4458-022-001, based on its parcel square footage of 108,464 and the total parcel square footage for both parcels of 259,673, is 3,901.2672 GPD (710 GPD x 108,464 / 259,673 (Retail) + 8,630 GPD x 108,464 / 259,673 (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load for Assessor's Parcel 4458-022-001 is

17.1388 PPD ((296.5631 GPD x 313 (Retail) + 3,604.7041 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-022-011 (Assessment No. 44)
This is vacant land located at the northeast corner of Civic Center Way and Stuart Ranch Road. The property is zoned Community Commercial. Total future building area is estimated at 81,010 based on an August 2013 traffic study for a proposed development comprised of retail, restaurant, and office uses (38,567 square feet of retail, 15,000 square feet of restaurant, and 27,443 square feet of office). Total estimated wastewater flow is 12,673.2347 GPD (38,567 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 15,000 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant) + 27,443 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office)). Estimated organic load is 52.6202 PPD ((833.0472 GPD x 313 (Retail) + 10,125.0000 GPD x 544 (Restaurant) + 1,715.1875 GPD x 313 (Office)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-022-012 (Assessment No. 45)
This is vacant land located on the east side of Stuart Ranch Road opposite of Malibu City Hall. The property is zoned Community Commercial. Total future building area is estimated at 42,079 using an FAR of 0.15 (280,526 parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that the property has the potential to include retail and restaurant uses, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 6,407.7901 GPD (42,079 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 42,079 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is 27.6876 PPD ((727.1251 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 5,680.6650 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-12
December 9, 2015
• 4458-022-019 (Assessment No. 46)
This is vacant land located on the west side of La Paz Lane at its current terminus.

The property is zoned Community Commercial. Total future building area is estimated at 55,408 using an FAR of 0.15 (369,389 parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that the property has the potential to include retail and restaurant uses, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 8,437.5302 GPD (55,408 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 55,408 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)).

Estimated organic load is 36.4580 PPD ((957.4502 GPD x 313 (Retail) + 7,480.0800 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000). • 4458-022-022 (Assessment No. 47)
This is vacant land located approximately at the northwest comer of the Civic Center Way and Cross Creek Road. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Along with 4458-022-001, this property is proposed to be developed as a Whole Foods Store. Total estimated wastewater flow is 9,340 GPD and is based on a September 2, 2011 study prepared EPD Consultants, which estimates that 710 GPD is attributable to the retail use and 8,630 GPD is attributable to the restaurant use. The wastewater flow from each land use is split between Assessor's Parcels 4458-022-001 and 4458-022-022 proportionately on the basis of land area. Estimated wastewater flow for Assessor's Parcel 4458-022-022, based on its parcel square footage of 151,209 and the total parcel square footage for both parcels of 259,673, is 5,438.7328 GPD (710 GPD x 151,209 / 259,673 (Retail)+ 8,630 GPD x 151,209 / 259,673 (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load for Assessor's Parcel 4458-022-022 is 23.8931 PPD ((413.4369 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 5,025.2959 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000). • 4458-022-023 (Assessment No. 48) and 4458-022-024 (Assessment No. 49) This is vacant land located east of La Paz Lane and north of Civic Center Way.

Development assumptions are based on a February 26, 2008 site plan. The property is zoned Town Center Overlay.

Total future building area for 4458-022-023 is 88,997 (43,917 square feet of retail, 10,000 square feet of restaurant, and 35,080 square feet of office).

Estimated wastewater flow for 4458-022-023 is 9,891.1072 GPD (43,917 x

0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 10,000 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant) + 35,080 x

0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office)). Estimated organic load is 38.8474 PPD ((948.6072 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 6,750.0000 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)+ 2,192.5000 GPD x 313 (Office)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Total future building area for 4458-022-024 is 43,061 square feet of restaurant, (15,585 square feet of retail, and 27,476 square feet of office). Estimated wastewater flow for 4458-022-024 is 2,053.8860 GPD (15,585 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail) + 27,476 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office)). Estimated organic load is 5.3647 PPD ((336.6360 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 1,717.2500 GPD x 313 (Office)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-13
December 9, 2015
• 4458-022-025 (Assessment No. 50)
This is vacant land located on north of the 4458-022-024. The property is zoned Community Commercial. Total future building area is estimated at 23,509 using an FAR of 0.15 (156,728 parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that the property has the potential for office uses. Estimated wastewater flow is 1,469.3125 GPD (23,509 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF). Estimated organic load is 3.8378 PPD ((1,469.3125 GPD x 313) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-022-802 (Assessment No. 51)
This is a GTE California, Inc. facility along Cross Creek Road. The property is zoned Commercial Visitor Serving I. Actual building square footage data are not available. Therefore, building area is estimated at 5,138 using an FAR of 0.15, the maximum permitted under current City zoning regulations (34,250 parcel square feet x 0.15). The City indicates that there is the potential for redevelopment of the property for non-utility use in the future, and therefore wastewater flow is estimated assuming eighty percent (80%) retail and twenty percent (20%) restaurant use, or 782.4146 GPD (5,138 x 0.8 x 0.0216 GPD/BSF (Retail)+ 5,138 x 0.2 x 0.675 GPD/BSF (Restaurant)). Estimated organic load is

3.3808 PPD ((88.7846 GPD x 313 (Retail)+ 693.6300 GPD x 544 (Restaurant)) x

8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-022-906 (Assessment No. 52)
This property is located at 23519 Civic Center Way and currently houses Los Angeles County courthouse, sheriff substation, library, and Water Works District 29 facilities and an unmanned communications tower. The property is zoned Institutional. A new Santa Monica Community College District satellite campus (no restaurant or cafeteria are anticipated) and Los Angeles County Sheriff substation facility will be constructed, replacing the existing sheriff substation.

Total building square footage will be 86,900. The new SMCCD campus will be 27,500 building square feet with a total of two hundred ten (210) full time equivalent students and twelve (12) faculty/staff. The new Sheriff substation will be 5,640 building square feet. The existing courthouse facility is 24,240 building square feet. The existing library is 16,229 square feet. The Water Works District 29 offices are 12,291 building square feet. In addition, there is 1,000 square feet of storage. Estimated wastewater flow is 6,154.5000 GPD (59,400 x 0.0625 GPD/BSF (Office) + 222 x 11 GPD). Estimated organic load is 16.0755 PPD ((3,712.5000 GPD x 313 (Office)+ 2,442.0000 GPD x 313 (College)) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-14
December 9, 2015
• 4458-027-023 (Assessment No. 53), 4458-027-024 (Assessment No. 54), and 4458-027-025 (Assessment No. 55)
This is Our Lady of Malibu Church and School. The property is zoned Institutional. The school is located on 4458-027-023, the church is located on 4458-027-024, and the rectory is located on 4458-027-025. The church has seating for 250. The school has a student capacity of one hundred twenty-three (123) with faculty and staff of up to twenty (20).

Estimated wastewater flow for 4458-027-023 is 1,573.0000 GPD (143 x 11 GPD).

Estimated organic load for 4458-027-023 is 4.1087 PPD ((1,573.0000 GPD x 313) X 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Estimated wastewater flow for 4458-027-024 is 750.0000 GPD (250 seats x 3 GPD/seat). Estimated organic load for 4458-027-024 is 1.9590 PPD ((750.0000 GPD x 313) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).

Estimated wastewater flow for 4458-027-025 is 366 GPD. Estimated organic load for 4458-027-025 is 0.9560 PPD ((366.0000 GPD x 313) x 8.345 / 1,000,000).
• 4458-028-006 (Assessment No. 56) and 4458-028-020 (Assessment No. 57) These two properties comprise the wastewater treatment plant site. The properties are zoned Commercial Visitor Serving II. Estimated wastewater flow is 100 GPD and is based on one bathroom, laboratory sink, and a dishwasher. Estimated organic load is 0.2612 PPD (100 x 313 x 8.345 / 1,000,000). Wastewater flow and load are allocated to each parcel in proportion to land area. Estimated wastewater flow for Assessor's Parcel 4458-028-006 is 27 GPD (100 x 4458-028- 006 parcel square footage of 30,930 divided by the total parcel square footage for both parcels of 113,400). Estimated wastewater flow for Assessor's Parcel 4458- 028-020 is 73 GPD (100 x 4458-028-020 parcel square footage of 82,470 divided by the total parcel square footage for both parcels of 113,400). Estimated organic load for Assessor's Parcel 4458-028-006 is 0.0705 PPD ((27.0000 GPD x 313) x

8.345 I 1000000). Estimated organic load for Assessor's Parcel 4458-028-020 is

0.1907 PPD ((73.0000 GPD x 313) * 8.345 / 1,000,000).

D. Parcel Subdivisions and Consolidations
If an Assessor's Parcel is subdivided, the assessment for the subdivided parcel shall be apportioned to the new parcels in accordance with the preceding assessment methodology. The sum of the assessments for the new parcels shall equal the assessment for the subdivided parcel.

If two or more Assessor's Parcels are consolidated, the assessment for the parcel resulting from such consolidation shall be equal to the sum of the assessments for the consolidated parcels.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Page B-15
December 9, 2015
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the assessments for the above-referenced Assessment District have been spread in accordance with the direct and special benefits that each parcel receives from the works of improvement.

Dated: [Ee, , q , 2015.

Assessment Engineer
City of Malibu
State of California
I, LJ S 01. Pbf e , as CITY CLER:K-efi'.he City of Malibu, CALIFORNIA do hereby certify that the foregoin,g Assessment, together with the Diagram attached thereto, was recorded in my office on the � 5 fl\ day of Jan UA-v-:J 2016.

Mi 8:,l e� City Clerk
City of Malibu
State of California
I, L1 S 0\ f D P e , as CITY CLERK of the City of Malibu, CALIFORNIA do hereby certify that the fotegoing Assessment, together with the Diagram attached thereto, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of said City on the day of Jan(..4t{j2.� 2016. ctf1 aP�lerk
City of Malibu
State of California
I, ,t:.�YL�l..3!!!!.��, as DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS of the City of Malibu, CALIFORNIA do hereby certify that the foregoing Assessment, together with Diagram attached thereto, was recorded in my office on the day of�. ;,.$ , 2016.

Modified Engineer's Report
City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1
Director of Public Works
City of Malibu
State of California
Page B-16
December 9, 2015

EXHIBIT C

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY -PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU

ASSESSMENT ROLL
Assessment
Number
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
Assessor's
Parcel
Number Property Owner
4452-011-029 Mariposa Land Company Ltd
4452-011-033 First Oaks Oil LLC
4452-011-035 3806 Cross Creek Road LLC
4452-011-036 Mariposa Land Company Ltd
4452-011-037 Mariposa Land Company Ltd
4452-011-039 3900 Cross Creek LLC
4452-011-042 Jamestown Premier Malibu
Village LP
4452-011-043 Jamestown Premier Malibu
Village LP
4452-011-803 So Calif Edison Co, SB of E Par 1
Map 148-19-454A
4452-012-024 Mariposa Land Co Ltd
4458-001-003 23676 And 23726 Malibu Rd
LLC
4458-002-018 Morton M And Leslie Gerson
Trs, Gerson Family Trust
4458-002-019 23676 And 23726 Malibu Rd
LLC
4458-002-900 LA County Consolidated Fire
Pro Dist
4458-018-002 PCH Project Owner LLC
4458-018-018 PCH Project Owner LLC
4458-018-019 PCH Project Owner LLC
4458-018-027 Malibu Rd Project Owner LLC
4458-018-028 Malibu Rd Project Owner LLC
4458-018-029 Malibu Rd Project Owner LLC
4458-018-030 Malibu Rd Project Owner LLC
4458-018-031 Malibu Rd Project Owner LLC
4458-018-032 Malibu Rd Project Owner LLC
4458-018-033 Malibu Rd Project Owner LLC
4458-018-902 Malibu City
4458-018-904 Malibu City
4458-019-003 Reco Land Corp
4458-019-008 Chevron Usa Inc
4458-019-009 KW Partnership LP And KW
Two Partnership LP
4458-019-010 KW Malibu Colony LLC
4458-020-002 Cross Creek Real Estate Group
LLC And Malibu Bear LLC
4458-020-004 CCW Partners LLC
4458-020-010 Malibu Cross Creek Ltd
4458-020-014 3835 Cross Creek LLC
4458-020-015 Reco Land Corp
4458-020-900 LA County
PROPOSED CITY OF MALIBU ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015·1
{CIVIC CENTER PHASE I WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY)

ASSESSMENT ROLL
Treatment Plant Collection/Distribution Total Construction Hard Construction Costs
Parcel
Assessment
$321,091.87
$47,098.55
$352,341.25
$434,471.22
$122,276.66
$696,668.02
$371,214.39
$662,630.70
$78,225.49
$926,244.32
$0.00
$21,763.85
$81,344.41
$39,531.36
$0.00
$0.00
$384,512.65
$75,606.42
$75,606.42
$75,606.42
$75,606.42
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$23,762.02
$75,606.42
$95,530.34
$229,479.61
$6,356,304.43
$14,852.28
$85,354.25
$739,271.93
$1,071,729.27
$197,046.63
$0.00
I Percent
ofTotal

1.24%

0.18%

1.36%

1.67%

0.47%

2.68%

1.43%

2.55%

0.30%

3.56%

0.00%

0.08%

0.31%

0.15%

0.00%

1.48%

0.29%

0.00%

0.09%

0.29%

0.37%

0.88%

24.46%

0.06%

0.33%

2.84%

4.12%

0.76%

0.00%
System Construction Costs
Parcel
Assessment
$229,092.83
$33,603.91
$293,296.89
$309,986.82
$87,242.03
$489,177.26
$279,373.75
$474,723.62
$55,812.38
$660,857.41
$0.00
$25,687.68
$96,010.10
$46,658.51
$0.00
$0.00
$453,836.92
$89,237.59
$89,237.59
$89,237.59
$89,237.59
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$28,046.10
$89,237.59
$68,159.04
$163,729.25
$4,396,102.55
$17,530.01
$100,742.87
$574,073.57
$755,309.46
$140,588.96
$0.00
I Percent
of Total

1.14%

0.17%

1.47%

1.55%

0.44%

2.44%

1.40%

2.37%

0.28%

3.30%

0.00%

0.13%

0.48%

0.23%

0.00%

2.27%

0.45%

0.00%

0.14%

0.45%

0.34%

0.82%

21.97%

0.09%

0.50%

2.87%

3.77%

0.70%

0.00%
Costs
Parcel l Percent
Assessment ofTotal
$550,184.70
$80,702.46
$645,638.14
$744,458.04
$209,518.69
$1,185,845.28
$650,588.14
$1,137,354.32
$134,037.87
$1,587,101.73
$0.00
$47,451.53
$177,354.51
$86,189.87
$0.00
$0.00
$838,349.57
$164,844.01
$164,844.01
$164,844.01
$164,844.01
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$51,808.12
$164,844.01
$163,689.38
$393,208.86
$10,752,406.98
$32,382.29
$186,097.12
$1,313,345.50
$1,827,038.73
$337,635.59
$0.00

1.20%

0.18%

1.40%

1.62%

0.46%

2.58%

1.41%

2.47%

0.29%

3.45%

0.00%

0.10%

0.39%

0.19%

0.00%

1.82%

0.36%

0.00%

0.11%

0.36%

0.85%

23.37%

0.07%

0.40%

2.85%

3.97%

0.73%

0.00%

Page 1 of 2 ends

Construction Soft Costs,
District Formation Costs, Total Assessment as Total Assessment as and Bond Issuance Costs Preliminarily Approved Confirmed Parcel
Assessment
$211,537.51
$31,028.85
$248,237.88
$286,232.60
$80,556.70
$455,939.18
$250,141.08
$437,295.17
$51,535.49
$610,216.08
$0.00
$18,244.38
$68,190.07
$33,138.68
$0.00
$0.00
$322,332.46
$63,379.97
$63,379.97
$63,379.97
$63,379.97
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19,919.43
$63,379.97
$62,936.04
$151,182.73
$4,134,134.41
$12,450.49
$71,551.46
$504,961.04
$702,468.16
$129,815.67
$0.00
I Percent
ofTotal

1.20%

0.18%

1.40%

1.62%

0.46%

2.58%

1.41%
Parcel
Assessment
$548,408.97
$80,442.00
$275,490.39
$742,055.28
$208,842.46
$1,267,177.86
$601,844.86

2.47% $1,122,048.31

0.29% $133,605.27

3.45% $1,581,979.34

0.00% $0.00

0.10% $49,627.38

0.39% $185,486.90

0.19% $90,142.03

0.00% $0.00

1.82% $876,791.22

0.36% $172,402.75

0.00% $0.00

0.11% $54,183.71

0.36% $172,402.75

0.36% $163,161.10

0.85% $391,939.76

23.37% $12,749,737.24

0.07% $32,356.30

0.40% $194,630.41

2.85% $1,398,527.08

3.97% $1,941,899.83

0.73% $336,545.86

0.00% $146,942.57
I Percent
ofTotal

1.10%

0.16%

0.55%

1.49%

0.42%

2.55%

1.21%
Parcel
Assessment
$761,722.21
$111,731.31
$893,876.02
$1,030,690.64
$290,075.39
$1,641,784.46
$900,729.22

2.26% $1,574,649.49

0.27% $185,573.36

3.18% $2,197,317.81

0.00% $0.00

0.10%

0.37%

0.18%

0.00%

1.76%

0.35%

0.00%

0.11%

0.35%

0.33%

0.79%

25.64%

0.07%

0.39%

2.81%

3.91%

0.68%

0.30%
$65,695.91
$245,544.58
$119,328.55
$0.00
$0.00
$1,160,682.03
$228,223.98
$228,223.98
$228,223.98
$228,223.98
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71,727.55
$228,223.98
$226,625.42
$544,391.59
$14,886,541.39
$44,832.78
$257,648.58
$1,818,306.54
$2,529,506.89
$467,451.26
$0.00
I Percent
ofTotal

1.20%

0.18%

1.40%

1.62%

0.46%

2.58%

1.41%

2.47%

0.29%

3.45%

0.00%

0.10%

0.39%

0.19%

0.00%

1.82%

0.36%

0.00%

0.11%

0.36%

0.85%

23.37%

0.07%

0.40%

2.85%

3.97%

0.73%

0.00%
Assessor's
Assessment Parcel
Number Number Property Owner
37 4458-020-901 LA County
38 4458-020-902 Malibu City
39 4458-020-903 Malibu City
40 4458-021-173 Miramar Property Investment
Co
41 4458-021-175 Surfrider Partners LLC
42 4458-021-901 Malibu City
43 4458-022-001 DB Malibu Holdco LLC
44 4458-022-011 Malibu Bay Company
Hitoshi Yamaguchi Tr Et Al,
45 4458-022-012 Tosh Trust, Eiko Mori Tr, And H
And E Mori Trust
46 4458-022-019 Wave Property Inc
47 4458-022-022 DB Malibu Holdco LLC
48 4458-022-023 Malibu Lapaz Ranch LLC
49 4458-022-024 Malibu Lapaz Ranch LLC
Steven J Knapp Tr, Steven J
so 4458-022-025 Knapp Trust, Joan Knapp Tr,
And Knapp Trust
51 4458-022-802 GTE Calif Inc, SB of E Par 3 Map
201-19-746
52 4458-022-906 LA County
Archdiocese Of LA Educ And
53 4458-027-023 Welfare Corp Our Lady Of
Malib
54 4458-027-024 Roman Catholic Archbishop Of
LA
55 4458-027-025 Roman Catholic Archbishop Of
LA
56 4458-028-006 Reco Land Corp
57 4458-028-020 MBC Colony Plaza LLC
Grand Total:

PROPOSED CITY OF MALIBU ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 201S-1
(CIVIC CENTER PHASE I WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY}

ASSESSMENT ROLL
Treatment Plant Collection/Distribution Total Construction Hard Construction Costs System Construction Costs Costs
Parcel I Percent Parcel I Percent Parcel I Percent
Assessment ofTotal Assessment ofTotal Assessment ofTotal $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00%
$0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00%
$915,194.05 3.52% $660,732.17 3.30% $1,575,926.22 3.43% $273,587.23 1.05% $322,912.62 1.61% $596,499.85 1.30%
$1,200,047.17 4.62% $856,210.44 4.28% $2,056,257.61 4.47% $252,194.66 0.97% $297,663.16 1.49% $549,857.82 1.20%
$708,713.81 2.73% $497,342.44 2.49% $1,206,056.25 2.62% $2,175,918.02 8.37% $1,615,612.87 8.07% $3,791,530.89 8.24% $1,144,922.01 4.41% $816,879.70 4.08% $1,961,801.71 4.26% $1,507,589.02 5.80% $1,075,635.60 5.37% $2,583,224.62 5.62% $988,013.60 3.80% $693,342.06 3.46% $1,681,355.66 3.65% $1,606,391.91 6.18% $1,260,940.91 6.30% $2,867,332.82 6.23% $221,838.52 0.85% $261,834.07 1.31% $483,672.59 1.05%
$158,699.22 0.61% $187,311.31 0.94% $346,010.53 0.75%
$139,799.17 0.54% $99,744.00 0.50% $239,543.17 0.52%
$664,742.43 2.56% $784,589.70 3.92% $1,449,332.13 3.15% $169,898.43 0.65% $200,529.63 1.00% $370,428.06 0.81%
$81,006.88 0.31% $95,611.71 0.48% $176,618.59 0.38%
$39,531.36 0.15% $46,658.51 0.23% $86,189.87 0.19%
$2,916.24 0.01% $3,442.02 0.02% $6,358.26 0.01%
$7,884.67 0.03% $9,306.21 0.05% $17,190.88 0.04%
$25,989,666.00 100.00% $20,012,129.00 100.00% $46,001,795.00 100.00%

Page 2 of 2 ends

Construction Soft Costs,
District Formation Costs, Total Assessment as Total Assessment as and Bond Issuance Costs Preliminarily Approved Confirmed Parcel I Percent Parcel I Percent Parcel I Percent
Assessment ofTotal Assessment ofTotal Assessment ofTotal $0.00 0.00% $91,130.40 0.18% $0.00 0.00%
$0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00%
$605,919.28 3.43% $1,544,087.19 3.11% $2,181,845.50 3.43% $229,344.97 1.30% $623,851.71 1.25% $825,844.82 1.30%
$790,599.27 4.47% $2,049,621.01 4.12% $2,846,856.88 4.47% $211,411.84 1.20% $575,070.95 1.16% $761,269.66 1.20%
$463,709.98 2.62% $1,833,901.20 3.69% $1,669,766.23 2.62% $1,457,785.03 8.24% $3,810,997.49 7.66% $5,249,315.92 8.24% $754,282.44 4.26% $1,955,469.97 3.93% $2,716,084.15 4.26% $993,209.95 5.62% $2,574,887.22 5.18% $3,576,434.57 5.62% $646,455.27 3.65% $2,556,630.46 5.14% $2,327,810.93 3.65% $1,102,445.16 6.23% $2,764,253.02 5.56% $3,969,777.98 6.23% $185,964.63 1.05% $505,881.35 1.02% $669,637.22 1.05%
$133,035.70 0.75% $361,876.47 0.73% $479,046.23 0.75%
$92,100.65 0.52% $238,770.06 0.48% $331,643.82 0.52%
$557,245.81 3.15% $1,515,789.73 3.05% $2,006,577.94 3.15% $142,423.87 0.81% $387,413.65 0.78% $512,851.93 0.81%
$67,907.11 0.38% $184,717.24 0.37% $244,525.70 0.38%
$33,138.68 0.19% $90,142.03 0.18% $119,328.55 0.19%
$2,444.65 0.01% $6,649.83 0.01% $8,802.91 0.01%
$6,609.63 0.04% $17,979.14 0.04% $23,800.51 0.04%
$17,686,979.33 100.00% $49,725,000.00 100.00% $63,688,774.33 100.00%

EXHIBIT D

MODIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE 1)

CITY OF MALIBU

ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
SHEET 1 OF 2
Filed in the office of the City Clerk of the City of
Malibu this_ day of __ , 2016.

City Clerk of the City of Malibu
County of Los Angeles, State of California

ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM FOR

CITY OF MALIBU
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE I)
CITY OF MALIBU. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Recorded in the office of the City Engineer
this _ day of ___ , 2016.

Robert Brager, P.E.

City Engineer, City of Malibu
Reference is hereby made to the Assessor
maps of the County of Los Angeles for
an exact description of the lines and
dimensions of each lot and parcel.
��
Filed this __ day of __ _, 2016, at
the hour of __ o'clock _m, in Book __
of Maps of Assessment and Community facilities Districts at page __ and as Instrument No. __ , in
the office of the County Recorder in the County of
Los Angeles, State of California.

County Recorder of The County of Los Angeles
5[J(J'

PREPARED BY
DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1 N
l.888l
LEGEND
/"Ji"\ \,_J!...-1 Assessment District
Assessment Number
SHEET 2 OF 2

ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM FOR

CITY OF MALIBU
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2015-1
(CIVIC CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - PHASE I)

CITY OF MALIBU, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

ASSESSMENT
NUMBER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
A.P.N.
4452-011-029
4452-011-033
4452-011-035
4452-011-036
4452-011-037
4452-011-039
4452-011-042
4452-011-043
4452-011-803
4452-012-024
4458-001-003
4458-002-018
4458-002-019
4458-002-900
4458-018-002
4458-018-018
4458-018-019
4458-018-027
4458-018-028
4458-018-029
4458-018-030
4458-018-031
4458-018-032
4458-018-033
4458-018-902
4458-018-904
4458-019-003
4458-019-008
4458-019-009
4458-019-010
4458-020-002
4458-020-004
4458-020-010
4458-020-014
4458-020-015
4458-020-900
4458-020-901
4458-020-902
4458-020-903
4458-021-173
4458-021-175
4458-021-901

ASSESSMENT
NUMBER
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 A.P.N.
4458-022-001
4458-022-011
4458-022-012
4458-022-019
4458-022-022
4458-022-023
4458-022-024
4458-022-025
4458-022-802
4458-022-906
4458-027-023
4458-027-024
4458-027-025
4458-028-006
4458-028-020
Reference is hereby made to the Assessor
maps of the County of Los Angeles for
an exact description of the lines and
dimensions of each lot and parcel.

An assessment was levied by the City Council on the
lots, pieces, and parcels of land shown on this assessment diagram. The assessment was levied on the __ day
of ___ , 2016. Reference is made to the
assessment roll recorded in the office of the
Cify Engineer for the exact amount of each
assessment levied against each parcel of land shown
on this assessment diagram.

Lisa Pope
Cify Clerk of the Cify of Malibu

PREPARED BY
DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 8.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Approved by: Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager
Date prepared: July 28, 2026 Meeting date: August 10, 2026 Subject: Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate Voting Delegate(s) for the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Designate the City’s voting delegate and alternate voting delegate(s) for the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference scheduled for September 23-26 in Anaheim.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: N/A.

DISCUSSION: The League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 23-26 in Anaheim. As part of the Conference, the League will hold its Annual Business Meeting on Friday, September 25, during which League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy.

In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the League requires City Council action to designate a voting delegate. The Council may also choose to designate up to two alternate voting delegates. The League must be notified of the City’s delegates prior to September 1, 2026. Staff will notify the League of the Council’s appointments.

ATTACHMENTS: Memo from League of California Cities
City Council Meeting
08-10-26
Item

8.A.
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 2026
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 23-25, 2026 Anaheim Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Friday, Sept. 25, 2026 the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration opens June 2.

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and Council Action Advised by September 1, 2026
alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Anaheim Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 24, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 25, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Tuesday, Sept. 1. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).

Malibu City CouncilAugust 10, 2026

Malibu City Council
August 10, 2026