Morgan Hill City Council
January 19, 2022

Regular Meeting Agenda
City Council
Rich Constantine - Mayor
Gino Borgioli - Mayor Pro Tem
John McKay - Council Member
Yvonne Martinez Beltran - Council Member
Rene Spring - Council Member
Wednesday, January 19, 2022 7:00 PM
Virtual Meeting
Link to join the meeting can be found below

VIRTUAL MEETING GUIDELINES AND PUBLIC COMMENT
In accordance with Executive Order N-25-20 and guidance from the California Department of Public Health on gatherings, remote public participation is allowed.

Physical meetings will not be in the City Council Chamber until further notice.

City Council meetings will be live-streamed on Channel 17, on the City’s website, and on the City’s Facebook page. Those members of the community that would like to participate in the meetings remotely may do so by joining the virtual meeting at:
https://bit.ly/MHCityCouncilMeeting or by calling (669) 900-9128, then enter the webinar id: 841 4277 4329#.

Public comment may be provided in the following ways:
 Join the virtual City Council meeting via the link above. When public comment is opened, raise your virtual hand and be called upon to speak for up to 3 minutes (YOU MUST BE RUNNING THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF ZOOM TO BE

UNMUTED)
 Join the virtual meeting by calling the number above, dial *9 to raise your hand, and be called upon to speak for up to 3 minutes.
 Send public comments in writing to the City Clerk at
[email protected]
* Please note that comments made on Facebook are not considered public comment.

January 19, 2022
2 CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE

DECLARATION OF POSTING AGENDA
Per Government Code Section 54954.2

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Constantine

CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT

OTHER REPORTS

RECOGNITIONS
Friends of the Senior Center $50,000 Donation

PRESENTATIONS
YAC Presentation - Asset #32
Planning and Decision Making

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item within the Morgan Hill City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Except for certain specific exceptions, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. (See additional noticing at the end of this agenda) Public Comment Supplement 1

ADOPTION OF AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion. Pursuant to City Council Policies and Procedures (CP 97-01), any member of the Council or public may request to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar for comment and action.

January 19, 2022
3 Time Estimate for Consent Calendar: 1 - 10 Minutes

1. ACCEPT 2021 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT
Recommendation:

1. Accept as complete the 2021 Pavement Rehabilitation Project;

2. Authorize the City Engineer to sign the Notice of Completion; and

3. Direct the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion with the County Recorder's Office.

2. ACCEPT $50,000 DONATION FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE MORGAN HILL

SENIOR CENTER
Recommendation:

1. Accept $50,000 donation from the Friends of the Morgan Hill Senior Center to support services at the Centennial Recreation Senior Center; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any agreements necessary for donation acceptance.

3. ADOPT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, NO. 21-0016 "PROVIDES THAT LOCAL LAND-USE AND ZONING LAWS OVERRIDE CONFLICTING STATE LAWS" Recommendation:

Adopt resolution supporting the proposed statewide ballot initiative regarding local land use control.

4. ADOPT RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT CONDUCTION OF IN-PERSON

MEETINGS WOULD PRESENT A PUBLIC HEALTH RISK AND CONTINUING

TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS
Recommendation:

Adopt resolution to continue holding City Council and commission meetings by teleconference.

5. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR THE

CALIFORNIA CLIMATE INVESTMENTS-DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION'S (CAL FIRE) FIRE PREVENTION GRANT PROGRAM.

Recommendation:

Adopt resolution authorizing an application for the California Climate Investments-Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's (CAL FIRE) Fire Prevention Grant Program.

January 19, 2022
4 6. APPROVE PROPERTY USE AGREEEMENT WITH WOODLAND ESTATES Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Property Use Agreement for City-owned Open Space with Woodland Estates for a fee of $1 per year.

7. APPROVE PARCEL MAP FOR THE TECHCON PROJECT (440 & 480

COCHRANE CIRCLE)
Recommendation:

1. Approve the Parcel Map for the Techcon Project; and

2. Authorize the recordation of the Parcel Map.

8. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TJKM
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS TO ASSIST WITH CITY’S
IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE SENATE BILL 743 (TRANSITION FROM

LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS) TO VEHICLE-MILES-TRAVELED (VMT) METRIC

FOR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA))
Recommendation:

Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute and administer the professional services agreement with TJKM Transportation Consultants for assistance with the City’s implementation of State Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) for a total not-to-exceed amount of $79,835.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. ADOPT NEW AND UPDATED FEES FOR PLANNING AND LAND

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING, AND APPROVE FUNDING OF TWO

ASSISTANT/ASSOCIATE ENGINEER POSITIONS
Recommendation:

1. Open/Close Public Hearing;

2. Adopt resolution establishing the updated Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees as proposed
in the 2021 NBS Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering; and

3. Approve funding for two Assistant/Associate Engineer positions.

Estimated Time: 30 Minutes

January 19, 2022
5 OTHER BUSINESS

10. APPROVE DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC CALMING AND MONTEREY ROAD LANE

REDUCTION AND PLACE-BRANDING PROGRAM
Recommendation:

1. Approve the proposed Traffic Mitigation Plan Implementation Schedule to support the Monterey Road Lane Reduction Program;

2. Approve the re-design of traffic lanes for Monterey Road from Dunne Avenue to Main Avenue to be implemented as approved in the Implementation Schedule;

3. Direct staff to install pedestrian safety bollards at pedestrian crossings on Monterey Road and First, Second, and Fourth Streets;

4. Direct staff to bring forward a review of the Parklet Program and develop a Parklet Fee Financing Assistance Program;

5. Direct staff to explore the creation of a community parklet that incorporates an interactive art installation;

6. Direct staff to bring forward a consulting contract to implement a PropertyBased Improvement District (PBID); and

7. Adopt a resolution to amend the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Budget and appropriate $210,530 from the General Fund.

Estimated Time: 2.5 Hours

11. REVIEW AND APPROVE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO OUTSIDE AGENCIES FOR 2022
Recommendation:

1. Review, discuss, and approve the City Council appointments to Outside Agencies; and

2. Direct the City Clerk to notify the appropriate agencies of the updated assignments and update the Form 806 as necessary.

Estimated Time: 15 Minutes

FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Note: in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a), there shall be no discussion, debate and/or action taken on any request other than providing direction to staff to place the matter of business on a future agenda.

ADJOURNMENT

January 19, 2022
6 NOTICE
Any documents produced by the City and distributed to the majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to an open meeting, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Counter at City Hall located at 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA, 95037 and at the Morgan Hill Public Library located at 660 West Main Avenue, Morgan Hill, California, 95037 during normal business hours. (Pursuant to Government Code 54957.5)

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in the foyer of the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Minutes Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful.

When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item of interest to the public, you may do so during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less.

Please submit written correspondence to the Minutes Clerk, who will distribute correspondence to the City Council.

Persons interested in proposing an item for the City Council agenda should contact a member of the City Council who may plan an item on the agenda for a future City Council meeting. Should your comments require Council action, your request may be placed on the next appropriate agenda. Council discussion or action may not be taken until your item appears on an agenda. This procedure is in compliance with the California Public Meeting Law (Brown Act) Government Code §54950.

City Council Policies and Procedures (CP 03-01) outlines the procedure for the conduct of public hearings. Notice is given, pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, that any challenge of Public Hearing Agenda items in court, may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or on your behalf at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to the Public Hearing on these matters.

The time within which judicial review must be sought of the action by the City Council, which acted upon any matter appearing on this agenda is governed by the provisions of Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

For a copy of City Council Policies and Procedures CP 97-01, please contact the City Clerk’s office (408) 779-7259, (408) 779-3117 (fax) or by email [email protected].

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (408)779-7259, (408)779-3117 (fax) or by email [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two-full business days before the start of the meeting.

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

APPROVED BY: City Manager
YAC PRESENTATION - ASSET #32

PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING

January
Developmental Asset #32
Planning and Decision Making
Young person knows how to plan ahead
and make choices.

January
Complementary Asset #30
Responsibility
Young person believes accepts and takes personal
responsibility.

Andrew Nguyen
YAC Co-Media Ambassador
➔ Why is planning and decision making
important for school?
◆ Finish schoolwork on time
◆ Be prepared for tests
◆ Have spare time for extracurriculars

Jenny Zuercher
YAC Co-Media Ambassador
➔ How do I prioritize my time to be
able to complement my values ?
◆ Using a calendar
◆ Prioritizing my interests
◆ Focus on a few passions

Logan Guire
YAC Active Member
➔ Why is planning crucial for my success?
◆ Confidence
◆ Makes you organized and provides options
◆ Allows flexibility

Question to Council
What’s the best decision you’ve ever made?

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Michelle Bigelow, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED BY: City Manager
PUBLIC COMMENT SUPPLEMENT 1

1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Yat Cho, Senior Project Manager
APPROVED BY: City Manager
ACCEPT 2021 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Accept as complete the 2021 Pavement Rehabilitation Project;

2. Authorize the City Engineer to sign the Notice of Completion; and

3. Direct the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion with the County Recorder's Office.

Estimated Time: Not applicable.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Maintaining Infrastructure
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
Transportation
Guiding Documents
Bikeways, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

On June 2, 2021, the 2021 Pavement Rehabilitation Project was awarded to A. Teichert & Son, Inc. DBA Teichert Construction in the amount of $2,131,400 with an authorized contingency of $532,850. The project included pavement rehabilitation at the following locations:
 Wright Avenue - Monterey Road to Peak Avenue
 Peak Avenue - Wright Avenue to Dunne Avenue
 Farallon Drive - Peak Avenue to Alkire Drive
 Torrey Court - Farallon Drive to end of Torrey Court
 Alkire Drive - Dewitt Avenue to Peak Avenue
1  Dewitt Avenue - Alkire Drive to West Main Avenue
 West Main Avenue - Dewitt Avenue to Peak Avenue
 Tennant Avenue from Vineyard Avenue to Monterey Road
 El Toro Fire Station and Dunne/Hill Fire Station Pavement Repair The project's scope of work included the following: pavement milling, cold-in-place recycling (CIR) pavement rehabilitation, hot mix asphalt concrete overlay, full-depth asphalt concrete repairs, crack sealing, replacement of all existing traffic delineation and markings affected, utility adjustments, traffic signal loop detector installation, etc. During construction, additional pavement rehabilitation work was added to the project at three locations:
 Park Way
 Central Avenue between Del Monte Avenue and Monterey Road  DeWitt Avenue between West Main Avenue to Claremont Drive The project began on July 19, 2021, and was substantially completed in October 2021.

Six change orders were authorized in the amount of $424,942 due to unforeseen conditions and additional work (Attachment 2). The final construction contract with Teichert Construction is $2,556,342. Staff recommends accepting this project as it is complete in accordance with the plans and specifications and directing the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion (Attachment 3).

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform.

Before and during construction, City staff coordinated construction activity and roadway closures through citywide emails, social media posts, and the City's website. Regular updates were made to inform the community of traffic impacts due to the construction.

The contractor also provided written notification to residents and/or businesses directly affected by construction activity before the commencement of the work.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Accepting the project in accordance with the contract documents is a required process and enables the City to release any retained funds owed to the contractor per California Public Contract Code Section 7107.
1 PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:
 On April 3, 2019, City Council approved a funding agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the 2016 Measure B Local Streets and Roads Program.
 On June 17, 2020, the City Council adopted the FY 2020-21 through 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program.
 On April 7, 2021, City Council received an update on pavement rehabilitation planning.
 On May 5, 2021, City Council adopted a Resolution approving FY2021-22 List of Street Rehabilitation Projects funded by Senate Bill (SB) 1.  On June 2, 2021, City Council awarded the 2021 Pavement Rehabilitation Project to A. Teichert & Son, Inc. DBA Teichert Construction.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The final contract amount for the 2021 Pavement Rehabilitation Project is $2,556,342.

The project was awarded to A. Teichert & Son, Inc. DBA Teichert Construction in the amount of $2,131,400 with an authorized contingency of $532,850 (Total of $2,664,250). The project is funded in the adopted Capital Improvement Program budget, under Project #519000 – Pavement Rehabilitation, funded by the Street CIP Fund (308).

Six change orders were authorized in the amount of $424,942. The balance of $107,908 will be returned to the Street CIP Fund (308).

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Categorical Exemption.

The activities described in this Staff Report are categorically exempt under CEQA, specifically pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities), as the subject work involves the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing City facilities involving negligible or no expansion of the use of those facilities.

O
0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000
Feet
2021 PAVEMENT

REHABILITATION PROJECT
Engineering and Utilities Department
CIP Engineering Division
G:\R-14\Proj\GIS\John\Yat_2021PvmntProj.mxd

DUNNE/HILL

FIRE STATION

EL TORO

FIRE STATION
FARRALON DR., TORREY CT.,
ALKIRE DR., DEWITT AVE. & MAIN AVE.

WRIGHT AVE.

W. CENTRAL AVE. & PARK WAY
TENNANT AVE.

PEAK AVE.

CIP Contract Acceptance
Funding Closeout Statement
Project: 2021 Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Project No: 519000
Date of Project
Award: 2-Jun-21 Project Award Amount: $2,131,400
Funding Source: F308
Contingency
Authorized: $532,850
Date of Project
Acceptance: 19-Jan-22 Total Authorized: $2,664,250
Actual Base
Contract Spent: $2,131,400
Change Orders
Description Date
Council Approval
Reqd? (Y/N)
C.O. #1: Additional Pavement Work 25-Aug-21 N $165,025.00 C.O. #2: Adds and Deducts for Change in Scope 1-Sep-21 N $115,725.02 C.O. #3: Additional Pavement Work 15-Sep-21 N $41,050.00 C.O. #4: Misc. Adds and Deducts to Contract Bid
Schedule 15-Sep-21 N $61,888.70
C.O. #5:

Misc. Adds and Deducts to Contract Bid
Schedule and additional cost for
frames/grates
8-Nov-21 N $38,326.47
C.O. #6: Additional CIR Quantities 16-Nov-21 N $2,926.80 Total C.O.: $424,941.99
Additional Appropriations
Source Amount Date
Total
Construction
Amount (Base
Contract plus
CO's): $2,556,341.99
Construction Fund Balance: $107,908.01
None
Recording Requested By:
___________________________
When Recorded Mail To:
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER’S USE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Civil Code §§ 8182, 8184, 9204, and 9208
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned is the Owner or agent of the Project described below.

2. Owner’s full name is City of Morgan Hill.

3. Owner’s address is 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037.

4. The nature of Owner’s interest in the Project is:

XX Fee ownership __ Lessee __ Other:

5. Construction work on the Project performed on Owner’s behalf is generally described as follows: Pavement Rehabilitation within City of Morgan Hill

6. The name of the original Contractor for the Project is: Teichert Construction

7. The Project was completed on: October 29, 2021

8. The Project is located at:
 Wright Avenue - Monterey Road to Peak Avenue
 Peak Avenue - Wright Avenue to Dunne Avenue
 Farallon Drive - Peak Avenue to Alkire Drive
 Torrey Court - Farallon Drive to end of Torrey Court
 Alkire Drive - Dewitt Avenue to Peak Avenue
 Dewitt Avenue - Alkire Drive to West Main Avenue
 West Main Avenue - Dewitt Avenue to Peak Avenue
 Tennant Avenue from Vineyard Avenue to Monterey Road
 El Toro Fire Station and Dunne/Hill Fire Station Pavement Repair  Park Way
 Central Avenue between Del Monte Avenue and Monterey Road  DeWitt Avenue between West Main Avenue to Claremont Drive Verification: In signing this document, I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I have read this notice, and I know and understand the contents of this notice, and that the facts stated in this notice are true and correct. __________________________ ________________________________ Date and Place Signature
________________________________
Scott Creer, City Engineer
2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Chris Ghione, Public Services Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager
ACCEPT $50,000 DONATION FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE MORGAN

HILL SENIOR CENTER

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Accept $50,000 donation from the Friends of the Morgan Hill Senior Center to support services at the Centennial Recreation Senior Center; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any agreements necessary for donation acceptance.

Estimated Time: N/A

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Transportation
Guiding Documents
Bikeways, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

For several years, the Friends of the Morgan Hill Senior Center has supported operations at the Centennial Recreation Senior Center (Center) through annual financial donations to the City. Those donations are used to offset costs for the Center. The donation typically includes support for staffing and program costs at the Center and allows a higher level of service than what would be provided by City funds alone.

Additionally, past donations have supported specific programs.

At the start of the COVID Pandemic, the Recreation Division faced extreme difficulty in reopening facilities as well as declines in revenues. These changes forced the Division into restructuring operations with reduced staffing levels and increased responsibility.

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22, the Friends of the Morgan Hill Senior Center presented

2 to City staff the idea of providing increased funds for the FY to allow quicker reopening and reinstatement of older adult programming at the Senior Center. The current donation will help to support regular operations and additionally it will support restaffing the welcome desk and reopening at the Center, which began in October.

The Friends of the Morgan Hill Senior Center was established in 2011 with the primary purpose of raising funds to support Senior Center operations. “Friends”, a group of more than 40 community volunteers, host the ongoing Tuesday night Bingo at the Community and Cultural Center as its primary fundraising activity. While Bingo is currently not occurring, the Friends are working towards restarting the program in early 2022. When the City took on the management of the Senior Center in 2015, the Friends estimated that funding of $20,000 per year would be available to support the City’s operation of the Center and have funded at that level or higher every year except FY 2020-21.

Financial sustainability continues to be a focus area for the Senior Center in partnership with the Friends.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

None.

The Friends reached out directly to City staff to coordinate this donation. The City continues to recognize the Friends' contributions at the Senior Center and publicly when receiving donations.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council could choose not to accept the donation.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

The City Council has accepted donations annually from the Friends with the exception of during FY 2020-21.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The $50,000 will be accepted into the General Fund and go to directly offset costs associated with operating the Senior Center. The current fiscal year budgeted donation for the Morgan Hill Senior Center is $32,000.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project.

Since the resulting activity is an administrative program that will not result in a change to the physical environment, this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.

3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Jennifer Carman, Development Services Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

ADOPT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, NO. 21-0016 "PROVIDES

THAT LOCAL LAND-USE AND ZONING LAWS OVERRIDE
CONFLICTING STATE LAWS"

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Adopt resolution supporting the proposed statewide ballot initiative regarding local land use control.

Estimated Time:

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Protecting the Environment and Preserving Open Space and Agricultural Land Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
Community Engagement and Messaging
Guiding Documents
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

This item has been added to consider adopting a resolution supporting a ballot initiative seeking to protect local control of local land-use decisions. The proponents’ website calls the measure the "Our Neighborhood Voice initiative." The initiative proponents are currently gathering signatures. The Secretary of State’s Office states that the measure will require 997,139 valid signatures by the end of April 2022 to qualify. If the measure qualifies, it would be on the November 8, 2022 ballot. The initiative language is attached to this staff report.

The City Council may wish to take a position on the measure now, take a position following preparation of the Attorney General’s title and summary, or at such time that the measure qualifies for the ballot.

3 The measure would amend the California Constitution to provide that city and county general plans, specific plans, zoning laws, and ordinances concerning the development and use of land would prevail over any conflicting state general laws.

There are exceptions where such local laws or regulations conflict with the California Coastal Act, concerning the siting of an energy facility that would generate more than 50 megawatts where the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has determined that a need exists, and water/transportation infrastructure projects deemed in the best interest of the state by the Legislature by statute.

The measure is likely to allow local governments to adopt laws in conflict with state laws governing the process of approval of various types of projects, including laws related to the ministerial processing of accessory dwelling units and development of multiple units on lots zoned for single-family uses pursuant to SB-9. The City Council has been clear that retaining local control in decision-making is important to the City.

It is unclear how the proposed constitutional amendment would impact state planning and zoning law related to requirements imposed on cities to adopt a general plan, including requirements to adopt a compliant housing element. Last fall, the Cal Cities established a working group that completed a review of Initiative 21- 0016. The recommendation of that working group to the Cal Cities Board of Directors was to take no position and to direct Cal Cities staff to further study the proposal. Identified in Cal Cities' initial analysis is one area of concern relative to the language in the initiative's preamble (Section 1): While the preamble references "CEQA, FEHA, prohibition against discrimination, and to affirmatively further fair housing" as noted below, the intent of this language is not included in the Constitutional text in Section 2 through 4 of the initiative. "The people of the State of California find and declare:

The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all decisions regarding local land use controls, including zoning law and regulations, are made in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to, CEQA, FEHA, prohibition against discrimination, affirmatively further fair housing. This Constitutional Amendment would continue providing state control in coastal zone; siting of power plants; development of water, communication, or transportation infrastructure (but not transit-oriented development)."
Cal Cities recommended that as the expressed intent of the voters is not clearly stated in the Constitutional amendment text (Section 2 through 4), further study and assessment is needed to address outstanding questions as to how the initiative impacts CEQA, FEHA, prohibition on discrimination, and the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing. In evaluating whether to take a position, the Council may want to fully understand the consequences of passage of this initiative from multiple perspectives.

One potential issue to consider should this initiative be successful is what recourse would our city have if a neighboring city or region determines it doesn't want to comply with state law and passes a superseding local ordinance which then has a negative

3 impact on Morgan Hill.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This report serves to inform the Community of the resolution being considered.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

City Council could choose to wait to support the proposed State of California Initiative until more analysis has been completed and continue to advocate for local control.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

Not applicable
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Not applicable
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project
This is not a project under CEQA because it is consideration of support for a proposal for a vote of the people of the State.

November 1, 2021
Initiative 21-0016 (Amdt. 1)
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:

PROVIDES THAT LOCAL LAND-USE AND ZONING LAWS OVERRIDE
CONFLICTING STATE LAWS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Provides that city and county land-use and zoning laws (including local housing laws) override all conflicting state laws, except in certain circumstances related to three areas of statewide concern: (1) the California Coastal Act of 1976; (2) siting of power plants; or (3) development of water, communication, or transportation infrastructure projects. Prevents state legislature and local legislative bodies from passing laws invalidating voter-approved local land-use or zoning initiatives. Prohibits state from changing, granting, or denying funding to local governments based on their implementation of this measure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Fiscal effects of the measure depend on future decisions by the cities and counties and therefore are unknown. (21-0016A1.)

58277666.v2
SECTION 1. The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(a) The circumstances and environmental impacts of local land use decisions vary greatly across the state from locality to locality.
(b) The infrastructure required to maintain appropriate levels of public services, including police and fire services, parklands and public open spaces, transportation, water supply, schools, and sewers varies greatly across the state from locality to locality. (c) Land use decisions made by local officials must balance development with public facilities and services while addressing the economic, environmental, and social needs of the particular communities served by those local officials. (d) Thus, it is in the best interests of the state and local communities for these complex decisions to be made at the local level to ensure that the specific, unique characteristics, constraints, and needs of those communities are properly analyzed and addressed. (e) Gentrification of housing adjacent to public transportation will reduce or eliminate the availability of low or very low income housing near public transit, resulting in the loss of access by low or very low income persons to public transit, declines in public transit ridership, and increases in vehicle miles travelled.
(f) The State Legislature cannot properly assess the impacts upon each community of sweeping centralized and rigid state land use rules and zoning regulations that apply across the state without regard to community impacts and, as a result, statewide land use and zoning will do great harm to local communities with differing circumstances and concerns. (g) Community development should not be controlled by state planners, but by local governments that know and can address the needs of, and the impacts upon, local communities.

Local initiatives approved by voters pertaining to land use and zoning restrictions should not be nullified or superseded by the actions of any local or state legislative body. (h) Numerous state laws that target communities for elimination of zoning standards have been enacted, and continue to be proposed, that eliminate or erode local control over local development and circumvent the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), creating the potential for harmful environmental impacts to occur.
(i) The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all decisions regarding local land use controls, including zoning law and regulations, are made by the affected communities in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §§ 12900 – 12996), prohibitions against discrimination (Government Code § 65008), and affirmatively furthering fair housing (Government Code § 8899.50). This constitutional amendment would continue to provide for state control in the coastal zone, the siting of a power plant that can generate more than 50 megawatts of electricity, or the development or construction of water, communication or transportation infrastructure projects which the Legislature declares are matters of statewide concern and are in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this measure, it is the intent that a transportation infrastructure project shall not include a transit-oriented development project that is residential, commercial, or mixed-use.

58277666.v2
SECTION 2. Section 4.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 4.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute, a county charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a county charter, that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of an unincorporated area of the county shall be deemed a county affair within the meaning of Section 4 and shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. No voter approved local initiative that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of any county shall be overturned or otherwise nullified by any legislative body. (b) A county charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted and applicable to an unincorporated area within a county, may be determined only by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 4, to address either a matter of statewide concern or a county affair if that provision, ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute with regard to only the following:
(1) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute. (2) The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3) The development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SECTION 3. Section 5.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 5.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute, a city charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter, that establishes land use policies or regulates zoning or development standards within the boundaries of the city shall be deemed a municipal affair within the meaning of Section 5 and shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. No voter approved local initiative that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of any city shall be overturned or otherwise nullified by any legislative body. (b) A city charter provision, general plan, specific plan, ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter, may be determined only by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 5, to address either a matter of statewide concern or a municipal affair

58277666.v2
if that provision, ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute with regard to only the following:
(1) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute. (2) The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern. (3) The development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SECTION 4. Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to read:

SEC. 7. (a) A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not that are not, except as provided in subdivision (b), in conflict with general laws. A county or city may not supersede or otherwise interfere with any voter approved local initiative pertaining to land use or zoning restrictions. (b) A county or city general plan, specific plan, ordinance or regulation that regulates the zoning, development or use of land within the boundaries of the county or city shall prevail over conflicting general laws, except for only the following:
(A) A coastal land use plan, ordinance or regulation that conflicts with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute.
(B) An ordinance or regulation that addresses the siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location that is a matter of statewide concern.
(C) An ordinance or regulation that addresses the development or construction of a water, communication or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of this subparagraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transitoriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.

58277666.v2
(c) No modification to appropriations for state funded programs shall occur, and no state grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this section. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize the provisions of this section.
(d) The provisions of this subdivision are severable. If any provision of this subdivision or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

MORGAN HILL EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE
INTIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 21-0016

TO AMEND ARTICLE XI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MAKE LOCAL ZONING AND

LAND USE LAWS OVERRIDE CONFLICTING STATE
LAWS
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California in recent years has proposed, passed, and signed into law a number of bills addressing a range of land use planning and housing issues; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these bills usurp the authority of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves the land use policies and practices that best suit each city and its residents and instead impose “one-size-fits-all” mandates that do not take into account the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the State of California; and WHEREAS, the majority of these bills do not provide any incentives or requirements for low-income affordable or moderate income workforce housing, but instead impose new policies that will incentivize speculation and result in the addition of market-rate or luxury housing, thereby eliminating the opportunity for local jurisdictions to implement effective policies that will create more affordable housing and affirmatively further fair housing practices; and WHEREAS, the ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves which projects require review beyond ministerial approval; what parking requirements are appropriate for various neighborhoods; what housing plans and programs are suitable and practical for each community; and what zoning should be allowed for residential properties, rather than having these decisions imposed upon cities without regard for the unique circumstances and needs of each individual community, is a matter of critical importance to the City of Morgan Hill and many other municipalities focused on local zoning and housing issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill hereby determines that local government entities are best able to assess and respond to the unique needs of their respective communities and hereby objects to the proliferation of State legislation that would deprive us of that ability.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the City Council of the Morgan Hill is opposed to the legislature of the State of California continually proposing and adopting legislation that overrides the zoning and land use authority of local governments.

SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill supports proposed Initiative Constitutional Amendment No. 21-0016 to ensure that zoning and land use authority rests with the local government entities that represent the communities in which the residents reside, and to allow local government to participate in solving the housing crisis through solutions that effectively address the unique needs and conditions of each local community.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of January 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _______ ________________________________ RICH CONSTANTINE, Mayor MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk
 CERTIFICATION 
I, Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Morgan Hill, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 22-XXX, adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on January ___, 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE: _____________________ ___________________________________ MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

4 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Kim Mancera, Municipal Services Assistant
APPROVED BY: City Manager
ADOPT RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT CONDUCTION OF INPERSON MEETINGS WOULD PRESENT A PUBLIC HEALTH RISK AND

CONTINUING TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Adopt resolution to continue holding City Council and commission meetings by teleconference.

Estimated Time:

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
REPORT NARRATIVE:

COVID-19 transmission remains widespread throughout California and locally. We remain under both a state and local emergency. Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which became operative on October 1, 2021, allows local agencies to continue meeting by teleconference during a statewide emergency, provided the local agency makes findings that continued teleconferencing is important to protect public health and safety.

Staff recommends adopting the proposed resolution declaring the need to continue teleconferenced meetings to protect public health and safety.

Staff recommends adopting the proposed resolution declaring the need to continue teleconferenced meetings to protect public health and safety.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This report serves to inform the Community of the recommendation to continue teleconferenced meetings.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The Council could choose not to adopt the proposed resolution and continue its January 19, 2022 meeting to a date certain for an in-person meeting. All meetings going forward

4 would also be in-person.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

Each month since October 6, 2021, the City Council has adopted a resolution determining that conducting in-person meetings would present an imminent risk to attendees’ health and electing to continue conducting meetings using teleconferencing.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Continued use of teleconferencing software may have a minimal fiscal impact.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project
Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment are not projects that require environmental review.

RESOLUTION NO. 21-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF MORGAN HILL DETERMINING THAT CONDUCTING

IN-PERSON MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WOULD PRESENT
IMMINENT RISKS TO ATTENDEES’ HEALTH, AND

ELECTING TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING MEETINGS

USING TELECONFERENCING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e) (AB 361)
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency related to the COVID-19 global pandemic, a state of emergency that is ongoing; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager in her capacity as Emergency Services Director declared a local emergency due to the spread of COVID-19, and that emergency declaration was ratified on March 18, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City of Morgan Hill remains in a state of emergency due to the continuing spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends physical distancing of at least six (6) feet whenever possible, avoiding crowds, and avoiding spaces that do not offer fresh air from the outdoors, particularly for people who are not fully vaccinated, or are at a higher risk of severe illness due to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the City’s public meeting facility is indoor and not designed to ensure circulation of fresh/outdoor air, and not designed to ensure that attendees can remain six (6) feet apart; and
WHEREAS, holding in-person meetings would encourage community members to come to City facilities to participate in local government, and some of them would be at high risk of severe illness due to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, technology exists that allows full participation from members of the public without requiring in-person attendance at a City Council meeting.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve that all of the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Approval and Authorization. The City Council does further resolve, order and/or direct as follows:

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 21-XXX

1. The conduct of in-person public meetings would pose imminent risks to the health of attendees.

2. Public health and safety and the public right to participate in local government are both critically important. The City of Morgan Hill is committed to balancing both by making City Council and commission meetings accessible through multiple formats and by allowing real-time public comment through teleconferencing solutions.

3. The City Council will renew these findings at least every thirty (30) days in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) until the state of emergency related to COVID-19 has been lifted or until the City Council determines that in-person meetings no longer pose imminent risks to the health of attendees, whichever comes first.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at a regular meeting held on the January 19, 2022.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_____________________________ ________________________________ RICH CONSTANTINE, Mayor MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk
 CERTIFICATION 
I, Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Morgan Hill, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 21-XXX, adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on January 19, 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE: _____________________ ___________________________________ MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Chris Ghione, Public Services Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR THE

CALIFORNIA CLIMATE INVESTMENTS-DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY

AND FIRE PROTECTION'S (CAL FIRE) FIRE PREVENTION GRANT
PROGRAM.

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Adopt resolution authorizing an application for the California Climate InvestmentsDepartment of Forestry and Fire Protection's (CAL FIRE) Fire Prevention Grant Program.

Estimated Time: N/A

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Guiding Documents
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

The purpose of this staff report is to request the City Council’s authorization to submit a grant application to Cal Fire which will assist the City with the development of a longrange wildfire mitigation plan.

CAL FIRE’s Fire Prevention Grants Program provides funding for local projects and activities that address the risk of wildfire and reduce wildfire potential to forested and forest-adjacent communities. Funded activities include hazardous fuel reduction, fire prevention planning, and fire prevention education with an emphasis on improving public health and safety while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. More information can be found on the CAL FIRE website at: https://www.fire.ca.gov/grants/fireprevention-grants/.

5 The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan’s annex 11 (CWPP) identifies strategic goals and specific mitigation projects for the City of Morgan Hill. This document serves as a reference framework for the City to address and remedy noted wildfire hazard assessments. City staff has determined that the fire prevention planning aspect of the CAL FIRE grant opportunity will support the development of a long-range planning document that addresses the CWPP recommendations specific to the City of Morgan Hill, prioritizes projects by critical need, provides applicable design concepts, and outlines an implementation timeline. Additionally, the City is working with the nonprofit organization, the Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council on a potential fuels reduction and community education project, for which the City may also apply. It is also possible that the Fire Safe Council may take the lead on the grant application for various program elements if it will support a greater likelihood of receiving the grant.

Adopting this resolution will allow flexibility for the City to apply directly for these projects or partner with the Fire Safe Council for the grant application.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

City staff are using the CWPP as the basis for the development of the grant application.

As fire protection is an expected maintenance service, no efforts were made to inform the community about this specific grant opportunity in advance. However, Fire Department staff regularly engage with the community in relation to fire safety and prevention activities.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council could choose to not adopt the resolution and not allow the grant application.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

No prior actions related to this specific grant application.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The grant does not require matching funding and administrative costs are eligible for reimbursement. However, depending upon the final project developed with the Fire Safe Council, there may be an advantage to providing some matching City funds. Should this need occur, staff will return to the City Council with that request for funding. The resources for developing the grant application are included in the Community Services Department’s work program.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project.

The submission of a grant application is an administrative action and does not constitute a project under CEQA. However, should a grant agreement be executed with CAL FIRE, proof of adequate compliance with CEQA is required within one year of that execution.

RESOLUTION NO: XX-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF MORGAN HILL APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF A

CALIFORNIA CLIMATE INVESTMENTS FIRE

PREVENTION GRANT APPLICATION TO THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY & FIRE

PROTECTION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO

APPLY AND ACCEPT THE GRANT FOR THE CITY, IF

AWARDED, AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN

CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the City of Morgan Hill, is a municipal corporation and general law city duly organized and existing under and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“City”); and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California in cooperation with the California State Legislature has enacted State of California Climate Investment, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for fire prevention programs; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing the application by local agencies, non-profit organizations, and others under the program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection require the Applicant to certify by resolution the approval of the application before submission of said application to the State; and
WHEREAS, successful Applicants will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete the project; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to apply for the grant funds through the State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that adoption of this Resolution is in the public interest.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL DOES HEREBY: APPROVES THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE MORGAN HILL WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN AND FUEL REDUCTION PROGRAM; AND
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve that all of the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. xx-xxx

Section 2. Approval and Authorization. The City Council does further resolve, order and or direct as follows:

1. Certifies the approval of the filing of an application for “California Climate Investment Fire Prevention Grant Program”; and

2. Certifies that if the project is awarded, the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project; and

3. Certifies that said Applicant has or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application, the sufficient funds to complete the project; and

4. Certifies that the Applicant will expend grant funds prior to the Grant Deadline of March 15, 2026; and

5. Delegates the authority to the City Manager, or his or her designee, to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of Grant Scope;
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at a regular meeting held on the January 19, 2022.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
____________________________ ___________________________ Rich Constantine, Mayor Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk
 CERTIFICATION 
I, Irma Torrez, City Clerk of the City of Morgan Hill, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. xx-xxx, adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on January 19, 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE: _____________________ ___________________________________ Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk

6 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Chris Ghione, Public Services Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE PROPERTY USE AGREEEMENT WITH WOODLAND

ESTATES

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Property Use Agreement for City-owned Open Space with Woodland Estates for a fee of $1 per year.

Estimated Time: N/A

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Maintaining Infrastructure
REPORT NARRATIVE:

The City of Morgan Hill owns property along Llagas Creek adjacent to Woodland Estates, a mobile home park, and has historically leased the property between the creek and their park for recreational purposes. The park's last use agreement expired in 2019.

Staff has developed an updated property use agreement and reflects the park and City's interest in using the land as public open space without excluding others. The term of the agreement is five years. City staff are not aware of any concerns or problems relating to the park's historical use of the property and their use does not interfere with stream maintenance or stream flow. The updated use area is much smaller than in the past and leaves the remainder of the property as city-owned open space.

Executing this agreement is supportive of the Council's goal to provide for wellmaintained public infrastructure as this agreement results in the park maintaining this property. Additionally, the agreement reduces risk for the City by Woodland taking on the risk associated with improvements in the area.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

None.

The City has worked directly with the Woodland Estates management on the agreement. The agreement has no impact on other residents or nearby neighborhoods.

6 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City could alternatively not approve the agreement with Woodland Estates. This alternative would require Woodland Estates to remove all improvements on City property.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

On March 19, 2014, the City Council previously approved a property use agreement with Woodland Estates.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with approving this agreement. Minor maintenance cost savings to the City for Woodland Estates maintaining the area may occur, but this amount is very limited.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project.

Continuing administrative activities such as a property use agreement that have no effect on the physical environment are not considered projects for environmental review under CEQA.

1 PROPERTY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MORGAN HILL

AND WOODLAND RESIDENTS
This Property Use Agreement, hereinafter “Use Agreement”, made and entered into this ____day of _________, 2021 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF MORGAN HILL, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY,” and WOODLAND RESIDENTS, INC., a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as “USER.” Throughout this Use Agreement, CITY and USER are referred to collectively as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party."

RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive part of this Use Agreement.

1. This Use Agreement is entered into pursuant to the City of Morgan Hill’s City Council approval on January 19, 2022.

2. CITY owns property adjacent to Llagas Creek (APN 779-030140) (“City Property”).

3. USER owns property and operates a mobile home park adjacent to the City Property known as the Woodland Estates (“Woodland Estates Property”).

4. Parties acknowledge that CITY and USER were parties to a Use Agreement for the same Premises defined below, which expired by its own terms on March 31, 2019.

5. CITY wishes to allow USER to continue to use the Premises described below, and USER desires to use the Premises and to accept and abide by the provisions of this Use Agreement, all on the following terms and conditions:

AGREEMENT
THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Premises. The CITY hereby agrees to allow USER to use and USER hereby agrees to use, all in accordance with the terms hereof, that certain parcel of land adjacent to the Woodland Estates Property located from the centerline of Llagas Creek in a northerly direction to the east property line of the Woodland Estates Property along the entire frontage of said Woodland Estates Property and Llagas Creek, which parcel of land is more particularly described in Exhibit ”A” (“Premises”) attached hereto and made a part of this Use Agreement.

2. Term. This Use Agreement shall be for a five (5) year term, beginning on February 1, 2021, and ending on December 31, 2026. The term of the Agreement may be extended for five additional one-year terms by mutual consent of the Parties, and CITY’S City Manager is authorized to extend the term of this Use Agreement upon the same other terms and conditions contained herein.

Easement Area 1 All that real property situated in the City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, State of California being more particularly described as follows: A portion of lands Titled "Exhibit A" as described in that certain Corporation Grant Deed recorded as Document Number 5686620, dated June 15, 1977, Santa Clara County Records, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at northern most corner of said lands titled "Exhibit A", said corner being the POINT OF BEGINNING(1); thence along the northerly line of said lands, South 67°39'36" West, a distance of 506.58 feet; thence continuing along said northerly line South 75°47'20" West, a distance of 173.78 feet; thence leaving said northerly line, South14°12'40" East, a distance of 40.00 feet; thence running parallel to the northerly line of said lands titled "Exhibit A", North 75°47'20" West, a distance of 211.98 feet; thence North 67°39'36" East, a distance of 499.71 feet to
a point on the easterly line of said lands; thence along said easterly line North 51°41'00" West, a distance of 51.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING(1), and containing an area of 30,357 square feet, more or less. TOGETHER WITH a portion of said lands Titled "Exhibit A" as described in said Corporation Grant Deed recorded as Document Number 5686620, and more particularly described as follows: Easement Area 2 Commencing at northern most corner of said lands titled "Exhibit A"; thence along the northerly line of said lands, South 67°39'36" West, a distance of 506.58; thence continuing along said northerly line South 75°47'20" West, a distance of 173.78 feet feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING(2); thence leaving said northerly line, South14°12'40" East, a distance of 54.00 feet; thence running parallel to the northerly line of said lands titled "Exhibit A", South 75°47'20" West, a distance of 261.05 feet; thence North 14°12'40" West, a distance of 54.00 feet to
a point on the northerly line of said lands Titled "Exhibit B"; thence along said northerly line North 75°47'20" East, a distance of 261.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING(2), and containing an area of 14,097 square feet, more or less. END OF DESCRIPTION See Exhibit "B" plat to accompany, attached hereto and made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Land Surveyor's Act. William J. McClintock, RCE 24893 Date Expires 12/31/2021 Exhibit "A" Legal Description for Private Use Easements

WILLIAM
J . McCLINTOCK
STATE
OF
CA
L I FORN I A EXP. No. 24893

REGISTERED
PROF
E
S IONAL ENGINEER 12-31-2021
L:\Projects\Bill\219151 CMH - WOODLAND ESTATES\DWG\219151 Plat & Legal Easements.dwg - 12/15/2021 3:04 PM - Plotted 12/15/2021 3:04 PM by Miguel Morfin 16075 VINEYARD BOULEVARD MORGAN HILL, CA 95037 (408) 779-7381 SCALE: SHEET DRAWN BY: of JOB #: DATE:

Xrefs: 219151 2D Existing; 219151 Aerial Image
1 1 219151 December 2021 Nonemiguelm

De Anza Court
Easy Street Sunnybrook Court
Creekside Court
Exhibit "A" Doc. No. 5686620
APN 779-33-050 Doc. No. 5357525
APN 779-03-143 Doc. No. 9007498
APN 779-03-142 Doc. No. 9007498
APN 779-34-018 Doc. No. 5411749
(S67°39'36"W)
(506.58')
S75°47'20"W
434.83' N67°39'36"E
499.71'
211.98' N75° 47' 20"E
261.05' S75° 47' 20"W
L2
L1
L3
Easement Area 1 30,357 SF.

Easement Area 2 14,097 SF.
173.78'
261.05'
Point of Commencement
Point of Beginning(2)
Point of
Beginning(1)
Exhibit "B" Doc. No. 5686620
L4
Line Table
#
L1
L2
L3
L4
Direction
N51°41'00"W
S14°12'40"E
S14°12'40"E
N14°12'40"W
Length

51.62'

40.00'

54.00'

54.00' L:\Projects\Bill\219151 CMH - WOODLAND ESTATES\DWG\219151 Plat & Legal Easements.dwg - 12/15/2021 3:04 PM - Plotted 12/15/2021 3:04 PM by Miguel Morfin SCALE: SHEET
DRAWN BY: of
JOB #:
16075 VINEYARD BOULEVARD MORGAN HILL, CA 95037 (408) 779-7381 DATE: Xrefs: 219151 2D Existing; 219151 Aerial Image 1 1
219151
December 2021
1" = 150'
miguelm
Exhibit "B"
Plat to accompany Legal Description for an
Easement Area 1 AND Easement Area 2 over
that certain portion of Land described in that
Corporation Grant Deed filed as Doc. No.
5686620, Santa Clara County Records
WILLIAM J . McCLINTOCK

STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
EXP.

No. 24893

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
ER
12-31-2021 North
Scale: 1"=150' 100 20025500

7 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Maria Angeles, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVED BY: City Manager
APPROVE PARCEL MAP FOR THE TECHCON PROJECT (440 & 480

COCHRANE CIRCLE)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Approve the Parcel Map for the Techcon Project; and

2. Authorize the recordation of the Parcel Map.

Estimated Time:

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Protecting the Environment and Preserving Open Space and Agricultural Land 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
Economic Development
Guiding Documents
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

The Techcon Project is a proposed 55,000 sq. ft., two-story light industrial/office building with an equipment storage yard that will become the new headquarters for the Techcon Construction Company. The project is on two vacant parcels in the Sutter Industrial Park that are situated on the northeast corner of the Cochrane Road and Monterey Road intersection.

On April 22, 2020, City Council adopted Resolution 20-025 which approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Techcon Project. Along with the MND, Council also approved the Techcon Project’s Improvement Agreement for the reconfiguration of the Monterey Road and Cochrane Road intersection. The light industrial/office building was planned to be constructed at the same time as the Monterey/Cochrane intersection improvements.

However, due to unforeseen circumstances for the developer/property owner, Monument Land Company LLC, this work was delayed until now. The

7 Monterey/Cochrane intersection improvements were completed and accepted by Council on December 2, 2020.

The completed Monterey/Cochrane intersection reconfiguration resulted in approximately 10,825 sq. ft of excess right-of-way area at Monterey Road, north of Cochrane Road, that was no longer required for street purposes. On September 1, 2021, Council approved and adopted Resolution 21-040 declaring the summary vacation of the excess right-of-way area and the reservation of a Public Service Easement (P.S.E.). Resolution 21-040 also authorized the City Manager to sign a Quitclaim Deed to quitclaim the vacated area to Monument Land Company LLC. The Quitclaim Deed was recorded with the County Recorder on October 6, 2021.

The Techcon Project is currently working on its building permit plans and is close to obtaining a building permit for the new 55,000 sq. ft., two-story light industrial/office building. The majority of the required frontage improvements have been constructed by the developer concurrent with the Monterey/Cochrane intersection improvements. There are minor public improvements that will be completed with the construction of the new building.

The project is requesting Council approval of a Parcel Map (Attachment 2) to combine the area quitclaimed by the City with the two project parcels, and to obtain Council approval for the abandonment of the following previously dedicated public easements per Sections 66455(j) and 66499.20.2 of the California Subdivision Map Act:

1. A portion of that 30.00 feet wide Landscape Easement previously dedicated to the City of Morgan Hill per that parcel map filed for record in Book 564 of Maps at Pages 21 and 22, Santa Clara County records.

2. A portion of that 10.00 feet wide Temporary Construction Easement as conveyed to the City of Morgan Hill per that certain Deed of Easement recorded in Book C576 of Official Records, at Page 388, Santa Clara County.

The Parcel Map also includes the relinquishment by the owner/developer of an abutter's right of vehicular access along Monterey Road and Cochrane Road. This restricts vehicular access to the properties from Monterey Road and Cochrane Road.

The City Council is required to approve the map if it conforms to all the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. The developer has furnished the City with the necessary documents to complete the processing of the Parcel Map and has made provisions with a title company to provide the City with the required fees prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. The Parcel Map conforms to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and conditions of approval have been met.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Parcel Map for the Techcon Project and authorize the recordation of the Parcel Map.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

7 Inform.

Notification of the Council’s consideration of the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed out on March 13, 2020, to all property owners within 600 feet of the project boundaries and published in the paper on March 20, 2020. Notice of the City’s intent to adopt the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were posted with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office on January 23, 2020 and published in the newspaper on January 24, 2020. Notice of the posting of the environmental documents was also done through the “Notify Me” application available on the City webpage.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

There is no feasible alternative action as the developer has met the requirements of the approved Design Review conditions to file for a Parcel Map approval. The Parcel Map is also an acceptable means for the project to combine the area quitclaimed by the City with the two project parcels, and to obtain Council approval for the abandonment of the previously dedicated public easements.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

October 2, 2019 – Council was asked to provide preliminary feedback on whether the City should pursue the reconfiguration of the Monterey Road and Cochrane Road intersection. The Council consensus was to pursue the reconfiguration due to the safety benefit and cost-saving benefit of partnering with the private office/industrial development (Cochrane-Monument Land Company Project).

April 22, 2020 – Council approved the Improvement Agreement with Monument Land Company LLC (developer/owner) and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Techcon office/industrial development project.

December 2, 2020 – Council accepted the Monterey/Cochrane intersection improvements and also approved an Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement with the developer relating to the reimbursement for right-of-way improvements constructed for the City by the developer.

September 1, 2021 – Council approved and adopted Resolution 21-040 declaring the Summary Vacation of a portion of Monterey Road street right-of-way, north of Cochrane Road, and reservation of a Public Service Easement.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Development review costs for this project are paid for from development processing fees.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Project: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on April 22, 2020 (CochraneMonument Land Co.).

7

8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Adam Paszkowski, Principal Planner
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TJKM
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS TO ASSIST WITH CITY’S
IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE SENATE BILL 743 (TRANSITION FROM

LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS) TO VEHICLE-MILES-TRAVELED (VMT)

METRIC FOR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA))

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute and administer the professional services agreement with TJKM Transportation Consultants for assistance with the City’s implementation of State Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) for a total not-to-exceed amount of $79,835.

Estimated Time: Non-applicable.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Protecting the Environment and Preserving Open Space and Agricultural Land Advancing Regional Initiatives
2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Transportation
Guiding Documents
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

In 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law and required lead agencies to adjust their method of evaluating transportation impacts, from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Where LOS measures the average amount of delay experienced at key intersections during hours of highest congestion, VMT accounts for the number of vehicle trips generated and the distance of those trips. This is a significant methodology change to determine transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the intent is to “promote the state’s goals of

8 reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations.” The California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a "Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA" recommending that adopted thresholds for new projects should reduce VMTs by 15%.

Provisions under Section 15064.3(c) of the CEQA Guidelines require the application of VMT since July 1, 2020.

As VMT is a regional issue, the City participated in a collaborative study led by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). As the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County, VTA prepared the methodology for SB743 compliance, and an online VMT Evaluation Tool was also developed to facilitate screening of projects within the county.

The study produced a model which calculated VMT that was “significantly higher” for the City and the south county area when compared to other cities in Santa Clara County.

The high VMT is a factor of the City’s remoteness and the large distances that commuters, community members, and visitors must travel for work, shopping, services, and recreation, and the lack of public transportation. This study also showed that a 15% reduction in VMT below that of existing development could not feasibly be attained for the majority of the City.

The City entered into a professional services agreement with a Traffic Engineering Firm, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., in January 2020 to assist with the City’s implementation of SB743 and establishing VMT Screening Criteria and Thresholds of Significance utilizing the VTA Countywide model. However, the Screening Criteria and Thresholds of Significance identified by Nelson\Nygaard were not adopted by the City Council, and City staff was directed to pursue its own VMT model, that is more reflective of the City, in order to deviate from the VTA Countywide VMT model, and/or to deviate from OPR’s Technical Advisory recommending to reduce VMT of new development by 15%, and revise the proposed screens and thresholds as necessary once the City’s model and/or deviation from OPR's Technical Advisory is complete.

Lead agencies have discretion to deviate from OPR's recommended 15% reduction in VMT by developing and adopting their own, or relying on thresholds recommended by other agencies, “provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at subd. (c); Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068.) Substantial evidence means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Id. at § 15384; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108-1109.)
Therefore, City staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct the aboveidentified work on July 28, 2021. In response to the RFP, the City received two responses, one from TJKM Transportation Consultants and the other from Fehr and Peers. TJKM Transportation Consultants was selected as the consultant capable of

8 providing the requested services as they were the firm responding to all of the items identified within the RFP, in particular providing information to deviate from OPR’s Technical Advisory and not duplicating work that had already been achieved with Nelson\Nygaard.

During the RFP process, it was identified that focusing on pursuing a City-owned VMT model was not the best way to proceed to achieve a significant difference from VTA's VMT model and evaluation tool to generate a more refined result for Morgan Hill.

Although a City-owned VMT model could be produced, the cost of conducting an extensive refinement of the VTA model would not reflect significant changes to the projected VMT levels that are currently shown for the City when using the VTA model in its current state. Despite the extensive effort and cost involved in the development of a City-specific model, the end result will still indicate VMT levels that will be difficult to mitigate. Therefore, in discussions with TJKM, City staff took a much simpler route and requested TJKM to revise their Scope of Work to focus on deviating from OPR's Technical Advisory to reduce the VMT for new development by 15%. Other jurisdictions have chosen this route since they, like Morgan Hill, are smaller and lack the transit services that warrant extensive VMT evaluation. Therefore, staff proposes to contract with TJKM Transportation Consultants as staff believes that the firm is the most qualified and has current relevant experience. TJKM provides expert consultation for the review, development, implementation, application, and calibration of transportation planning modeling systems, as well as, experience forecasting future traffic volumes.

TJKM has direct experience with the existing VTA VMT model and has worked on updating VMT models of Solano, Napa, Sonoma, San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and Nevada County.

The attached agreement (Attachment 1) shows TJKM’s scope of work and deliverables along with a proposed timeline. The agreement is for a total not-to-exceed amount of $79,835 with the term expiring on December 31, 2022.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform.

This report serves to inform the community of the recommended contract approval for TJKM Transportation Consultants to assist with the City’s implementation of SB 743.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

City Council could decide not to approve the agreement and have staff solicit a new consultant proposal.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

On June 6, 2018, the City Council adopted the Biennial FY 2018-19 & FY 2019-20 Operating Budget which included one-time funding of $200,000 within the Special Revenue Fund 207 for Long Range Planning’s work program task to implement SB 743.

8 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Funds for the agreement are budgeted within the Long-Range Planning Fund (207) and included in the adopted Biennial Operating Budget.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project: Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment are exempted from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The agreements are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

1 Updated March 2021

CONSULTANT AGREEMENT

TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into and becomes effective on _______________ (Effective Date), by and between the CITY OF MORGAN HILL, a municipal corporation, ("CITY"), and TJKM Transportation Consultants a California corporation ("CONSULTANT") hereinafter referred to collectively as “Parties.” In consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

1. City Authority. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the action of the Morgan Hill City Council taken on ___________, ____, 20___.

2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall cover services rendered from the Effective Date of this Agreement until December 31, 2022 at which time CONSULTANT’S services shall be completed. The City Manager is authorized to extend the term of this Agreement for a maximum period of one year. Any such extension shall be in writing and signed by both Parties to this Agreement.

3. Scope of Service. The services to be performed by CONSULTANT shall be the completion of certain tasks associated with the City's implementation of State Senate Bill 743 which requires the transition from Level-of-Service (LOS) to Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) as the metric for transportation analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as further described in Exhibit A.

4. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall be compensated as follows:

4.1. Amount. $79,835.00. Total compensation to CONSULTANT under this Agreement during its initial term set forth in Section 2 above shall not exceed seventy-nine thousand eight hundred thirty-five dollars and shall be billed based on the rate and basis set forth in Exhibit B. If the City Manager extends the term of this Agreement for up to one year pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 above, the City Manager shall have the authority to increase the maximum compensation allowed to be paid to CONSULTANT, so long as City Council has appropriated sufficient funds therefor, the Parties mutually agree to such amount in a writing signed by both Parties to this Agreement and provided further that in no event shall such maximum compensation allowed for the term exceed the City Manager's authority pursuant to Chapter

3.04 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code, unless otherwise authorized by City Council.

4.2. Billing. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with an invoice containing the dated, detailed, and itemized descriptions of all services performed and expenses incurred (if such expenses are reimbursable pursuant to Exhibit B) by CONSULTANT on a monthly basis unless otherwise specified in Exhibit B. All invoices shall be sent to the CITY addressed to the department head or project manager identified below in Section 13 Notices. Any rate charged shall be prorated where services are interrupted or not provided for any rate period (for example, any monthly rate charge should be prorated when services were interrupted or provided for only part of the month). For services billed on an hourly rate, the minimum unit of billed time shall not exceed one tenth of one hour. CITY shall pay for services and expenses (if so provided in Exhibit B) up to the limit of compensation set forth above, that in the CITY’s judgment were necessary and reasonable. Services for work performed and expenses incurred in excess of the total compensation set forth in paragraph 4.1 above shall be at no cost to CITY.

5. Termination. CITY or CONSULTANT shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving thirty (30) days' written notice or less under urgent circumstances. Upon such termination, CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an itemized statement of services performed for which compensation

2 Updated March 2021
has not been paid. CITY may require CONSULTANT to complete certain work product or documents and CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY all documents in its possession without additional compensation to CONSULTANT. The City Manager of CITY is authorized to terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, on behalf of CITY.

5.1. Non-Appropriations. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, if insufficient funds are appropriated, or funds are otherwise unavailable in the budget for CITY for any reason whatsoever in any fiscal year, for payments due under this Agreement, CITY will immediately notify CONSULTANT of such occurrence, and this Agreement shall terminate after the last day during the fiscal year for which appropriations shall have been budgeted for CITY or are otherwise available for payments.

6. Performance of Work. CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified by virtue of experience, training, education, and expertise to accomplish these services. Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT in accordance with professional practices in a manner consistent with a level of care, competence and skill exercised by qualified members of the CONSULTANT’S profession. By delivery of completed work, CONSULTANT certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws. CONSULTANT shall perform all work and services under this Agreement in conformance with the time schedule set forth on Exhibit C, "Schedule of Performance," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY's City Manager is authorized on behalf of CITY to modify the timeframes set forth on the Schedule of Performance within the term of this Agreement. If CONSULTANT desires to leave or store any of CONSULTANT's equipment at a CITY site while CONSULTANT is performing work or service pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT will first obtain the consent of CITY's City Manager, or his/her delegate, to do so, and any such storage shall occur only in the manner and location allowed by such CITY official and entirely at CONSULTANT's sole risk.

7. Insurance Requirements. CONSULTANT shall procure and provide proof of the insurance coverage required by this section in the form of certificates and endorsements. The required insurance must cover the activities of CONSULTANT, including its subcontractors, employees and agents, relating to or arising from the performance of any work or service under this Agreement, and must remain in full force and effect at all times during the period covered by this Agreement. The coverages may be arranged under a single policy for the full limits required or by a combination of underlying policies with the balance provided by excess or “umbrella” policies, provided each such policy complies with the requirements set forth herein. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. CONSULTANT further understands that the CITY reserves the right to modify the insurance requirements set forth herein, with thirty (30) days’ notice provided to CONSULTANT, at any time as deemed necessary to protect the interests of the CITY.

7.1. Insurance Types and Amounts.

7.1.1. Commercial General Liability (CGL). CONSULTANT shall maintain CGL against claims and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage providing protection in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.2. Automobile Liability. CONSULTANT shall maintain Automobile Liability covering all owned, non-owned and hired automobiles (if CONSULTANT does not own automobiles, then CONSULTANT shall maintain Hired/Non-owned Automobile Liability) against claims and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage

3 Updated March 2021
providing protection in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.3. Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability. CONSULTANT shall maintain Workers Compensation coverage, as required by law, in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater. If CONSULTANT is self-insured, CONSULTANT shall provide its Certificate of Permission to Self-Insure, duly authorized by the Department of Industrial Relations.

7.1.4. Pollution (Environmental) Liability. If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement involves hazardous materials, contaminated soil disposal, and/or a risk of accidental release of fuel oil, chemicals or other toxic gases or hazardous materials, CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain Pollution Liability covering the CONSULTANT’S liability for bodily injury, property damage and environmental damage resulting from pollution and related cleanup costs arising out of the work or services to be performed under this Agreement. Coverage shall be provided for both work performed on site, as well as during the transport of hazardous materials.

Such coverage shall be in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.5. Professional Liability.

7.1.5.1. If the performance of CONSULTANT’s work or service under this Agreement involves professional and/or technical services (examples include, but are not limited to, architects, engineers, land surveyors, and appraisers), CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain either a claims made or occurrence Errors and Omission liability insurance in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) each claim, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater. Further, if CONSULTANT maintains a claims-made policy, CONSULTANT shall provide written evidence of such insurance to the CITY for at least five (5) years after the completion of work performed under this Agreement.

7.1.5.2. If the performance of CONSULTANT’s work or service under this Agreement relates to Information Technology or related services (examples include, but are not limited to computer programmers, software designers, hardware engineers, or other systems consultants), CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain a claims made Errors and Omission liability insurance, including Cyber Liability and Data Breach, in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) each claim, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

4 Updated March 2021

7.1.6. Sexual Abuse/Molestation Liability (SML): If the performance of CONSULTANT's work or service under this Agreement involves contact with minors, CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain Sexual Abuse and Molestation insurance in the minimum amount of: (i) two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) each claim, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.2. Endorsements. CONSULTANT shall provide proof of the following endorsements, listed for each policy for which endorsements are required, as outlined below:

7.2.1. General Liability and pollution liability (when pollution liability applies).

7.2.1.1. The City of Morgan Hill, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are named as additional insureds;

7.2.1.2. The insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City of Morgan Hill and the CITY’s elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers; and,

7.2.1.3. Insurance shall be primary non-contributing.

7.2.2. Workers Compensation.

If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement involves access to or activity on any property or premises owned or occupied by the CITY, including, but not limited to, CONSULTANT’S presence during site visits and meetings, then insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City of Morgan Hill and the CITY’s elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.

7.3. Qualification of Insurers. All insurance required pursuant to this Agreement must be issued by a company licensed and admitted, or otherwise legally authorized to carry out insurance business in the State of California, and each insurer must have a current A.M. Best's financial strength rating of “A” or better and a financial size rating of “VII” or better.

7.4. Certificates. CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY of Morgan Hill with copies of all certificates as outlined herein, whether new or modified, promptly upon receipt. In the event of a claim or legal action, CONSULTANT shall promptly furnish CITY of Morgan Hill with copies of all policies outlined herein. No policy subject to the CONSULTANT’s agreement with the CITY shall be canceled or materially changed except after thirty (30) days' notice by the insurer to CITY. A "material change" is a change that results in non-compliance with any insurance requirements in this section 7. Certificates, including renewal certificates, may be mailed electronically to [email protected] or delivered to the Certificate Holder address provided herein.

Certificate Holder address:

City of Morgan Hill
Attn: Risk Management
17575 Peak Avenue

5 Updated March 2021
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

8. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the CITY. No official or employee of CITY shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Agreement.

9. Compliance with Law.

9.1. CONSULTANT and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, administrative regulations, and permitting requirements in carrying out their obligations under this Agreement. CONSULTANT and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors covenant there shall be no discrimination based upon race, color, creed, religion, gender, marital status, age, sexual orientation, national origin, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, or ancestry, in any activity pursuant to this Agreement.

9.2. Compliance with Wage and Hour Laws: Consultant, and any subcontractor it employs to complete work under this Agreement, shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local wage and hour laws. Applicable laws may include, but are not limited to, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

Final Judgments, Decisions, and Orders: For purposes of this Section, a “final judgment, decision, or order” refers to one for which all appeals have been exhausted or the time to appeal has expired. Relevant investigatory government agencies include: the federal Department of Labor, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or any other governmental entity or division tasked with the investigation and enforcement of wage and hour laws.

Prior Judgments against CONSULTANT and/or its Subcontractors: BY SIGNING THIS

AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT AFFIRMS THAT IT HAS DISCLOSED ANY FINAL

JUDGMENTS, DECISIONS OR ORDERS FROM A COURT OR INVESTIGATORY GOVERNMENT AGENCY FINDING – IN THE FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT – THAT CONSULTANT OR ITS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) HAS VIOLATED ANY APPLICABLE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. CONSULTANT FURTHER AFFIRMS THAT IT OR ITS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) HAS SATISFIED AND COMPLIED WITH – OR HAS REACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WILL SATISFY – ANY SUCH JUDGMENTS, DECISIONS OR ORDERS.

Judgments or Decisions During Term of Contract: If at any time during the term of this Agreement, a court or investigatory government agency issues a final judgment, decision or order finding that CONSULTANT or an subcontractor it employs to perform work under this Agreement has violated any applicable wage and hour law, or CONSULTANT learns of such a judgment, decision, or order that was not previously disclosed, CONSULTANT shall inform the City Attorney, no more than fifteen (15) days after the judgment, decision or order becomes final or of learning of the final judgment, decision or order. CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall promptly satisfy and comply with any such judgment, decision, or order, and shall provide the City Attorney with documentary evidence of compliance with the final judgment, decision or order within five (5) days of satisfying the final judgment, decision or order. The City reserves the right to require CONSULTANT to enter into an agreement with the City regarding the manner in which any such final judgment, decision, or order will be satisfied.

6 Updated March 2021
City’s Right to Withhold Payment: Where CONSULTANT or any subcontractor it employs to perform work under this Agreement has been found in violation of any applicable wage and hour law by a final judgment, decision or order of a court or government agency, the City reserves the right to withhold payment to CONSULTANT until such judgment, decision or order has been satisfied in full.

Material Breach: Failure to comply with any part of this Section constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Such breach may serve as a basis for immediate termination of this Agreement and/or any other remedies available under this Agreement and/or law.

Notice to City Related to Wage Theft Prevention: Notice provided to the City Attorney as required under this Section shall be addressed to: City Attorney, City of Morgan Hill, 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037. The Notice provisions of this Section are separate from any other notice provisions in this Agreement and, accordingly, only notice provided to the above address satisfies the notice requirements in this Section.

10. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY.

11. Confidentiality. All data, documents, or other information received by CONSULTANT from CITY or prepared in connection with CONSULTANT’S services under this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third party by CONSULTANT without prior written consent by CITY.

12. Conflict of Interest and Reporting. CONSULTANT shall at all times avoid conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest in performance of this Agreement.

13. Notices. All notices shall be personally delivered or mailed, via first class mail to the below listed address. These addresses shall be used for delivery of service of process. Notices shall be effective five (5) days after date of mailing, or upon date of personal delivery.

Address of CONSULTANT is as follows:

Nayan Amin, President
4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Address of CITY is as follows:

Adam Paszkowski
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
with a copy to:

City Clerk
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

14. Licenses, Permits and Fees. CONSULTANT shall obtain a City of Morgan Hill Business License, all permits and licenses to the extent required by ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government.

15. Consultant's Proposal. If applicable, this Agreement shall include CONSULTANT'S proposal or bid which is incorporated herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the proposal and this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern.

7 Updated March 2021

16. Maintenance of Records.

16.1. Maintenance. CONSULTANT shall prepare, maintain, and preserve all reports and records that may be required by federal, state, and CITY rules and ordinances related to services provided under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain records for a period of at least 3 years after receipt of final payment under this Agreement. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, or other action relating to this Agreement is pending at the end of the 3-year period, then CONSULTANT shall retain said records until such action is resolved.

16.2. Access to and Audit of Records. The CITY shall have the right to examine, monitor and audit all records, documents, conditions, and activities of the CONSULTANT and its subcontractors related to services under this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section 8546.7, if this Agreement involves the expenditure of public funds in excess of $10,000, the Parties to this Agreement may be subject, at the request of the CITY or as part of any audit of the CITY, to the examination and audit of the State Auditor pertaining to matters connected with the performance of this Agreement for a period of three years after final payment under the Agreement.

16.3. Ownership of Work Product. All documents or other information developed or received by CONSULTANT for work performed under this Agreement shall be the property of CITY.

CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with copies of these items upon demand or upon termination of this Agreement.

17. Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that: (1) it has investigated the work to be performed; (2) it has investigated the site of the work and is aware of all conditions there; and (3) it understands the difficulties and restrictions of the work under this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT discover any conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by CITY, it shall immediately inform CITY and shall not proceed, except at CONSULTANT'S risk, until written instructions are received from CITY.

18. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

19. No Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any portion shall be assigned by CONSULTANT, without prior written consent of CITY. Any attempted assignment not first approved by CITY shall be void and, at CITY's option, shall terminate this Agreement effective as of the date of such attempted assignment.

20. Attorney Fees. In any legal action, dispute or arbitration arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses incurred.

21. Defense and Indemnification.

21.1. Defense and Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (“INDEMNITEES”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, liens, or damages of any nature, including liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal injury, and including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the performance of this Agreement or the failure to comply with any obligations contained in this Agreement by CONSULTANT, and/or its agents, officers, employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors (“CLAIM”).

8 Updated March 2021

21.2. Exceptions. CONSULTANT is not required to indemnify INDEMNITEES against liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal injury, or any other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY.

21.3. Not limited by insurance. The indemnity, defense and hold harmless provisions of this Agreement apply to all CLAIMs alleged against an INDEMNITEE, regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. Policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification or defense to be provided by CONSULTANT.

21.4. Right to Offset. CITY shall have the right to offset against any compensation due CONSULTANT under this Agreement any amount due CITY from CONSULTANT as a result of CONSULTANT's failure to pay CITY promptly any indemnification arising under this Section (21) and any amount due CITY from CONSULTANT arising from CONSULTANT's failure either to (i) pay taxes on amounts received pursuant to this Agreement or (ii) comply with applicable workers' compensation laws.

21.5. Interpretation. This Section shall constitute an agreement or contract of indemnity, incorporating the interpretations under California Civil Code Section 2778. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligation of the CONSULTANT to indemnify the INDEMNITEE shall be as broad and inclusive as permitted by the laws of the State of California and shall survive termination of this Agreement.

22. Entire Agreement; Modification; Conflicting Provisions. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties and supersedes any previous agreements, oral or written. This Agreement may be modified or provisions waived only by a subsequent mutual written agreement executed by CITY and CONSULTANT. If the provisions contained in the main body of this Agreement conflict with any provision contained in an exhibit to this Agreement, the provisions of the main body of this Agreement shall govern and control over any provision contained in an exhibit to this Agreement.

23. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement was entered into and is to be performed in the County of Santa Clara.

Any action or dispute arising out of this Agreement shall only be brought in Santa Clara County.

24. Interpretation. This Agreement is a negotiated document and shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by the Parties, and no rule of construction or interpretation shall apply against any particular Party based on a contention that the Agreement was drafted by one of the Parties including, but not limited to, California Civil Code § 1654, the provisions of which are hereby waived. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in a neutral manner.

25. Preservation of Agreement. If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected or invalidated.

26. Binding Agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 19 above, this Agreement shall bind any and all successors in interest, legal representatives and/or other permitted assignees or transferees of CONSULTANT in the same manner as if those successors in interest, legal representatives or other permitted assignees or transferees had entered into this Agreement originally.

27. □ Data Sharing. This Agreement requires access by CONSULTANT to CITY’s Geographic Information System (GIS) DATA for CONSULTANT to perform the work. CITY agrees to provide the GIS

9 Updated March 2021
DATA to CONSULTANT solely for the purpose of performance of contracted work with the CITY upon the terms and conditions specified in Exhibit D, incorporated herein by this reference. [Signatures on Next Page]

10 Updated March 2021

28. Authority to Execute. Those individuals who are signing this Agreement on behalf of entities represent and warrant that they are, respectively, duly authorized to sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to each and all of the obligations set forth in this Agreement.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, these Parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year shown below.

AS SET FORTH IN CA. CORP. CODE § 313, TWO SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED FOR CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS:
(1) CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD, PRESIDENT, OR VICE PRESIDENT; AND (2) SECRETARY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OR ASSISTANT TREASURER.

ATTEST: CITY OF MORGAN HILL
City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk City Manager
Michelle Bigelow Christina J. Turner
Print Name Print Name
Date: Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM: TJKM Transportation Consultants
City Attorney By:

Donald A. Larkin
Print Name
Date:

Print Name and Title of Signer.

If Corporate: Chairman, President or
Vice President
Date:

By:

Date:

Print Name and Title of Signer.

If Corporate: Secretary, Assistant
Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or
Assistant Treasurer
U:\Legal Forms\Consultant Agreements\City Standard Consultant Agreement.Docx Nayan Amin
Ruta Jariwala
11/29/21
11/29/21

11 Updated March 2021

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
• Refine the Scope of Work to include any and all services necessary to achieve the project's intent of providing for SB743 implementation that is tailored to the needs and interests of the City of Morgan Hill.
• Evaluate various methodologies and develop a procedure for the City of Morgan Hill to identify VMT, related impacts, including the review and use of available tools for VMT estimation and available travel demand forecasting models.
• Review the Travel Model without the use of additional data. In this task, TJKM will do a quick QA/QC of the travel model that is being used to produce VMT metrics. The main focus of this review will be to understand the trip patterns to and from the city. • Literature Review. Provide substantial evidence to deviate from OPR’s Technical Advisory threshold of significance recommendation of 15% reduction from existing VMT. TJKM will do a thorough literature review and identify cities that deviated from OPR’s recommendation and make a case for why Morgan Hill should fall under that category. • Determine VMT thresholds of significance in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 and SB743. CEQA thresholds should be based on specific parameters based on project proposal and type (rather than number of trips generated by the project). For example, the number of rooms or dwelling units, or square feet of new commercial use. As mentioned, separate VMT thresholds will be setup based on area type.
• Test VMT significance criteria and thresholds (identified above) for existing and proposed land uses, as described in the City’s General Plan and/or Municipal Code; • Identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce VMT by project type and/or develop a methodology to calculate the reduction in impacts; TJKM has recently developed a VMT Mitigation Calculation Tool for Napa County and cities. This lists several project-related and community related mitigation measures. TJKM will use and the VTA Mitigation Tool as a starting point and add more measures if necessary.
• Tailor the Santa Clara VMT Evaluation Tool for the city of Morgan Hill to assess VMT projectspecific and cumulative impacts for development proposals within the City. • Create a simple and comprehensive user guide that describes, in nontechnical language, the newly created VMT criteria and thresholds, including the types of traffic studies that may be needed for typical development proposals.
• Provide training to City staff on VMT thresholds and implementation tools, and tracking methodology for effectiveness of VMT reduction strategies. • A robust community engagement strategy including in-person and virtual attendance, at Planning Commission and City Council public meetings/workshops, during key stages of the project.

TJKM Transportation Consultants
ODCs Total
PIC & QA/QC Project Manager Transportation
Planner
Assistant
Transportation
Planner
Nayan Amin Vamsee Modugula Arthur Chen Divya Gandhi
$250 $230 $120 $115
Refine Scope of Work 4 16 20 $4,680 $4,680
Review Existing Travel Model Procedures 40 30 15 85 $14,525 $14,525 Optional Task - Use Big Data to Update Model 0 $0 $0
Literature Review 40 25 65 $12,200 $12,200
Develop VMT Thresholds 40 10 50 $10,400 $10,400
Test VMT Criteria on Landuses from General Plan 10 10 10 30 $4,650 $4,650 Mitigation Measures 20 10 10 40 $6,950 $6,950
VMT Evaluation Tool 20 10 30 $5,800 $5,800
Documentation 8 8 16 $2,800 $2,800
Training 16 10 26 $4,880 $4,880
Community Engagement 15 40 55 $12,950 $12,950
Proposal Subtotal 19 250 113 35 417 $79,835 0 $79,835
Project Initiation
Evaluate Various Methodologies for VMT
Setup VMT Thresholds
Task Description

EXHIBIT B
Other
Direct
Costs
Total Fee
Labor
Total Labor
Costs
Total
Hours
8/30/2021 1/1

TJKM will complete this project in accordance with the schedule shown below.

Task Description Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 1 Task 1.0: Project Initiation
2 Task 2.0: Evaluate Various
Methodologies for VMT
3 Setup VMT Thresholds

3.1 Literature Review

3.2 Develop VMT Thresholds

3.3 Test VMT criteria on landuses from
General Plan

3.4 Mitigation Measures

3.5 VMT Evaluation Tool

3.6 Documentation

3.7 Training

3.8 Community Engagement
Memos / Reports
Task 1
Task 2 Technical Memorandum on Model Review
Task 3.1
Task 3.2
Task 3.3
Memo on General Plan Landuse
impact analysis
Task 3.4 Memo on Mitigation Measures
Task 3.5 Memo on VMT Evaluation Tool
Task 3.6 Final Documentation, User's guide
Task 3.7 Training sessions / material
Task 3.8
Revised Scope
Memo on literature review
Draft Memo on VMT Thresholds
Final Memo on VMT Thresholds based on comments from Community events

EXHIBIT C

9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Dat Nguyen, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

ADOPT NEW AND UPDATED FEES FOR PLANNING AND LAND

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING, AND APPROVE FUNDING OF TWO

ASSISTANT/ASSOCIATE ENGINEER POSITIONS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Open/Close Public Hearing;

2. Adopt resolution establishing the updated Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees as proposed
in the 2021 NBS Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering; and

3. Approve funding for two Assistant/Associate Engineer positions.

Estimated Time: 30 Minutes

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
REPORT NARRATIVE:

The California Government Code allows cities to recover all or a portion of the cost of providing exchange-based services through the application of fees. In November 2020, the City contracted with NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) to complete a review and evaluation of Planning and Land Development Engineering fees associated with Development Services activities.

Building fees were not included in this study. The user fee study is attached for your reference.

Development user fees reflect the cost to review and process applications and approvals required for new construction, including associated public infrastructure, rehabilitation, and tenant improvements. The fees collected include compensation for time, noticing and meetings, and include planning, building, and engineering services. These activities are intended to be 100% cost recovery, and therefore must be periodically reviewed to account for changes in 9 personnel costs, overhead, internal service charges, and costs for supplies, technology, and services. In addition, recent housing legislation has altered the City's reviewing and approval process, necessitating a review of Development Services fees.

Analysis
The proposed fee schedules included within the NBS report detail the type of fee, the full cost of providing the service related to that fee, the current fee, and the recommended fee based on 100% cost recovery – with the exception of 7 outliers discussed in the following paragraph. A limited number of fees show a proposed decrease over the current fee being assessed. This reflects the current cost of providing those services.

Outliers
While 100% cost recovery is the goal of the special revenue fund, there are instances when a lower recovery amount may be considered. Staff has identified several “outlier” fees for homeowners and non-profits where the cost of service would result in a prohibitive increase.

These “outliers” exist exclusively in the Planning User Fee Study Results and have been subsidized for a number of years. For instance, full cost recovery on Planning Division fee 27.5 “Temporary Use Permit” for Non-Profit users is $4,124. The current fee is $100. This is an increase of 4,024%. City Council may want to consider setting outlier fees at a lower cost recovery amount to encourage participation to achieve other important policy considerations.

The table below details where staff recommends consideration of a fee lower than full cost recovery:

Planning Fee Number & Name Current Fee 100% Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Increase
Proposed
Fee

2.2 Public Appeal Fee
Staff Decision $544 $8,316 1429% $544
Commission/Council Decisions $544 $6,802 1150% $544
20 Residential Private Livestock Permit $761 $2,113 178% $761 25 Tree Removal $109 $1,350 1138% $109

27.1 Administrative Use Permit $1,201 $7,130 494% $1,201

27.5 Temp. Use Permit (Non-Profit) $100 $4,124 4024% $100

27.6 Temp. Use Permit Amendment $1,196 $3,067 156% $1,196 Comparisons to other Cities
The study also compared the proposed fees with five other communities in Santa Clara County:

Gilroy, San Jose, Santa Clara City, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. At full cost recovery, fees are either lower or in line with other communities except for tree removal, administrative and conditional use permits for Planning. As for Land Development Engineering, fees are higher for projects of $200,000 or lower and in line for projects over $200,000 at full cost recovery.

Funding for Two Additional Assistant/Associate Engineer Positions Due to elevated workload in the Land Development Engineering Division, which does not seem to lessen in the near future, as well as continued use of high-cost outside consultants, the study includes the funding of two additional Assistant/Associate Engineer positions. Staff is recommending the City Council approve the funding of these two additional flexible 9 Assistant/Associate Engineer positions. These positions will be funded by the proposed increase in fees and reduction in the use of outside consultants, with the timing of hiring dependent on the City Council approval of the proposed fee increase as well as workload.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Public Notices related to development fee consideration by the City Council have been distributed and advertised in accordance with the provisions of Sections 66016 through 66018 of the California Government Code.

A virtual public meeting with the developers and community members was held on January 6, 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

City Council can choose to adopt the full cost recovery level fees or at a lower than cost recovery level.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

None.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The annual impact on the Development Services Special Revenue Fund is anticipated to be an increase in revenue that will recoup more of the reasonable costs for providing a given service.

There is sufficient funding to fund the new positions for the remainder of FY 2021-22. Future funding for the positions will be presented to the City Council during the next budget cycle.

Should Council adopt the proposed fee schedule on January 19, 2022, new fees would go into effect on March 21, 2022.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project.

The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516
Report for:

Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and
Land Development Engineering
December 13, 2021
City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................3

1.1 Findings .....................................................................................................................3

1.2 Report Format...........................................................................................................2 Introduction and Fundamentals......................................................................................3

2.1 Scope of Study...........................................................................................................3

2.2 Methods of Analysis..................................................................................................3 Planning Division ............................................................................................................8

3.1 Cost of Service Analysis.............................................................................................8

3.2 Fee Establishment .....................................................................................................9

3.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation........................................................................................10

3.4 Comparison Survey..................................................................................................10 Engineering Land Development Division ....................................................................... 11

4.1 Cost of Service Analysis...........................................................................................11

4.2 Fee Establishment ...................................................................................................12

4.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation........................................................................................13

4.4 Comparison Survey..................................................................................................13 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 14 Appendices
Cost of Service Analysis (Fee Tables)
Planning Division Appendix A.1
Engineering Land Development Division Appendix A.2
Comparative Fee Survey
Planning Division Appendix B.1
Engineering Land Development Division Appendix B.2
City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NBS performed a Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering (Study) for the City of Morgan Hill. The purpose of this report is to present the findings and recommendations of the various fee analyses performed as part of the Study and provide the City with the information needed to update and establish user and regulatory fees for service. Throughout the process, the Study afforded much effort to ensure that not only are the fees and charges reasonable and equitable, but that they also meet industry standards and uphold the statutory requirements of the State of California. California cities, counties, and special districts may impose user and regulatory fees for services and activities they provide through provisions set forth in the State Constitution, Article XIII C § 1. Under this legal framework, a fee may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the activity. For a fee to qualify as such, it must relate to a service or activity performed at the request of an individual or entity upon which the fee is imposed, or their actions specifically cause the local government agency to perform additional activities. In this instance, the service or underlying action causing the local agency to perform the service is either discretionary and/or is subject to regulation. As a discretionary service or regulatory activity, the user fees and regulatory fees considered in this Study fall outside of the definition and statutory requirement to impose general taxes, special taxes, and fees a result of property ownership.

The City’s main reason for conducting this Study was twofold: (1) first, to ensure that existing fees do not exceed the costs of service, and (2) second, to provide an opportunity for City Council to re-align fee amounts with the adopted cost recovery policies.

1.1 Findings
This Study examined user and regulatory fees managed by the City’s Planning and Engineering Land Development divisions. The Study identified an estimated $2.02 million in eligible costs for recovery from fees for service compared to approximately $1.52 million the City is currently collecting each year from fees. The following table provides a summary of the Study’s results:

Table 1. Report Summary
As shown in Table 1 above, the City is recovering approximately 75% of the costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee-related services. Should Council adopt fees at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts determined by this Study, an additional $504,000 in costs could be recovered.

Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/ Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Planning $917,815 $1,225,157 ($307,342) 75%
Engineering Land Development $598,115 $795,015 ($196,900) 75% Total $ 1,515,930 $ 2,020,172 $ (504,242) 75%
City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 2 However, as Section 2.2.3 later explains, there may be other local policy considerations that support adopting fees at less than the calculated full cost recovery amount. Since this element of the Study is subjective, NBS provided the maximum potential of fee amounts at 100% full cost recovery for the City to consider. Once City Council has reviewed and evaluated the results of the Study, the City can set appropriate cost recovery levels according to local policy goals and considerations. 1.2 Report Format This report documents the analytical methods and data sources used in the Study, presents findings regarding current levels of cost recovery achieved from user and regulatory fees, and provides a comparative survey of fees to neighboring agencies for similar services. The report is organized into the following sections:  Section 2 - Outlines the general framework, approach, and methodology of the Fee Study.  Sections 3 through 4 - Discusses the results of the cost of service analysis performed by department and/or fee program. The analysis applied considers: (1) the fully burdened hourly rate(s); (2) the calculation of the costs of providing service; and, (3) the cost recovery policies of each fee category.  Section 5 - Presents the conclusions of the analysis provided in the preceding sections.  Appendices to this report - Include additional details of the analysis performed and a comparison of the fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar services.

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 3

INTRODUCTION AND FUNDAMENTALS

2.1 Scope of Study
The following is a summary of the fees evaluated during the Study:
o Planning Division services for zoning, permitted uses, and other processing requests o Engineering Land Development Division, including:  Final map review and approval  Plan Check and Inspection for improvements within the right-of-way  Encroachment permits The fees examined in this report specifically exclude development impact fees, utility rates, and any special tax assessments which fall under a different set of statutory and procedural requirements from the body of user and regulatory fees analyzed in this Study. The Study also excludes facility and equipment rental rates, as well as most fines and penalties imposed by the City for violations of its requirements or codes.1 2.2 Methods of Analysis
Three phases of analysis were completed for each City department, division or section studied:

Primary Components of a Fee Study

2.2.1 COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
This cost of service analysis is a quantitative effort that compiles the full cost of providing governmental services and activities. There are two primary types of costs considered: direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those that specifically relate to an activity or service, including the real-time provision of the service. Indirect costs are those that support the provision of services in general but cannot be directly or easily assigned to a singular activity or service.

Direct Costs:  Direct personnel costs – Salary, wages and benefits expenses for personnel specifically involved in the provision of services and activities to the public. 1 According to the California Constitution Article XII C § 1 (e) (4) and (5), the City is not limited to the costs of service when charging for entrance to or use of government property, or when imposing fines and penalties.

Cost of
Service
Analysis
Fee
Establishment
Cost Recovery
Evaluation
City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 4  Direct non-personnel costs – Discrete expenses attributable to a specific service or activity performed, such as contractor costs, third-party charges, and materials used in the service or activity.

Indirect Costs:  Indirect personnel costs – Personnel expenses supporting the provision of services and activities. This can include line supervision and departmental management, administrative support within a department, and staff involved in technical support activities related to the direct services provided to the public.  Indirect non-personnel costs – Expenses other than labor involved in the provision of services. In most cases, these costs are allocated across all services provided by a department, rather than directly assigned to individual fee/rate categories.  Overhead costs – These are expenses, both labor and non-labor, related to agency-wide support services. Support services include general administrative services such as City Manager, Finance, Human Resources, etc. The amount of costs attributable to the departments or divisions included in this Study were sourced from the City’s Operating Budget. All cost components in this Study use annual (or annualized) figures, representing a twelve-month cycle of expenses incurred by the Division in the provision of all services and activities City-wide.

Nearly all the fees reviewed in this Study require specific actions on the part of City staff to provide the service or conduct the activity. Since labor is the primary underlying factor in these activities, the Study expresses the full cost of service as a fully burdened cost per labor hour. NBS calculated a composite, fully burdened, hourly rate for each department, division, program, or activity applicable to the specific organization and needs of each area studied. This rate serves as the basis for further quantifying the average full cost of providing individual services and activities. Determining the fully burdened labor rate for each department, and the various functional divisions within a department, requires two data sets: (1) the full costs of service, and (2) the number of staff hours available to perform those services. NBS derived the hours available based on the complete list of all City employees and/or available service hours of its contracted professionals (where applicable). The City supplied NBS with the total number of paid labor hours for each employee involved in the delivery of services included in this Study. These available hours represent the amount of productive time available to provide both fee-recoverable and non-fee recoverable services and activities. Available labor hours divided into the annual full costs of service equal the composite, fully burdened, labor rate. Some agencies may also use the resulting rates for purposes other than setting fees, such as calculating the full cost of general services or structuring a cost recovery agreement with another agency or third party.

NBS also assisted the City in estimating the staff time for the services and activities listed in the City’s fee schedule. Time tracking records for the fee programs studied as part of this analysis, when available, proved useful in identifying time spent providing general categories of service (e.g., division administration, plan review, inspection, public information assistance, etc.). However, the City does not systematically track the service time of activities for all departments or all individual fee-level services provided. Therefore, NBS also relied on interviews and questionnaires to develop the necessary data sets City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 5 of estimated labor time. In many cases, the City provided estimates of the average amount of time (in minutes and hours) it took to complete a typical service or activity considered on a per-occurrence basis.

It should be noted that the development of these time estimates was not a one-step process but required careful review by both NBS and department managers to assess the reasonableness of such estimates.

Based on the results of this review, the City reconsidered its time estimates until all parties were comfortable that the fee models reasonably reflected the average service level provided by the City. Finally, the fully burdened labor rate(s) calculated in earlier steps were applied at the individual fee level time estimates, yielding an average total cost of providing each fee for service or activity. The graphic below provides a visual representation of the steps discussed in this section.

Available Work
Hours
Total Time on
Task per Fee
Maximum
(100% Cost
Recovery)
Fee
Amount
Labor
Costs
Operating
Costs
Overhead
Costs [ ]
Step 1:

Calculate
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Step 2:

Cost of
Service
Analysis
City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 6

2.2.2 FEE ESTABLISHMENT
The fee establishment process includes a range of considerations, including the following:  Addition to and deletion of fees – The Study provided each department with the opportunity to propose additions and deletions to their current fee schedules, as well as re-name, re- organize, and clarify which fees were to be imposed. Many of these fee revisions allowed for better adherence to current practices, as well as the improvement in the calculation, application, and collection of the fees owed by an individual. Some additions to the fee schedule were simply the identification of existing services or activities performed by City staff for which no fee is currently charged.  Revision to the structure of fees – In most cases, the focus was to re-align the fee amount to match the costs of service and leave the current structure of fees unchanged. However, in several cases, fee categories and fee names had to be simplified or re-structured to increase the likelihood of full cost recovery or to enhance the fairness of how the fee is applied to the various types of fee payers.  Documentation of the tools used to calculate special cost recovery – The City’s fee schedule should include the list of fully burdened rates developed by the Study. Documenting these rates in the fee schedule provides an opportunity for the City Council to approve rates for cost recovery under a “time and materials” approach. It also provides clear publication of those rates so that all fee payers can readily reference the basis of any fee amounts. The fee schedule should provide language that supports special forms of cost recovery for activities and services not included in the adopted master fee schedule. In these rare instances, published rates are used to estimate a flat fee or bill on an hourly basis, which is at the department director’s discretion. 2.2.3 COST RECOVERY EVALUATION The NBS fee model compares the existing fee for each service or activity to the average total cost of service quantified through this analysis. Here are the possible outcomes of the fee analysis:  Cost recovery rate of 0% - This signifies that there is currently no current recovery of costs from fee revenues (or insufficient information available for evaluation).  Cost recovery rate of 100% - This means that the fee currently recovers the full cost of service.  Cost recovery rate between 0% and 100% - This indicates partial recovery of the full cost of service through fees.  Cost recovery rate greater than 100% - This means that the fee exceeds the full cost of service. User fees and regulatory fees should not exceed the full cost of service.

In all cases, the cost recovery rate achieved by a fee should not be greater than 100%. In most cases, imposing a fee above this threshold could change the definition of the charge from a cost of service based fee to a tax which has other procedural requirements, such as ballot protest or voter approval.

This report provides the City with the 100% full cost recovery fee calculation. The City can use the results to implement each fee at 100% or less based upon its broader local policy goals.

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 7

2.2.4 COMPARATIVE FEE SURVEY
Appendix B presents the results of the Comparative Fee Survey for the City. Policy makers often request a comparison of their jurisdictional fees to those of surrounding or similar communities. The purpose of a comparison is to provide a sense of the local market pricing for services, and to use that information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments.

In this effort, NBS worked with the City to choose five comparative agencies – Gilroy, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. It is important to keep the following in mind when interpreting the general approach to, and use of, comparative survey data:  Comparative surveys do not provide information about cost recovery policies or procedures inherent in each comparison agency.  A “market-based” decision to price services below the full cost of service calculation is the same as deciding to subsidize that service.  Comparative agencies may or may not base their fee amounts on the estimated and reasonable cost of providing services. NBS did not perform the same level of analysis of the comparative agencies’ fees.  The results of comparative fee surveys are often non-conclusive for many fee categories.

Comparison agencies typically use varied terminology for the provision of similar services.

NBS made every reasonable attempt to source each comparison agency’s fee schedule from their respective websites and compile a comparison of fee categories and amounts for the most readily comparable fee items that match the City’s existing fee structure.

2.2.5 DATA SOURCES
The following data sources were used to support the cost of service analysis and fee establishment phases of this Study:  The City’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22  A complete list of all City personnel, salary/wage rates, regular hours, paid benefits, and paid leave amounts provided by the Finance Department  Prevailing fee schedules  Annual workload data provided by each department and/or fee program evaluated in the Study
The City’s adopted budget serves as an important source of information that affects the cost of service results. NBS did not audit or validate the City’s financial documents and budget practices, nor was the cost information adjusted to reflect different levels of service or any specific, targeted performance benchmarks. This Study accepts the City’s budget as a legislatively adopted directive describing the most appropriate and reasonable level of City spending. NBS consultants accept the City Council’s deliberative process and the City’s budget plan and further assert that through this legislative process, the City has yielded a reasonable and valid expenditure plan to use in setting cost-based fees.

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 8

PLANNING DIVISION
The The Planning Division performs a variety of services intended to protect, maintain, and develop an attractive, safe, and healthy environment. Responsibilities include:  Property development and land use activities occurring in the City  Provide direction and leadership in implementing the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan as adopted by the City Council  Orderly development of the City and the administration of various land use regulations, including the zoning code, design review ordinances, sign code, and the cultural resources preservation ordinance.  Technical assistance and staff support to the Planning Commission. 3.1 Cost of Service Analysis The following table shows the Planning Division’s estimated full cost of providing services on an annual basis and the fully burdened cost per hour developed for cost recovery purposes through fees for services. Table 2. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
As Table2 above shows, the total cost of providing services is approximately $1.85 million per year. However, the results of the cost of service analysis identified $1.19 million in costs for recovery from the City’s fees for service with the remaining $668,000 recommended for recovery through funding sources other than fees. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate of $235 during business hours, and $270 outside of business hours. Based on interviews with Division staff, the analysis segregated the total cost of services into three primary services categories: (1) Public Counter/General Information; (2) Strategic Initiative/Special Projects; and, (3) Current Planning - Direct Permitting Services. In order to clarify the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, here is a summary of the descriptions for each cost category:

Expenditure Type
Public Counter /
General
Information
Strategic
Initiatives /
Special Projects
Current Planning -
Direct Services
Total
Labor $ 294,568 $ 22,909 $ 511,080 $ 828,557
Recurring Non-Labor 78,726 31,123 136,590 246,438
Citywide Overhead 74,723 5,811 129,645 210,179
Allocated Common Activities 198,579 26,525 344,538 569,642 Division Total $ 646,595 $ 86,368 $ 1,121,852 $ 1,854,816 Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 10% 0% 100% 64%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees $ 64,660 $ - $ 1,121,852 $ 1,186,512 Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 581,936 86,368 - $ 668,304 Cost per Direct Hour Recoverable from Fees for Service $ 13 $ 222 $ 235 Overtime Rate $ 270
Reference: Direct Hours Only 5,055
Functional Activities / Cost Pools
City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 9  Public Counter/General Information – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and general information requests that support the development review process. Typically, some portion of costs for the provision of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees and are considered a basic function of governmental services to the public. Planning staff estimated that approximately 10% of these costs support land use application review activities, while the remaining costs should not be considered in the calculation of fees for services.  Strategic Initiative/Special Projects – Planning Staff participate in a variety of strategic initiative and special programs that do not apply toward recovery from fee revenues. These services are funded through a variety of sources, including the General Fund, penalties, hourly billings, or enterprise fund revenues.  Current Planning - Direct Services – The Division’s responsibilities are comprised mostly of development review and approval; therefore, 100% of these costs are recoverable from its routine fees for service.

The fully burdened hourly rate involves significant analytical and policy-related decisions regarding the inclusion of categorized activity costs. The decision to either include or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters set forth by industry standard fee calculation methods and the California State Constitution. State statutes require that any new fee that is levied or any existing fee that is increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied. 3.2 Fee Establishment The following is a summary of the overall changes to the Planning Division’s fee schedule:  Deletion of fees that are no longer used or needed, such as Review of Engineering Plans which was moved to the Engineering Land Development fee schedule;  Reorganization of fee categories or clarification of fee names to create a more user-friendly fee structure; and,  Addition of new fee categories, such as Business License Zoning Review.2 In addition to the Planning Division’s costs, this analysis also includes support costs from other departments who directly review and provide comments on planning applications and user fee services.

Engineering, Building, Fire, Housing and Police also participate in the review of Planning’s applications and their costs have been included with the Planning cost to show the full cost of providing Planning applications and fees. A detailed cost analysis for Engineering was performed by NBS and is provided in the next report chapter. Costs for Building, Fire, Housing and Police were provided by the City’s Finance Department.
2 Refer to Section 2.2, Methods of Analysis, for additional discussion on the Study’s approach to adding, deleting, and revising fee categories.

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 10

3.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.1 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Planning Division. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.

Currently, the Division is recovering approximately 74% of the total cost of providing services from fees.

As Table 3 shows, the City collects approximately $918,000 per year in revenue at the current fee amounts. At full cost recovery and the same demand level for these services, the City would recover approximately $1.2 million. Table 3. Cost Recovery Outcomes NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the Planning Division, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below the full cost. Recommended fee amounts, either at or below the full cost recovery fee amount, can be found in the City’s Staff Report to Council.

3.4 Comparison Survey
As discussed in section 2.2.4, Comparative Fee Survey, NBS compared the City’s current list of fees to those of 5 comparison agencies selected by the City. While the results of the comparative fee surveys are often non-conclusive for many fee categories due to comparison agencies typically using varied terminology for the provision of similar services, NBS made every reasonable attempt to source each comparison agencies fee schedule.

Based on this analysis, the City’s current fees are lower than the other agencies surveyed in the area(s) of:

Development Agreements, Environmental Review, Subdivision Maps, and Tree Removal Permits. The fees are in line in the areas of: Design Permits, General Plan Amendments, Signs, Administrative Use Permits, and Zoning Requests. At full cost recovery, the City’s fees for services such as Tree Removal Permits, Administrative and Conditional Use Permits, and Variances would be the highest of all agencies surveyed, with all other fees at full cost recovery being lower or in line with other agency fee schedules.

Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/ Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Planning $917,815 $1,225,157 ($307,342) 75%
City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 11

ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
The Engineering Land Development Division provides development review / inspection services. It oversees all construction activities that pertain to the infrastructure constructed by developers within the City. This division checks, approves, and keeps for the public record all improvement plans prepared by developers for their projects. It reviews all private land development activities for conformance with City standards, and checks and approves all maps in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act.

4.1 Cost of Service Analysis
The following table shows the Engineering Land Development Division’s estimated full cost of providing services on an annual basis and the fully burdened cost per hour.

Table 4. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
As Table above shows, the total cost of providing services is approximately $1.88 million per year. However, the results of the cost of service analysis only identified $1.8 million in cost for recovery from the City’s fees for service with the remaining $85,000 recommended for recovery through funding sources other than fees. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate of $230 during business hours, and $265 outside of business hours. Based on interviews with Division staff, the analysis segregated the total cost of services into seven primary services categories: (1) Planning – Direct Fee Related Services; (2) Building – Direct Fee Related Services; (3) Engineering – Direct Fee Related Services; (4) Flood Program Administration; (5) Public Counter Duty/General Information; (6) Consultant Contract Administration; and, (7) On-going Special Projects/Process Improvements. In order to clarify the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, here is a summary of the descriptions for each cost category:  Planning – Direct Fee Related Services – Engineering Staff’s review and approval of the Planning Division’s current planning activities and active permits. 100% of these costs are recoverable from Engineering’s routine fees for service.  Building – Direct Fee Related Services – Engineering Staff’s review and approval of the Building Division’s active permits. 100% of these costs are recoverable from Engineering’s routine fees for service.

Expenditure Type
Planning -
Direct Fee
Related
Services
Building -
Direct Fee
Related
Services
Engineering -
Direct Fee
Related
Services
Flood
Program
Admin
Public
Counter
Duty/Gen
Info
Consultant
Contract
Admin
On-going
Special Projects
/ Process
Improvements
Total
Labor $ 48,860 $ 88,626 $ 761,145 $ 16,973 $ 51,804 $ 13,507 $ 15,185 $ 915,605 Recurring Non-Labor 7,616 13,816 415,051 2,646 8,075 2,106 2,367 439,129 Citywide Overhead 3,378 6,127 52,617 1,173 3,581 934 1,050 63,294 Allocated Common Activities 14,481 26,267 297,292 5,030 15,353 4,003 4,500 343,070 Division Total $ 74,334 $ 134,835 $ 1,526,105 $ 25,823 $ 78,814 $ 20,549 $ 23,102 $ 1,883,564 Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 100% 100% 100% 0% 30% 90% 90% 95% Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees $ 74,334 $ 134,835 $ 1,526,105 $ - $ 23,644 $ 18,494 $ 20,792 $ 1,798,206 Amount Requiring Another Funding Source - - - 25,823 55,170 2,055 2,310 $ 85,358 Cost per Direct Hour Recoverable from Fees for Service $ 10 $ 17 $ 195 $ - $ 3 $ 2 $ 3 $ 230 Overtime Rate $ 265
Reference: Direct Hours Only 7,817
City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 12  Engineering – Direct Fee Related Services – Engineering Staff’s review and approval of Land Development permit activities. 100% of these costs are recoverable from Engineering’s routine fees for service.  Flood Program Administration – Engineering Staff’s efforts related to the City’s Floodplain Management Program to ensure private land development activities and capital improvement projects located in 100-year flood hazard areas comply with the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance which is based on the minimum construction standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)..  Public Counter Duty / General Information — Activities associated with responding to phone calls and general information requests that support the development review process. Typically, some portion of costs for the provision of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees and are considered a basic function of governmental services to the public. Engineering staff estimated that approximately 10% of these costs support land use application review activities, while the remaining costs should not be considered in the calculation of fees for services.  Consultant Contract Administration – Engineering staff support, process and administer a number of contracts. These costs have not been included in the recovery from engineering and zoning review fees.  On-going Special Projects/ Process Improvements— Staff participate in a variety of special projects and the ongoing maintenance of the Division’s internal projects and functions. These activities do not apply toward recovery from fee revenues. These services are funded through a variety of sources, including the General Fund, penalties, hourly billings, or enterprise fund revenues. The fully burdened hourly rate involves significant analytical and policy-related decisions regarding the inclusion of categorized activity costs. The decision to either include or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters set forth by industry standard fee calculation methods and the California State Constitution. State statutes require that any new fee that is levied or any existing fee that is increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied. 4.2 Fee Establishment The following is a summary of the overall changes to the Engineering Land Development Division’s fee schedule:  Deletion of fees that are no longer used or needed;  Reorganization of fee categories or clarification of fee names to create a more user-friendly fee structure, such as Engineering & Inspection was changed into separate Public Improvement Plan Check and Inspection fees; and,  Addition of new fee categories, notated as “New” in the Current Fee column of Appendix A.2.

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 13 In addition to the Engineering Division’s costs, this analysis also includes support costs from other departments who directly review and provide comments on Land Development applications and user fee services. Planning, Building, Environmental Services, Maintenance and Utilities also participate in the review of Engineering’s applications and their costs have been included with the Engineering costs to show the full cost of providing Engineering applications and fees. A detailed cost analysis for Planning is provided in the previous chapter. Costs for Building, Environmental Services, Maintenance and Utilities were provided by the City’s Finance Department.

4.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.2 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Engineering Division. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.

Currently, the Division is recovering approximately 75% of the total cost of providing services from fees.

As Table 5 shows, the City collects approximately $598,000 per year in revenue at the current fee amounts. At full cost recovery and the same demand level for these services, the City would recover approximately $795,000. Table 5. Cost Recovery Outcomes NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the Engineering Division, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below the full cost. Recommended fee amounts, either at or below the full cost recovery fee amount, can be found in the City’s Staff Report to Council.

4.4 Comparison Survey
As discussed in section 2.2.4, Comparative Fee Survey, NBS compared the City’s current list of fees to those of 5 comparison agencies selected by the City. While the results of the comparative fee surveys are often non-conclusive for many fee categories due to comparison agencies typically using varied terminology for the provision of similar services, NBS made every reasonable attempt to source each comparison agencies fee schedule.

Based on this analysis, the City’s current fees are lower than the other agencies surveyed for Public Improvement Plan Check & Inspection for projects $100,000 and under, but are higher than other agencies surveyed for projects $100,000 or higher. At full cost recovery the City’s fees for projects $200,000 or less would be higher than the other agencies surveyed, but projects over $200,000 would be more in line. Map check fees are inline with the other agencies surveyed.

Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/ Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Engineering Land Development $598,115 $795,015 ($196,900) 75% City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 14

CONCLUSION
Based on the outcomes of the Cost of Service Analysis, Fee Establishment, and Cost Recovery Evaluation presented in this Study, the City has prepared a proposed Master Fee Schedule for implementation and included it in the City’s Staff Report.

As discussed throughout this report, the intent of the proposed fee schedule is to improve the City’s recovery of costs incurred to provide individual services, as well as adjust fees where the fees charged exceed the average costs incurred. Predicting the amount to which any adopted fee increases will affect City revenues is difficult to quantify. For the near-term, the City should not count on increased revenues to meet any specific expenditure plan. Experience with the revised fee amounts should be gained first before revenue projections are revised. However, unless there is some significant, long-term change in activity levels at the City, proposed fee amendments should enhance the City’s cost recovery performance over time, providing it the ability to stretch other resources further for the benefit of the public at-large.

The City’s Master Fee Schedule should become a living document, but handled with care:  A fundamental purpose of the fee schedule is to provide clarity and transparency to the public and to staff regarding fees imposed by the City. Once adopted by the City Council, the fee schedule is the final word on the amount and method in which fees should be charged and supersedes all previous fee schedules. If it is discovered that the master document is missing certain fees, those fees will eventually need to be added to the master fee schedule and should not exist outside the consolidated, master framework.  The City should consider adjusting these user fees and regulatory fees on an annual basis to keep pace with cost inflation. For all fees and charges, for example, the City could use a Consumer Price Index adjustment that is applied to the new fee schedule. Conducting a comprehensive user fee Study is not an annual requirement, and only becomes worthwhile over time as shifts in organization, local practices, legislative values, or legal requirements result in significant change.

As a final note, it is worth mentioning the path that fees, in general, have taken in the State of California. In recent years, there is more public demand for the precise and equitable accounting of the basis for governmental fees and a greater say in when and how they are charged. It is likely that into the future, user and regulatory fees will require an even greater level of analysis and supporting data to meet the public’s growing expectations. An agency’s ability to meet these new pressures will depend on the level of technology they invest in their current systems. Continuous improvement and refinement of time tracking abilities will greatly enhance the City’s ability to set fees for service and identify unfunded activities in years to come.

Disclaimer: In preparing this report and the opinions and recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a number of principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial matters, conditions and events that may occur in the future. This information and assumptions, including the City’s budgets, time estimate data, and workload information from City staff, were provided by sources we believe to be reliable; however, NBS has not independently verified such information and assumptions.

While we believe NBS’ use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of this report, some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein and may vary significantly due to unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be expected to vary from those projected to the extent that actual future conditions differ from those assumed by us or provided to us by others.

Prepared by NBS for the City of Morgan Hill
APPENDIX A.1
Cost of Service Analysis – Planning
City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 Appendix A.1
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Plng Eng [25] Bldg [26] Fire [26] Housing [26] Police [26] $ 235 $ 230 $ 204 $ 204 $ 172 $ 164 PLANNING DEPARTMENT [27] 1 ANNEXATION 92.00 8.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 106.00 $ 24,587 $ 12,357 50% 0 $ - $ - 1.2 LAFCO Processing 120.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 120.00 $ 28,167 $ 10,696 38% 0 $ - $ - Plus additional fees collected by other agencies
LAFCO fee $1,154 plus SBE fees
2 APPEALS
Commission/Board Decisions 2.1 Applicant Appeal 32.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.50 $ 8,316 $ 6,905 83% 1 $ 6,905 $ 8,316

2.2 Public Appeal 32.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.50 $ 8,316 $ 544 7% 0 $ - $ - Staff Decisions 2.1 Applicant Appeal 28.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 $ 6,802 $ 5,699 84% 0 $ - $ - 2.2 Public Appeal 28.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 $ 6,802 $ 544 8% 0 $ - $ - 3 APPROVAL AMENDMENT 3.1 Major Approval Amendment (Non Admin - s/b Major) 30.50 19.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 55.50 $ 12,682 $ 8,209 65% 3 $ 24,627 $ 38,046

3.2 Minor Approval Amendment (Admin - s/b Minor) [7] 18.00 10.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 31.00 $ 7,101 $ 4,505 63% 2 $ 9,010 $ 14,203 4 CC&Rs 4.1 CC&Rs 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 $ 1,160 $ 522 45% 0 $ - $ - Plus City Attorney Fees Actual Cost

4.2 Other Agreements / Documents Review 2.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 $ 469 $ 522 111% 0 $ - $ - Plus City Attorney Fees Actual Cost
5 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES [1] Consultant Portion Actual Cost City's Portion 15% GIS/Tech 5%
6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 6.1 Alteration (Major - $10,000+ valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs) [12] 21.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.50 $ 5,047 $ 1,304 26% 0 $ - $ -

6.2 Alteration (Minor - under $10,000 valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs) [11] 1.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 $ 352 $ 391 111% 0 $ - $ -

6.3 Demolition or Relocation (Formerly Alteration) 21.50 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.50 $ 5,737 $ 5,719 100% 0 $ - $ - 6.4 Designation 32.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 $ 7,511 $ 8,348 111% 0 $ - $ - Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Estimated Volume of Activity
Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis
Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Notes
Cost of Service Per Activity
Current Fee
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 1 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 Appendix A.1
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Plng Eng [25] Bldg [26] Fire [26] Housing [26] Police [26] $ 235 $ 230 $ 204 $ 204 $ 172 $ 164
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Estimated Volume of Activity
Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis
Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Notes
Cost of Service Per Activity
Current Fee
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
7 DESIGN PERMIT 7.1 Landscape Plan Review Only 10.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 $ 2,347 $ 2,609 111% 0 $ - $ - 7.2 Non-Residential Design Permit (Major) [9] 40.00 31.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.50 75.50 $ 17,418 $ 7,968 46% 12 $ 95,616 $ 209,020

7.3 Non-Residential Design Permit (Minor) 24.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 41.50 $ 9,574 $ 4,917 51% 4 $ 19,668 $ 38,296

7.4 Plan Detail Review (misc. site details, e.g., lighting, trash encl.) 8.42 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.42 $ 1,976 $ 2,198 111% 0 $ - $ - 7.5 Residential Design Permit - 6 units or less 32.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.50 $ 11,624 $ 7,446 64% 2 $ 14,892 $ 23,248

7.6 Residential Design Permit - 7 units to 15 units 38.00 21.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 62.50 $ 14,412 $ 9,494 66% 1 $ 9,494 $ 14,412

7.7 Residential Design Permit - 16 or more units each additional 25 units [8] 47.00 25.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 79.00 $ 18,107 $ 11,803 65% 6 $ 70,818 $ 108,643

7.8 Site Plan Only (no new square footage) 16.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 $ 6,286 $ 6,102 97% 0 $ - $ - 8 DESIGN REVIEW (PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW) [21] 8.1 Conceptual Plan Review (Staff) 17.50 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 27.50 $ 6,232 $ 4,603 74% 5 $ 23,015 $ 31,160

8.2 Non-Residential (Major) Preliminary Plan Review to PC 30.00 10.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 43.00 $ 9,914 $ 8,490 86% 2 $ 16,980 $ 19,828

8.3 Non-Residential (Minor) Preliminary Plan Review to PC [9] 20.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 30.00 $ 6,877 $ 5,438 79% 0 $ - $ - 8.4 Residential SB330 Preliminary Application Review (staff) 42.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55.00 $ 12,673 $ 11,437 90% 6 $ 68,622 $ 76,037

8.5 Residential - 6 units or less Preliminary Plan Review to PC 20.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 33.00 $ 7,509 $ 5,359 71% 0 $ - $ - 8.6 Residential - 7 units or more Preliminary Plan Review to PC [8] 30.00 13.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 47.00 $ 10,776 $ 8,191 76% 1 $ 8,191 $ 10,776 9 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/RDCS [13] 9.1 Non Residential Development Agreement [14] 52.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 $ 12,206 $ 7,043 58% 2 $ 14,086 $ 24,412 Residential Development Agreement 9.2 Filed Concurrent with Other Entitlement Applications [15] 52.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 $ 12,206 $ 10,957 90% 0 $ - $ - 9.3 Filed Alone - Non Concurrent with Other Applications (Includes RDCS Compliance Monitoring 0 - 3 Yrs.) [16] 57.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 $ 13,379 $ 12,261 92% 0 $ - $ -

9.4 RDCS Compliance Monitoring - each year after 3 years 10.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 $ 2,347 $ 2,609 111% 0 $ - $ - 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA) 10.1 Environmental Impact Report 92.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 111.00 $ 25,966 $ 22,120 85% 0 $ - $ - 10.2 Expanded Initial Study 52.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 $ 14,966 $ 16,221 108% 19 $ 308,199 $ 284,359

10.3 Historic Assessments - Historical Consultant (Deposit) [17] Actual Cost

10.4 Historic Assessments - Staff-level [17] 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 $ 4,648 $ 2,609 56% 0 $ - $ - NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 2 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 Appendix A.1
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Plng Eng [25] Bldg [26] Fire [26] Housing [26] Police [26] $ 235 $ 230 $ 204 $ 204 $ 172 $ 164
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Estimated Volume of Activity
Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis
Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Notes
Cost of Service Per Activity
Current Fee
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total

10.5 Initial Environmental Assessment [2] 8.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 $ 2,108 $ 2,308 109% 0 $ - $ - 10.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Per Year) [6, 18] 5.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 $ 1,174 $ 1,304 111% 0 $ - $ - 11 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPROVALS 11.1 Administrative 8.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.50 $ 1,995 $ 2,217 111% 0 $ - $ - 11.2 Non Administrative 15.25 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.25 $ 3,580 $ 3,457 97% 1 $ 3,457 $ 3,580 12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12.1 Land Use Diagram Amendment 62.50 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.50 $ 16,511 $ 17,333 105% 0 $ - $ - 12.2 Text Amendment 32.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 $ 9,352 $ 7,080 76% 5 $ 35,400 $ 46,758 13 HABITAT PLAN FEES (SC VALLEY) 13.1 Habitat Plan Related Reviews 2.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 $ 469 $ 522 111% 0 $ - $ - 14 HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE [5] 15 MINOR EXCEPTION 12.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.75 $ 2,990 $ 3,306 111% 0 $ - $ - 16 OPEN SPACE IN·LlEU FEE (Per 20 Dwellings) [5] 17 OUT OF AGENCY CONTRACT FOR SERVICES 17.1 City staff [3] 41.75 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.75 $ 9,800 $ 10,892 111% 0 $ - $ - Plus additional fees collected by other agencies Actual Costs 18 PLANNING CONSULTATION - hourly 1.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 235 $ 261 111% 0 $ - $ - 19 REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS
Determined
by Planning Director - billed at hourly rate
19 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM (RDCS) 19.1 Preliminary Measure S Review 28.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.50 $ 6,920 $ 8,541 123% 0 $ - $ - 19.2 Final Measure S Review (RDCS) 109.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 126.00 $ 29,496 $ 31,534 107% 0 $ - $ - 19.3 RDCS Extension 13.50 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.00 $ 3,974 $ 4,296 108% 0 $ - $ - 19.4 RDCS Appeal 31.50 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.50 $ 8,084 $ 8,881 110% 0 $ - $ - NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 3 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 Appendix A.1
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Plng Eng [25] Bldg [26] Fire [26] Housing [26] Police [26] $ 235 $ 230 $ 204 $ 204 $ 172 $ 164
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Estimated Volume of Activity
Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis
Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Notes
Cost of Service Per Activity
Current Fee
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
20 RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE LIVESTOCK PERMIT 9.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 $ 2,113 $ 761 36% 0 $ - $ - 21 REVERSION TO ACREAGE PROCESSING 12.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 $ 2,934 $ 3,261 111% 0 $ - $ - 22 SIGN REVIEW

22.1 Alteration to existing Sign [19] 0.75 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 $ 176 $ 391 222% 0 $ - $ - 22.2 Sign Review Over the Counter - Copy Change 1.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 235 $ 261 111% 0 $ - $ - 22.3 New Sign Permit - First Sign 1.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 $ 352 $ 391 111% 6 $ 2,346 $ 2,113

22.4 Each additional Sign 0.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 $ 117 $ 130 111% 0 $ - $ - 22.5 New Sign within a Master Sign Program 0.75 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 $ 176 $ 196 111% 10 $ 1,960 $ 1,760

22.6 Subdivision/Real Estate Tract Signs [20] 3.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 $ 704 $ 783 111% 0 $ - $ - 22.7 Temporary/Promotional Signs 0.25 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 $ 59 $ 65 111% 1 $ 65 $ 59

22.8 Uniform Sign Program 14.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 $ 3,404 $ 3,783 111% 1 $ 3,783 $ 3,404 23 SUBDIVISION

23.1 Tentative Parcel Map Review - 4 lots or less 22.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 $ 6,774 $ 4,948 73% 4 $ 19,792 $ 27,097 Tentative Subdivision Map Review

23.2 5 to 15 lots 26.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 $ 9,093 $ 6,434 71% 3 $ 19,302 $ 27,280

23.3 16 - 25 lots 34.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 $ 11,431 $ 8,072 71% 0 $ - $ - 23.4 26 lots or more - each additional 25 lots 42.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 $ 14,229 $ 8,072 57% 1 $ 8,072 $ 14,229 24 TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT CREDIT (TDC) [10] 24.1 Application Fee 35.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.50 $ 8,333 $ 9,261 111% 0 $ - $ - 25 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 5.75 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.75 $ 1,350 $ 109 8% 12 $ 1,308 $ 16,196 26 URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 26.1 City Processing 57.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 $ 15,220 $ 15,511 102% 0 $ - $ - 26.2 LAFCO Processing 120.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120.00 $ 28,167 $ 26,434 94% 0 $ - $ - 26.3 Plus Additional Fees Collected by Other Agencies LAFCO fee $11,574
plus Actual Costs
27 USE PERMIT 27.1 Administrative Use Permit 24.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 31.00 $ 7,130 $ 1,201 17% 1 $ 1,201 $ 7,130 NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 4 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 Appendix A.1
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Plng Eng [25] Bldg [26] Fire [26] Housing [26] Police [26] $ 235 $ 230 $ 204 $ 204 $ 172 $ 164
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Estimated Volume of Activity
Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis
Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Notes
Cost of Service Per Activity
Current Fee
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
Conditional Use Permit 27.2 New Construction 40.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 49.00 $ 11,293 $ 9,533 84% 1 $ 9,533 $ 11,293

27.3 No New Construction 40.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 47.00 $ 10,833 $ 9,091 84% 0 $ - $ - 27.4 Temporary Use Permit 14.50 8.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 25.00 $ 5,734 $ 3,025 53% 1 $ 3,025 $ 5,734

27.5 Temporary Use Permit (Non-Profit) 14.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 18.00 $ 4,124 $ 100 2% 1 $ 100 $ 4,124

27.6 Temporary Use Permit Amendment 10.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 13.50 $ 3,067 $ 1,196 39% 1 $ 1,196 $ 3,067 28 VARIANCE 40.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 43.25 $ 10,052 $ 8,514 85% 1 $ 8,514 $ 10,052 29 WILLIAMSON ACT 29.1 Cancelation 48.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 $ 11,267 $ 12,522 111% 0 $ - $ - 29.2 New 26.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 $ 6,103 $ 3,131 51% 0 $ - $ - 29.3 Non-Renewal 4.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 $ 939 $ 1,044 111% 0 $ - $ - 30 ZONING REQUESTS [22] 30.1 Planned Development 64.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 72.00 $ 16,749 $ 10,629 63% 4 $ 42,516 $ 66,995

30.2 Residential Planned Development Review 64.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 70.50 $ 16,375 $ 13,186 81% 0 $ - $ -

30.3 Residential Planned Development (if processed concurrently with subdivision) 41.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 $ 10,314 $ 9,142 89% 0 $ - $ -

30.4 Zoning Map Amendment Review 45.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 $ 11,023 $ 8,557 78% 2 $ 17,114 $ 22,046

30.5 Zoning Map Amendment Review (If processed concurrently with GPA or ANX) 36.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 $ 8,910 $ 3,241 36% 0 $ - $ -

30.6 Zoning Text Amendment Review 48.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 $ 11,727 $ 10,980 94% 4 $ 43,920 $ 46,908

30.7 Zoning Confirmation Letter 6.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.50 $ 1,526 $ 1,696 111% 3 $ 5,088 $ 4,577 31 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICES 31.1 City Council Meeting [24] 7.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 $ 2,103 $ 2,268 108% 0 $ - $ - 31.2 LAFCO Meeting - each additional 7.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.00 $ 1,643 $ 1,826 111% 0 $ - $ - 31.3 Planning Commission Meeting [23] 7.50 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.50 $ 2,221 $ 2,178 98% 0 $ - $ - Public Noticing 31.4 Up to 50 0.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.25 $ 59 $ 66 112% 0 $ - $ - 31.5 Over 50 0.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.25 $ 59 $ 78 133% 0 $ - $ - 31.6 Envelopes Actual Costs 31.7 Postage
Actual Costs
NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 5 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 Appendix A.1
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Plng Eng [25] Bldg [26] Fire [26] Housing [26] Police [26] $ 235 $ 230 $ 204 $ 204 $ 172 $ 164
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Estimated Volume of Activity
Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis
Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Notes
Cost of Service Per Activity
Current Fee
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total

31.8 Public Noticing (publication) [23] 7.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.50 $ 1,760 $ - 0% 0 $ - $ - 32 OTHER SERVICE CHARGES [1] 32.1 Annual Charge for Entire PC Packet $ 122.00

32.3 Document Printing/Copying (per page) $ 0.10

32.4 Oversized Copy 24X36 (per page) $ 2.26

32.5 Oversized Copy 18X26 (per page) $ 2.01

32.6 Oversized Copy 24X36 (Color) (per page) $ 2.93

32.7 Oversized Copy 11X17 (per page) $ 0.55

32.8 Other Oversized Copies n/a 32.9 Electronic Search of the Public Records see City Clerk 32.1 Record Research Service (Deposit Required) - hourly 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.00 $ 235 $ 251 107% 0 $ - $ - 33 MAPS [1] 33.1 General Plan (Color) $ 13.00

33.2 Zoning and Boundary $ 8.00
34 Business License Zoning Review

34.1 Home Based Business 0.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.50 $ 117 $ 130 111% 0 $ - $ - 34.2 All Other Types 0.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.50 $ 117 $ 130 111% 0 $ - $ - 35 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule 35.1 During Business Hours 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.00 $ 235 $ 251 107% 0 $ - $ - 35.2 After Business Hours 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.00 $ 270 $ 251 93% 0 $ - $ - TOTAL PLANNING $ 917,815 $ 1,225,157 NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 6 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 Appendix A.1
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Plng Eng [25] Bldg [26] Fire [26] Housing [26] Police [26] $ 235 $ 230 $ 204 $ 204 $ 172 $ 164
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Estimated Volume of Activity
Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis
Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Notes
Cost of Service Per Activity
Current Fee
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total Notes
[1] Fees set by City policy. NBS did not evaluate.
[2] Plus County and Fish and Game fees
[3] Plus any LAFCO Fees
[4] Maximum fee set by State Law
[5] Impact Fee, Not analyzed as part of the fee study
[6] Mitigation measures implemented prior to or through the Building Permit process should be incorporated into other fees. [7] 17.20.190 – Amendments to Approved Tentative Map. Defines what minor is. Major is other than minor. [8] Up to 4 structures not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area (no use of hazardous materials) [9] Projects greater than 10,000 square feet in floor area [10] Required by Hillside Combining District - 18.44 MHMC [11] 18.60.070B2a - Minor is under $10,000 valuation. If public hearing (Planning Commission) required then need to pay separate fees to cover. [12] 18.60.070B2b - Major is over $10,000 valuation. If public hearing (Planning Commission) required then need to pay separate fees to cover. [13] Development Agreements include 1 Planning Commission and 1 City Council Hearing [14] This fee should be for a non-RDCS DA. Does not include Attorney time, which could be significant for one-off DA's. [15] RDCS DA when processed concurrently with other entitlement application(s) w/ monitoring fee built-in. Does not include Attorney time. [16] RDCS DA w/ monitoring fee built-in. Does not include Attorney time. [17] Per Morgan Hill Municipal Code 18.60.060B "Evaluations shall be prepared by a qualified consultant…" [18] Applied to projects with long-term monitoring (i.e., after building permit final). Cost each year of monitoring [19] This covers reviews that are beyond copy change, but not new signs. We may just require a new Sign Permit at this stage if we require anything. [20] This is for tract sales signs that are on and/or off-site [21] Includes a Planning Commission hearing
[22] Requires both Planning Commission and City Council hearings; assumption is one PC one CC. [23] For each Planning Commission Hearing (if not built-into application fees) [24] For each City Council Hearing (if not built-into application fees) [25] Hourly Rate taken from Engineering Hourly Rate Table [26] Hourly Rate provided by City Finance Department
[27] All fees are flat fee unless otherwise noted in the description NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 7 of 7 Prepared by NBS for the City of Morgan Hill
APPENDIX A.2
Cost of Service Analysis – Engineering
City of Morgan Hill Appendix A.2
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Eng Plng Bldg Enviro Svcs Maint Utilities
$ 230 $ 235 $ 204 $ 175 $ 141 $ 171
Land Development Engineering 1 Public Improvement - Plan Check $ 50,000
base fee up to
$50,000 62.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.00 2.00 67.25 $ 15,161 $ 6,650 44% 1 $ 6,650 $ 15,161 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 $ - 133.00 0% 61 $ 8,113 $ - $ 100,000
base fee @
$100,000 62.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.00 2.00 67.25 $ 15,161 $ 13,300 88% 1 $ 13,300 $ 15,161 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.030 0.27 $ 57.41 118.00 206% 0 $ - $ - $ 200,000
base fee @
$200,000 84.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 4.00 5.00 93.75 $ 20,902 $ 23,600 113% 2 $ 47,200 $ 41,804 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.070 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.007 0.007 0.09 $ 18.52 103.00 556% 303 $ 31,209 $ 5,612 $ 500,000
base fee @
$500,000 105.25 0.00 1.00 0.00 6.00 7.00 119.25 $ 26,459 $ 51,500 195% 2 $ 103,000 $ 52,918 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.05 $ 10.22 88.00 861% 757 $ 66,616 $ 7,736 $ 1,000,000
base fee @
$1,000,000 124.75 0.00 1.00 0.00 8.00 9.00 142.75 $ 31,569 $ 88,000 279% 1 $ 88,000 $ 31,569 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0003 0.01 $ 2.90 88.00 3030% 1623 $ 142,824 $ 4,713 $ 5,000,000
base fee @
$5,000,000 174.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 8.00 10.00 193.50 $ 43,184 $ 440,000 1019% 0 $ - $ - each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.002 0.04 $ 8.64 88.00 1019% 0 $ - $ - 2 Public Improvement - Inspection
$ 50,000
base fee up to
$50,000 87.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.50 $ 20,129 n/a 0% 1 $ - $ 20,129 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 $ - n/a 0% 61 $ - $ - $ 100,000
base fee @
$100,000 87.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.50 $ 20,129 n/a 0% 1 $ - $ 20,129 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.540 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.54 $ 124.22 n/a 0% 0 $ - $ - $ 200,000
base fee @
$200,000 141.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 141.50 $ 32,551 n/a 0% 2 $ - $ 65,101 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.517 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.52 $ 118.85 n/a 0% 303 $ - $ 36,013 $ 500,000
base fee @
$500,000 296.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 296.50 $ 68,207 n/a 0% 2 $ - $ 136,414 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.458 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.46 $ 105.36 n/a 0% 757 $ - $ 79,756 $ 1,000,000
base fee @
$1,000,000 525.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 525.50 $ 120,886 n/a 0% 1 $ - $ 120,886 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 $ 16.85 n/a 0% 1623 $ - $ 27,348 $ 5,000,000
base fee @
$5,000,000 818.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 818.50 $ 188,288 n/a 0% 0 $ - $ - each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 $ 37.66 n/a 0% 0 $ - $ - 3 GIS / Technology Fee flat
5% of Public
Improvement Fee
5% of Public
Improvement Fee
Activity Service Cost Analysis
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
Estimated Volume of Activity [1]
Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Current Fee
Existing Cost
Recovery % Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type Cost of Service Per Activity NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering COS, 1 of 4 City of Morgan Hill Appendix A.2
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Eng Plng Bldg Enviro Svcs Maint Utilities
$ 230 $ 235 $ 204 $ 175 $ 141 $ 171
Activity Service Cost Analysis
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
Estimated Volume of Activity [1]
Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Current Fee
Existing Cost
Recovery % Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type Cost of Service Per Activity 4 Map Check
Parcel Map flat 35.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 $ 8,725 $ 6,029 69% 1 $ 6,029 $ 8,725 Tract Map/Subdivision Map (Service No. 149) flat 41.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 $ 10,309 $ 9,627 93% 0 $ - $ - 5 Certificate of Compliance - Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger flat 29.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 $ 6,875 $ 3,914 57% 0 $ - $ - 6 Parcel Map - Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger flat 30.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.25 $ 7,396 $ 3,151 43% 0 $ - $ - 7 Public Easement Review flat 13.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.50 $ 3,106 $ 2,645 85% 3 $ 7,935 $ 9,317 8 Street Vacation flat 39.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 $ 8,972 $ 203 2% 0 $ - $ - 9 Easement Abandonment flat 39.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 $ 8,972 $ 4,654 52% 0 $ - $ - 10 Plan Revision (after approval of Public Improvement Plans) T & M (Min 2 hrs) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 230 $ 530 230% 0 $ - $ - 11 Reimbursement Agreement flat 21.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.50 $ 4,946 $ 2,292 46% 0 $ - $ - 12 FEMA Compliance Base Fee New Structure flat 3.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.25 $ 965 $ 423 44% 1 $ 423 $ 965 New Accessory Structure and New ADU flat 2.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.25 $ 735 $ 423 58% 0 $ - $ - Improvement of Existing Structure
Non-Substantial Improvement without Detailed Review per structure 1.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 $ 549 $ 423 77% 0 $ - $ - Non-Substantial Improvement with Detailed Review per structure 2.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 $ 779 $ 423 54% 0 $ - $ - Substantial Improvement (other than accessory structure) per structure 5.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50 $ 1,252 $ 423 34% 0 $ - $ - Substantial Improvement of Accessory Structure and ADU per structure 3.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.75 $ 850 $ 423 50% 0 $ - $ - Additional Review Fees Elevation Certificate Review per structure 2.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 $ 633 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Flood Field Inspection flat 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 $ 575 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Flood Study Review with Valley Water Coordination flat 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.50 $ 1,495 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Review of CLOMR/CLOMR-F/LOMR/LOMR-F flat 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 $ 920 $ 2,328 253% 0 $ - $ - Public Outreach for LOMR/LOMR-F flat 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 $ 1,380 $ 847 61% 0 $ - $ - Review of BFE Determination for Zone A without a BFE or Zone D flat 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 $ 460 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - 13 Stormwater Runoff Management Plan Review Tier 1 Project flat 11.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.50 $ 2,645 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Tier 2 Project flat 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 $ 6,901 $ 2,963 43% 5 $ 14,815 $ 34,506 Tier 3 Project flat 43.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 $ 9,892 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Tier 4 Project flat 52.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 $ 11,962 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - 14 Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Review & Compliance
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects < 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 $ 518 $ 787 152% 3 $ 2,361 $ 1,553 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.75 $ 863 $ 1,269 147% 5 $ 6,345 $ 4,313 Type 3 Projects flat 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 $ 403 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Type 4 Projects flat 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 $ 288 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering COS, 2 of 4 City of Morgan Hill Appendix A.2
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Eng Plng Bldg Enviro Svcs Maint Utilities
$ 230 $ 235 $ 204 $ 175 $ 141 $ 171
Activity Service Cost Analysis
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
Estimated Volume of Activity [1]
Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Current Fee
Existing Cost
Recovery % Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type Cost of Service Per Activity 15 Stormwater Construction Inspections
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects < 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat 29.25 0.00 0.00 14.00 0.00 0.00 43.25 $ 9,179 $ 12,695 138% 1 $ 12,695 $ 9,179 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat 43.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 $ 16,367 $ 12,695 78% 0 $ - $ - Type 3 Projects flat 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.45 $ 93 $ 68 73% 0 $ - $ - Type 4 Projects flat 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.45 $ 93 $ 68 73% 0 $ - $ - 16 Stormwater BMP Operations & Maintenance Agreement flat 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 $ 2,070 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - 17 Private Sanitary Sewer Agreement flat 11.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.50 $ 2,645 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - 18 Assessment District Reapportionment City Staff flat 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 $ 2,760 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Contractor Costs actual costs Actual Costs $ 5,000 19 Preliminary Review on Projects / Engineering Services flat 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 $ 2,300 $ 2,030 88% 20 $ 40,600 $ 46,008 20 Additional Plan Review (after 3rd submittal) hourly
(min 2 hrs) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 230 $ 203 88% 0 $ - $ - 21 Re-Inspection Fee hourly
(min 4 hrs) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 230 $ 203 88% 0 $ - $ - 22 Complexity Fee flat 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 $ 2,760 $ 2,436 88% 0 $ - $ - 23 FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) Annual Reporting flat 54.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 $ 12,422 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - 24 Agreement Extensions / Improvement Agreement Amendments With City Manager Approval flat 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 $ 2,876 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - With City Council Approval flat 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.00 $ 4,371 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - 25 Citywide Inspection for Construction or Stormwater Improvements flat See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
26 Building Grading Support flat
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check
27 NPDES - above and below 1 acre. Put in tier. flat
See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
28 Private Street Review flat
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check
NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering COS, 3 of 4 City of Morgan Hill Appendix A.2
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Eng Plng Bldg Enviro Svcs Maint Utilities
$ 230 $ 235 $ 204 $ 175 $ 141 $ 171
Activity Service Cost Analysis
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
Estimated Volume of Activity [1]
Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Current Fee
Existing Cost
Recovery % Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type Cost of Service Per Activity 29 Preliminary Fee Estimate flat 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 $ 345 $ 305 88% 0 $ - $ - 30 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule During Business Hours per hour 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 230 $ 255 111% 0 $ - $ - After Business Hours per hour 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 265 $ 255 96% 0 $ - $ - TOTAL ENGINEERING $ 598,115 $ 795,015 Notes [1] Activity related to Public Improvement Plan Check & Inspection is based on the number of valuation increments, rather than number of projects.

NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering COS, 4 of 4 Prepared by NBS for the City of Morgan Hill
APPENDIX B.1
Comparative Fee Survey – Planning
City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 ANNEXATION $ 12,357 $ 24,531 $15,910 + Attorney Costs no comparison available $37,898 + $4,536 $ 37,950 no comparison available 1.2 LAFCO Processing $ 10,696 $ 28,167 Plus additional fees collected by other agencies
LAFCO fee $1,154 plus SBE fees LAFCO fee $1,154 plus SBE fees 2 APPEALS Commission/Board Decisions 2.1 Applicant Appeal $ 6,905 $ 8,292

2.2 Public Appeal $ 544 $ 8,292
Staff Decisions 2.1 Applicant Appeal $ 5,699 $ 6,795

2.2 Public Appeal $ 544 $ 6,795
3 APPROVAL AMENDMENT 3.1 Major Approval Amendment (Non Admin - s/b Major) $ 8,209 $ 12,548 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 10,844 no comparison available 3.2 Minor Approval Amendment (Admin - s/b Minor) $ 4,505 $ 7,031 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 813 no comparison available 4 CC&Rs 4.1 CC&Rs $ 522 $ 1,138 Plus City Attorney Fees Actual Cost Actual Cost 4.2 Other Agreements / Documents Review $ 522 $ 469 Plus City Attorney Fees Actual Cost Actual Cost 5 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES Consultant Portion Actual Cost Actual Cost City's Portion 15% 15% GIS/Tech 5% 5%
6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 6.1
Alteration (Major - $10,000+ valuation) (plus Planning
Commission costs) $ 1,304 $ 5,047 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available

6.2 Alteration (Minor - under $10,000 valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs) $ 391 $ 352 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available

6.3 Demolition or Relocation (Formerly Alteration) $ 5,719 $ 5,716 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 6.4 Designation $ 8,348 $ 7,511 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
$600 per application +
publication costs
$2,540 + publishing costs
$ 611
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available Env Det/Protest of Zoning by
Non-Applicant: $250
By Applicant: $12,058
Non-Applicant: $11,808
Hist. Preservation: $100
$ 3,910
Non-Applicant Resident: $477
All Others: $9,543
Non-Public Hearing Decision:
$206
Appeal of Zoning Admin/Plng
Commission Decision: $206
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available See Environmental Impact
Report
See Environmental Impact
Report
no comparison available no comparison available See Environmental Impact Report
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 1 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
7 DESIGN PERMIT 7.1 Landscape Plan Review Only $ 2,609 $ 2,347

7.2 Non-Residential Design Permit (Major) $ 7,968 $ 17,200

7.3 Non-Residential Design Permit (Minor) $ 4,917 $ 9,468

7.4 Plan Detail Review (misc. site details, e.g., lighting, trash encl.) $ 2,198 $ 1,976

7.5 Residential Design Permit - 6 units or less $ 7,446 $ 11,518

7.6 Residential Design Permit - 7 units to 15 units $ 9,494 $ 14,265

7.7 Residential Design Permit - 16 or more units each additional 25 units $ 11,803 $ 17,931

7.8 Site Plan Only (no new square footage) $ 6,102 $ 6,209 8 DESIGN REVIEW (PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW) 8.1 Conceptual Plan Review (Staff) $ 4,603 $ 6,190

8.2 Non-Residential (Major) Preliminary Plan Review to PC $ 8,490 $ 9,844

8.3 Non-Residential (Minor) Preliminary Plan Review to PC $ 5,438 $ 6,828

8.4 Residential SB330 Preliminary Application Review (staff) $ 11,437 $ 12,610

8.5 Residential - 6 units or less Preliminary Plan Review to PC $ 5,359 $ 7,446

8.6 Residential - 7 units or more Preliminary Plan Review to PC $ 8,191 $ 10,685 9 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/RDCS 9.1 Non Residential Development Agreement $ 7,043 $ 12,206 Residential Development Agreement 9.2 Filed Concurrent with Other Entitlement Applications $ 10,957 $ 12,206

9.3 Filed Alone - Non Concurrent with Other Applications (Includes RDCS Compliance Monitoring 0 - 3 Yrs.) $ 12,261 $ 13,379

9.4 RDCS Compliance Monitoring - each year after 3 years $ 2,609 $ 2,347 no comparison available
Architectural and Site Review
Residential: New - $7,295 - First lot
$540/ea add'l flatland tract
$1,160/ea add'l hillside lot
New Hillside Lot - $4,090
Remodel - $735
Commercial: New - $8,900 - First 5k s.f.
$695/ea add'l 10k s.f.

Remodel: $4,065
Industrial: New - $5,125 - First 10k s.f.
$290/ea add'l 10k s.f.

Remodel: $2,130
$17,250 minimum deposit
Architectural Review: Major Project - $13,380 dep
Minor Project (ARB) - $9,073/ea
Minor Project (Staff Review) -
$3,483/ea
Site and Design Major:
$29,358 per deposit
$7,105.10 each
Development Agreement -
$9,200 per deposit
Development Agreement: Annual
Review - $3,221 per deposit
Architectural Review
Staff Review OTC: no charge
SFD going to DRH: $893
New Dev/Non SFD: $32,529 Consultant Review: Actual Cost + Admin Cost Pre-Application:

SFD - $476
Planning Review - $3,179
Project Clearance Committee
Review - $5,422
$32,529 Amendment or Cancellation: $10,844
Up to 2 units: $7,753 + $928
3-24 Units: $505 + $60 ea
25 units: $19,378 + $2,139
26-99 units: $87 + $10 ea
100 Units: $25,839 + $3,092
101-499 units: $9 + $1 ea
500 units: $30,145 + $3,608
501+ units: $59 + $7 ea
Development Agreement:
$18,301 + $2,190
Agreement Annual
Monitoring:
$12,274 + $1,469
no comparison available
Development Agreement:
$6,664
Minor Mod: $3,332
Annual Review: $1,666
$2,038 - $4,001
$ 1,030
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 2 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA) 10.1 Environmental Impact Report $ 22,120 $ 25,832 $19,820 minimum (15% of contract price) + publishing costs $ 21,840 $ 32,529
10% min of consulting fee
($1,727 min)

10.2 Expanded Initial Study $ 16,221 $ 14,882 $9,415 min fee + publishing costs no comparison available $ 16,264 $ 917

10.3 Historic Assessments - Historical Consultant (Deposit) Actual Cost Actual Cost no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available

10.4 Historic Assessments - Staff-level $ 2,609 $ 4,577 Neighborhood: $3,560 Site: $3,890
Application: $326.30
Minor: $1,305.10
Major: $1,957.60
$3,500 + $418 SFD - $893
All Others - $10,844 $240 - $586

10.5 Initial Environmental Assessment $ 2,308 $ 2,101 no comparison available Actual Costs + 25% of contract $ 936 no comparison available no comparison available

10.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Per Year) $ 1,304 $ 1,174 no comparison available EIR - $4,784 per deposit MND - $1,594 per deposit
Plan Prep (10 hrs) - $3,120
Prior to Const - $1,248
Post Const - $312/hr
no comparison available no comparison available
11 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPROVALS 11.1 Administrative $ 2,217 $ 1,995 $ 380 Hourly Rate 2,368 + 283 50% of Application Fee $ 917

11.2 Non Administrative $ 3,457 $ 3,580 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 50% of Application Fee no comparison available 12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12.1 Land Use Diagram Amendment $ 17,333 $ 16,454 $15,575 - First 10 acres
$100/ea add'l 10 acres +
publishing costs
no comparison available $18,292 + $2,189

12.2 Text Amendment $ 7,080 $ 9,295 $10,710 + publishing costs no comparison available $18,292 + $2,189 13 HABITAT PLAN FEES (SC VALLEY) 13.1 Habitat Plan Related Reviews $ 522 $ 469 $1,150 base fee. $1,350+ for
permits processed by City
consultants no comparison available $ 936 no comparison available no comparison available 14 HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE [1] N/A no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 15 MINOR EXCEPTION $ 3,306 $ 2,987 $ 1,235 no comparison available $6,673 + $798 no comparison available no comparison available 16 OPEN SPACE IN·LlEU FEE (Per 20 Dwellings) [1] N/A no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 17 OUT OF AGENCY CONTRACT FOR SERVICES 17.1 City staff $ 10,892 $ 9,800 Plus additional fees collected by other agencies Actual Costs Actual Costs 18 PLANNING CONSULTATION - hourly $ 261 $ 235 no comparison available no comparison available $312/hr no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available
Consultant Prepared - Actual Costs + 25% of contract Staff Prepared - $6,518 per deposit
no comparison available
SFD - $2,710
Up to 1 acre - $21,686
1-5 acres: $32,529
5+ acres: $37,950
no comparison available
$ 6,664
no comparison available no comparison available
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 3 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
19 REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS
Determined
by Planning Director - billed at hourly rate
Determined
by Planning Director - billed at hourly rate
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM (RDCS) 19.1 Preliminary Measure S Review $ 8,541 $ 6,913 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19.2 Final Measure S Review (RDCS) $ 31,534 $ 29,376 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19.3 RDCS Extension $ 4,296 $ 3,949 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19.4 RDCS Appeal $ 8,881 $ 8,063 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 20 RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE LIVESTOCK PERMIT $ 761 $ 2,113 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 21 REVERSION TO ACREAGE PROCESSING $ 3,261 $ 2,934 no comparison available no comparison available $1,291 + $154 no comparison available no comparison available 22 SIGN REVIEW

22.1 Alteration to existing Sign $ 391 $ 176

22.2 Sign Review Over the Counter - Copy Change $ 261 $ 235

22.3 New Sign Permit - First Sign $ 391 $ 352

22.4 Each additional Sign $ 130 $ 117

22.5 New Sign within a Master Sign Program $ 196 $ 176

22.6 Subdivision/Real Estate Tract Signs $ 783 $ 704

22.7 Temporary/Promotional Signs $ 65 $ 59

22.8 Uniform Sign Program $ 3,783 $ 3,404
$126 - first 25 s.f.
$29/each add'l 25 s.f.

ARB Review - $4,550.30 per app
Exceptions - $4,749.40 per app
Signs, Minor Facade Changes,
Landscaping, Accessory
Structures, or Similar Minor
Changes to a Building Exterior -
$1,088.60 per app
Temporary Sign Permit - $201.10
each
Single Sign: $215 + $25
Multiple Signs: $109 + $13 per
add'l sign
Temp Sign: No Fee
Perm Sign: $171
Master Sign Agreement: $917
Master Sign Minor Mod: $416
Individual - $317
Each add'l - $78
Temp: $78
Temp removal - $135
Master Prog - $4,066
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 4 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
23 SUBDIVISION

23.1 Tentative Parcel Map Review - 4 lots or less $ 4,948 $ 6,725 $7,355 - First 4 lots
$145/each add'l lot + publishing
costs $ 16,264 $ 3,059
Tentative Subdivision Map Review

23.2 5 to 15 lots $ 6,434 $ 9,002

23.3 16 - 25 lots $ 8,072 $ 11,326

23.4 26 lots or more - each additional 25 lots $ 8,072 $ 14,095 24 TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT CREDIT (TDC) 24.1 Application Fee $ 9,261 $ 8,333 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 25 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT $ 109 $ 1,350 $ 300 no comparison available Dead/Unsuitable Tree: $234 +
$28
($30 + $3 each add'l)
Live Tree: SFD - $2,028 + $242
All Other - $2,340 + $280
Heritage: $10,336 + $1,237
Heritage Tree: $758
Tree Removal: $310
Tree Removal w/Cert Arborist
Report: $171
26 URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 26.1 City Processing $ 15,511 $ 15,163 no comparison available $18,292 + $2,189 no comparison available no comparison available 26.2 LAFCO Processing $ 26,434 $ 28,167

26.3 Plus Additional Fees Collected by Other Agencies
LAFCO fee $11,574 plus Actual Costs LAFCO fee $11,574 plus Actual Costs 27 USE PERMIT 27.1 Administrative Use Permit $ 1,201 $ 7,101 Special Use Permit: $1,200 deposit no comparison available $3,138 + $375 Conditional Use Permit 27.2 New Construction $ 9,533 $ 11,265

27.3 No New Construction $ 9,091 $ 10,819

27.4 Temporary Use Permit $ 3,025 $ 5,678

27.5 Temporary Use Permit (Non-Profit) $ 100 $ 4,117

27.6 Temporary Use Permit Amendment $ 1,196 $ 3,060
Flower vendors, model homes,
const. trailers - $350
All others - $925 min
$5,275 + publishing costs
$13,995 - First 12 lots
$115/ea add'l flatland lot
$500/ea add'l hillside lot
+ publishing costs
$27,785 - First 10 Acres
$165/ea add'l 10 acres
+ publishing costs & LAFCO fees
Director Level: $7,499/ea
Additional Upon Hearing:
$12,571.60
no comparison available
Day Care Center: $186
Temp Use (Minor) - $1,489.80/ea
no comparison available
Up to 10 lots: $8,183 + $979
11-49 lots: $21 + $2 ea
50 lots: $9,044 + $1,051
51-249 lots: $6 + $0.72 ea
250 lots: $10,336 + $1,237
251+ lots: $40 + $4 ea
$17,113 + $2048
SUP: Existing SFD - $5,637 + $674
$5,018 + $346 per lot
no comparison available
SFH/DUP: $502
5+ lots: $21,686
Minor Use: $5,725
Standard Use: $13,251
no comparison available
5+ Parcels: Final Map - $6,077/ea
Tentative Map - $11,238/dep Minor: Final Parcel - $5,082.80/ea Prelim Parcel - $6,089.30/ea
Minor w/Exception:

Final Parcel: $3,721.30/ea
Prelim Parcel - $9,630/ea
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 5 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
28 VARIANCE $ 8,514 $ 10,046 $5,185 + publishing costs
Director Level: $4,790.40/ea
Additional Upon Hearing:
$12,571.60/ea
$6,673 + $798 Single Family: $3,187
All Others: $13,251
SFH/DUP: $502
All Others: $1,884
29 WILLIAMSON ACT 29.1 Cancelation $ 12,522 $ 11,267

29.2 New $ 3,131 $ 6,103

29.3 Non-Renewal $ 1,044 $ 939
30 ZONING REQUESTS 30.1 Planned Development $ 10,629 $ 16,714

30.2 Residential Planned Development Review $ 13,186 $ 16,354

30.3 Residential Planned Development (if processed concurrently with subdivision) $ 9,142 $ 10,293

30.4 Zoning Map Amendment Review $ 8,557 $ 11,009

30.5 Zoning Map Amendment Review (If processed concurrently with GPA or ANX) $ 3,241 $ 8,896

30.6 Zoning Text Amendment Review $ 10,980 $ 11,713 $7,085 + publishing costs $ 24,397

30.7 Zoning Confirmation Letter $ 1,696 $ 1,526 Hourly rate + Direct Cost Hourly Rate $430 + $51 to $4,951 + $592 depending on type $ 463 $ 118
31 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICES 31.1 City Council Meeting $ 2,268 $ 2,089 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 31.2 LAFCO Meeting - each additional $ 1,826 $ 1,643 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 31.3 Planning Commission Meeting $ 2,178 $ 2,206 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 4,001 Public Noticing 31.4 Up to 50 $ 66 $ - no comparison available

31.5 Over 50 $ 78 $ - no comparison available 31.6 Envelopes Actual Costs Actual Costs no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 31.7 Postage Actual Costs Actual Costs no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $5,520 + $3,000 atty fees deposit
+ publishing costs
$5,060 - First 10 acres
$120/ea add'l 10 acres +
publishing costs
$ 13,875 Planned Community Zone
Change: $9,570 per deposit
Minor Change: $1,956 per
deposit
Zone Change Regular: $7,973 per
deposit
App: $12,164 + $1,456
Cancellation/Mod: $22,070 +
$2641
Renoticing: $171
500 ft radius: $368
1,000 ft rad: $1,157
2,000 ft rad: $2,368
no comparison available
no comparison available
Single Family: $119
Non-Single Fam: $1,084
no comparison available
Single lot to R1: $8,338
Non-PD: $18,930
PD: $54,215
PD-Master Community:
$65,058
Up to 2 units: $11,484 +
$1,374
3-24 Units: $112 + $13 ea
25 units: $14,102 + $1,688
26-99 units: $315 + $37 ea
100 Units: $37,752 + $4,518
101-499 units: $37 + $4 ea
500 units: $52,325 + $6,263
501+ units: $106 + $12 ea
Adjacent (15 notices): $167
300 ft rad (275): $515
500 ft rad (475): $975
1,000 ft rad (1,200): $2,136
Each add'l: $0.74
150 ft Radius - $667.90
600 ft Radius - $1,172.70
Beyond 600 ft Radius - $1,563.60
no comparison available
$ 2,514
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 6 of 7 City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale

31.8 Public Noticing (publication) $ - $ 1,760
$330 for zoning and General Plan Amendments $220 for all other applications no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 32 OTHER SERVICE CHARGES 32.1 Annual Charge for Entire PC Packet $ 122.00 $ 122.00

32.3 Document Printing/Copying (per page) $ 0.10 $ 0.10

32.4 Oversized Copy 24X36 (per page) $ 2.26 $ 2.26

32.5 Oversized Copy 18X26 (per page) $ 2.01 $ 2.01

32.6 Oversized Copy 24X36 (Color) (per page) $ 2.93 $ 2.93

32.7 Oversized Copy 11X17 (per page) $ 0.55 $ 0.55

32.8 Other Oversized Copies n/a n/a 32.9 Electronic Search of the Public Records see City Clerk see City Clerk 32.1 Record Research Service (Deposit Required) - hourly $ 251 $ 235 Hourly rate + Direct cost Hourly Rate $ 312 no comparison available no comparison available 33 MAPS 33.1 General Plan (Color) $ 13.00 $ 13.00 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 33.2 Zoning and Boundary $ 8.00 $ 8.00 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 34 Business License Zoning Review

34.1 Home Based Business $ 130 $ 117 $ 70 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 34.2 All Other Types $ 130 $ 117 $30 - $370 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 35 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule 35.1 During Business Hours $ 251 $ 235 Hourly Rate no comparison available $ 312 no comparison available no comparison available 35.2 After Business Hours $ 251 $ 270 $550 + $175/hr after 3 hours no comparison available $ 312 no comparison available $ 193 Notes: [1] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule. NBS did not evaluate. no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 7 of 7 Prepared by NBS for the City of Morgan Hill
APPENDIX B.2
Comparative Fee Survey – Engineering
City of Morgan Hill
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.2
Fee Comparison
Land Development Engineering 1 Public Improvement - Plan Check $ 50,000
base fee up to
$50,000 $ 6,650 $ 15,161
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 133 $ - $ 100,000 base fee @
$100,000 $ 13,300 $ 15,161
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 118 $ 57.41 10.5% of total cost $ 200,000 base fee @
$200,000 $ 23,600 $ 20,902
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 103 $ 18.52 $ 500,000
base fee @
$500,000 $ 51,500 $ 26,459
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 88 $ 10.22 $ 1,000,000
base fee @
$1,000,000 $ 88,000 $ 31,569
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 88 $ 2.90 $ 5,000,000
base fee @
$5,000,000 $ 440,000 $ 43,184
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 88 $ 8.64 2 Public Improvement - Inspection
$ 50,000
base fee up to
$50,000 n/a $ 20,129
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ - $ 100,000 base fee @
$100,000 n/a $ 20,129
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 124.22 10.5% of total cost $ 200,000 base fee @
$200,000 n/a $ 32,551
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 118.85 $ 500,000
base fee @
$500,000 n/a $ 68,207
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 105.36 $ 1,000,000
base fee @
$1,000,000 n/a $ 120,886
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 16.85 $ 5,000,000
base fee @
$5,000,000 n/a $ 188,288
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 37.66 Comparison Agencies
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Gilroy
City of Morgan Hill
Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale

12.6% of total cost

8.4% of total cost

12.6% of total cost

8.4% of total cost
First $24,999 - $9,518
$25k-$49,999 - $9,518 +

14.5% over $25k
$50k-$99,999 - $13,058 +

21.8% over $50k
$100k-$199,999 - $23,958 +

12.38% over $100k
$200k-$499,999 - $36,332 +

7.98% over $200k
$500k-$999,999 - $60,201 +

6.90% over $500k
$1,000,000+ - $94,786 +

5.63% over $1mm
First $24,999 - $9,518
$25k-$49,999 - $9,518 +

14.5% over $25k
$50k-$99,999 - $13,058 +

21.8% over $50k
$100k-$199,999 - $23,958 +

12.38% over $100k
$200k-$499,999 - $36,332 +

7.98% over $200k
$500k-$999,999 - $60,201 +

6.90% over $500k
$1,000,000+ - $94,786 +

5.63% over $1mm
$1 - $5,999: $721
$6,000 - $25,999: $741 + 9.3% of
value greater than $6,000
$26,000 - $100,999: $2,581 + 11.8%
of value greater than $26,000
$101,000+: $11,431 + 9.3% of value
greater than $100,000
$1 - $5,999: $721
$6,000 - $25,999: $741 + 9.3% of
value greater than $6,000
$26,000 - $100,999: $2,581 + 11.8%
of value greater than $26,000
$101,000+: $11,431 + 9.3% of value
greater than $100,000
Street Improvements:

Res - $105.51/front ft
Comm - $223.78/front ft
Industrial - $161.08/front ft
Street Curbing: $38.49/ front
ft Sidewalk: $15.35/sf
Sanitary Sewers: $38.37/front
ft Storm Drains: $38.37/front ft
Street Improvements:

Res - $105.51/front ft
Comm - $223.78/front ft
Industrial - $161.08/front ft
Street Curbing: $38.49/ front
ft Sidewalk: $15.35/sf
Sanitary Sewers: $38.37/front
ft Storm Drains: $38.37/front ft
Up to $10k - $5,586
$10,001-$50k - $5,586 + 35%
of cost > $10k
$50,001-$1 mil - $19,586 + 5%
of cost > $50k
$1 mil+ - $57,586 + 2% of cost
> $1 mil
Up to $10k - $5,586
$10,001-$50k - $5,586 + 35%
of cost > $10k
$50,001-$1 mil - $19,586 + 5%
of cost > $50k
$1 mil+ - $57,586 + 2% of cost
> $1 mil
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering, Page 1 of 4 City of Morgan Hill
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.2
Fee Comparison
Comparison Agencies
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Gilroy
City of Morgan Hill
Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
3 GIS / Technology Fee flat
5% of Public
Improvement Fee
5% of Public
Improvement Fee no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 4 Map Check
Parcel Map flat $ 6,029 $ 8,725 $2,035 + $630/lot no comparison available 1 Lot for Condos: $7,035
Parcel Map w/Tent Map:
$6,367
Parcel Map w/o Tent Map:
$7,206
$ 7,760 $ 6,055
Tract Map/Subdivision Map (Service No. 149) flat $ 9,627 $ 10,309 $1,755 + $15.70/lot no comparison available 1 Lot for Condos: $7,035
Final Map:
0-2 Lots - $7,541
2-19 Lots: $7,541 +
$65/lot >2
20-49 Lots: $8,737 +
$53/lot >20
50-99 Lots: $10,330 + $43/lot >50
100+ Lots: $12,674 + $33/lot >100 Vert Sub: $8,672 min
$9,875.45 first 5 lots
$449.23/lot >5 lots
Low (1 parcel condo w/5+
units): $6,556
Medium (5-10 lots): $7,103
High (11-50 lots): $8,250
Complex (50+ lots): $10,927
5 Certificate of Compliance - Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger flat $ 3,914 $ 6,875 $ 500 $ 5,055 $5,850 + $700 $ 1,646 $ 684 6 Parcel Map - Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger flat $ 3,151 $ 7,396 no comparison available no comparison available $2,496 + $298 $ 7,063 $1,962 + $57.50 per lot 7 Public Easement Review flat $ 2,645 $ 3,106 no comparison available no comparison available $ 1,172 $ 5,259 $ 935 8 Street Vacation flat $ 203 $ 8,972 no comparison available no comparison available 9 Easement Abandonment flat $ 4,654 $ 8,972 no comparison available no comparison available 10 Plan Revision (after approval of Public Improvement Plans) T & M (Min 2 hrs) $ 530 $ 230 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 11 Reimbursement Agreement flat $ 2,292 $ 4,946 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available General: $4,056
Summary: $1,726
Standard: $4,736
Summary:

Street - $4,008
Easement - $2,976
With Sale: $7,917
Summary Vacation: $2,296
Standard Vacation: $3,584
Summary Vacation of Public
Service Easement: $1,101
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering, Page 2 of 4 City of Morgan Hill
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.2
Fee Comparison
Comparison Agencies
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Gilroy
City of Morgan Hill
Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
12 FEMA Compliance Base Fee New Structure flat $ 423 $ 965 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available New Accessory Structure and New ADU flat $ 423 $ 735 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available Improvement of Existing Structure
Non-Substantial Improvement without Detailed Review
per structure $ 423 $ 549
Non-Substantial Improvement with Detailed Review per structure $ 423 $ 779 Substantial Improvement (other than accessory
structure) per structure $ 423 $ 1,252
Substantial Improvement of Accessory Structure
and ADU per structure $ 423 $ 850 Additional Review Fees Elevation Certificate Review per structure NEW $ 633 Flood Field Inspection flat NEW $ 575
Flood Study Review with Valley Water Coordination flat NEW $ 1,495 Review of CLOMR/CLOMR-F/LOMR/LOMR-F flat $ 2,328 $ 920
Public Outreach for LOMR/LOMR-F flat $ 847 $ 1,380
Review of BFE Determination for Zone A without a BFE or Zone D flat NEW $ 460
13 Stormwater Runoff Management Plan Review
Tier 1 Project flat NEW $ 2,645
Tier 2 Project flat $ 2,963 $ 6,901
Tier 3 Project flat NEW $ 9,892
Tier 4 Project flat NEW $ 11,962
14 Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Review & Compliance
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects < 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat $ 787 $ 518 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat $ 1,269 $ 863
Type 3 Projects flat NEW $ 403
Type 4 Projects flat NEW $ 288
15 Stormwater Construction Inspections
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects < 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat $ 12,695 $ 9,179 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat $ 12,695 $ 16,367
Type 3 Projects flat $ 68 $ 93
Type 4 Projects flat $ 68 $ 93
16 Stormwater BMP Operations & Maintenance Agreement flat NEW $ 2,070 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 17 Private Sanitary Sewer Agreement flat NEW $ 2,645 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 8,844 no comparison available no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering, Page 3 of 4 City of Morgan Hill
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.2
Fee Comparison
Comparison Agencies
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Gilroy
City of Morgan Hill
Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
18 Assessment District Reapportionment
City Staff flat NEW $ 2,760 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 8,640 Actual Cost Contractor Costs actual costs $ 5,000 Actual Costs no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19 Preliminary Review on Projects / Engineering Services flat $ 2,030 $ 2,300 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 20 Additional Plan Review (after 3rd submittal) hourly
(min 2 hrs) $ 203 $ 230 $185/hr (2 hr min) no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 21 Re-Inspection Fee hourly
(min 4 hrs) $ 203 $ 230 $ 125 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 212 22 Complexity Fee flat $ 2,436 $ 2,760 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 23 FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) Annual Reporting flat NEW $ 12,422 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 24 Agreement Extensions / Improvement Agreement Amendments With City Manager Approval flat NEW $ 2,876 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available With City Council Approval flat NEW $ 4,371 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 25 Citywide Inspection for Construction or Stormwater
Improvements
flat
See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 26 Building Grading Support flat
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 27 NPDES - above and below 1 acre. Put in tier. flat
See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 28 Private Street Review flat
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 29 Preliminary Fee Estimate flat $ 305 $ 345 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 30 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule During Business Hours per hour $ 255 $ 230 $ 185 no comparison available $ 167 no comparison available no comparison available After Business Hours per hour $ 255 $ 265 $475 + $160/hr after 3 hours $ 278 $ 167 no comparison available Actual Cost NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering, Page 4 of 4 City of Morgan Hill
Planning ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1 ANNEXATION  $          24,587  $       12,357 50% 99%

1.2  LAFCO Processing   $          28,167  $       10,696 38% 163% Plus additional fees collected by other agencies
LAFCO fee
$1,154 plus
SBE fees
LAFCO fee
$1,154 plus
SBE fees

2  APPEALS
Commission/Board Decisions

2.1  Applicant Appeal   $            8,316  $         6,905 83% 20%

2.2  Public Appeal   $            8,316  $            544 7% 1429%

Staff Decisions

2.1  Applicant Appeal   $            6,802  $         5,699 84% 19%

2.2  Public Appeal   $            6,802  $            544 8% 1150%

3  APPROVAL AMENDMENT

3.1 Major Approval Amendment  (Non Admin ‐ s/b Major)  $          12,682  $         8,209 65% 54%

3.2 Minor Approval Amendment  (Admin ‐ s/b Minor)  $            7,101  $         4,505 63% 58%

4  CC&Rs

4.1  CC&Rs   $            1,160  $            522 45% 122% Plus City Attorney Fees  Actual Cost   Actual Cost

4.2  Other Agreements / Documents Review   $                469  $            522 111% ‐10% Plus City Attorney Fees  Actual Cost   Actual Cost

5  CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES
Consultant Portion  Actual Cost   Actual Cost
City's Portion 15% 15%
GIS/Tech 5% 5%

6  CULTURAL RESOURCES

6.1  Alteration (Major ‐ $10,000+ valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs)          $            5,047  $         1,304 26% 287%

6.2 Alteration (Minor ‐ under $10,000 valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs)                                  $                352  $            391 111% ‐10%

6.3  Demolition or Relocation (Formerly Alteration)   $            5,737  $         5,719 100% 0% Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee

City of Morgan Hill
Planning ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee

6.4  Designation                                          $            7,511  $         8,348 111% ‐10%

7 DESIGN PERMIT

7.1 Landscape Plan Review Only  $            2,347  $         2,609 111% ‐10%

7.2 Non‐Residential Design Permit (Major)  $          17,418  $         7,968 46% 119%

7.3 Non‐Residential Design Permit (Minor)  $            9,574  $         4,917 51% 95%

7.4 Plan Detail Review (misc. site details, e.g., lighting, trash encl.)  $            1,976  $         2,198 111% ‐10%

7.5 Residential Design Permit ‐ 6 units or less  $          11,624  $         7,446 64% 56%

7.6 Residential Design Permit ‐ 7 units to 15 units  $          14,412  $         9,494 66% 52%

7.7 Residential Design Permit ‐ 16 or more units each additional 25 units  $          18,107  $       11,803 65% 53%

7.8 Site Plan Only  (no new square footage)  $            6,286  $         6,102 97% 3%

8 DESIGN REVIEW (PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW)

8.1 Conceptual Plan Review (Staff)  $            6,232  $         4,603 74% 35%

8.2 Non‐Residential (Major) Preliminary Plan Review to PC  $            9,914  $         8,490 86% 17%

8.3 Non‐Residential (Minor) Preliminary Plan Review to PC  $            6,877  $         5,438 79% 26%

8.4 Residential SB330 Preliminary Application Review (staff)  $          12,673  $       11,437 90% 11%

8.5 Residential ‐ 6 units or less Preliminary Plan Review to PC  $            7,509  $         5,359 71% 40%

8.6 Residential ‐ 7 units or more Preliminary Plan Review to PC  $          10,776  $         8,191 76% 32%

9  DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/RDCS

9.1  Non Residential Development Agreement   $          12,206  $         7,043 58% 73% Residential Development Agreement

9.2  Filed Concurrent with Other Entitlement Applications   $          12,206  $       10,957 90% 11%

9.3  Filed Alone ‐ Non Concurrent with Other Applications (Includes RDCS Compliance Monitoring  0 ‐ 3 Yrs.)   $          13,379  $       12,261 92% 9%

9.4  RDCS Compliance Monitoring ‐ each year after 3 years   $            2,347  $         2,609 111% ‐10%

10  ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA)

10.1  Environmental Impact Report   $          25,966  $       22,120 85% 17%

10.2  Expanded Initial Study   $          14,966  $       16,221 108% ‐8%

City of Morgan Hill
Planning ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee

10.3  Historic Assessments ‐ Historical Consultant (Deposit)   Actual Cost   Actual Cost

10.4  Historic Assessments ‐ Staff‐level   $            4,648  $         2,609 56% 78%

10.5  Initial Environmental Assessment     $            2,108  $         2,308 109% ‐9%

10.6  Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Per Year)   $            1,174  $         1,304 111% ‐10%

11  EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPROVALS

11.1  Administrative    $            1,995  $         2,217 111% ‐10%

11.2  Non Administrative        $            3,580  $         3,457 97% 4%

12  GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

12.1  Land Use Diagram Amendment   $          16,511  $       17,333 105% ‐5%

12.2  Text Amendment   $            9,352  $         7,080 76% 32%

13  HABITAT PLAN FEES (SC VALLEY)

13.1  Habitat Plan Related Reviews   $                469  $            522 111% ‐10% 14  HOUSING IN‐LIEU FEE

15 MINOR EXCEPTION  $            2,990  $         3,306 111% ‐10%

16  OPEN SPACE IN∙LlEU FEE (Per 20 Dwellings)
17  OUT OF AGENCY CONTRACT FOR SERVICES

17.1  City staff   $            9,800  $       10,892 111% ‐10% Plus additional fees collected by other agencies  Actual Costs  Actual Costs

18  PLANNING CONSULTATION ‐ hourly   $                235  $            261 111% ‐10%

19  REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS
Determined
by Planning
Director ‐
billed at
hourly rate
Determined
by Planning
Director ‐
billed at
hourly rate

19  RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM (RDCS)

19.1  Preliminary Measure S Review    $            6,920  $         8,541 123% ‐19%

19.2  Final Measure S Review (RDCS)     $          29,496  $       31,534 107% ‐6%

City of Morgan Hill
Planning ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee

19.3 RDCS Extension  $            3,974  $         4,296 108% ‐7%

19.4 RDCS Appeal  $            8,084  $         8,881 110% ‐9%

20 RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE LIVESTOCK PERMIT  $            2,113  $            761 36% 178%

21 REVERSION TO ACREAGE PROCESSING  $            2,934  $         3,261 111% ‐10%

22 SIGN REVIEW

22.1 Alteration to existing Sign  $                176  $            391 222% ‐55%

22.2 Sign Review Over the Counter ‐ Copy Change  $                235  $            261 111% ‐10%

22.3 New Sign Permit ‐ First Sign  $                352  $            391 111% ‐10%

22.4 Each additional Sign  $                117  $            130 111% ‐10%

22.5 New Sign within a Master Sign Program  $                176  $            196 111% ‐10%

22.6 Subdivision/Real Estate Tract Signs  $                704  $            783 111% ‐10%

22.7 Temporary/Promotional Signs  $                  59  $               65 111% ‐10%

22.8 Uniform Sign Program  $            3,404  $         3,783 111% ‐10% 23 SUBDIVISION

23.1 Tentative Parcel Map Review ‐ 4 lots or less  $            6,774  $         4,948 73% 37%

Tentative Subdivision Map Review

23.2 5 to 15 lots  $            9,093  $         6,434 71% 41%

23.3 16 ‐ 25 lots  $          11,431  $         8,072 71% 42%

23.4 26 lots or more ‐ each additional 25 lots  $          14,229  $         8,072 57% 76%

24 TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT CREDIT (TDC)

24.1 Application Fee  $            8,333  $         9,261 111% ‐10%

25 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT  $            1,350  $            109 8% 1138%

26 URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT

26.1 City Processing  $          15,220  $       15,511 102% ‐2%

26.2 LAFCO Processing  $          28,167  $       26,434 94% 7%

26.3 Plus Additional Fees Collected by Other Agencies
LAFCO fee
$11,574 plus
Actual Costs
LAFCO fee
$11,574 plus
Actual Costs

City of Morgan Hill
Planning ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee
27 USE PERMIT

27.1 Administrative Use Permit  $            7,130  $         1,201 17% 494%

Conditional Use Permit

27.2 New Construction  $          11,293  $         9,533 84% 18%

27.3 No New Construction  $          10,833  $         9,091 84% 19%

27.4 Temporary Use Permit  $            5,734  $         3,025 53% 90%

27.5 Temporary Use Permit (Non‐Profit)  $            4,124  $            100 2% 4024%

27.6 Temporary Use Permit Amendment  $            3,067  $         1,196 39% 156%

28 VARIANCE  $          10,052  $         8,514 85% 18%

29 WILLIAMSON ACT

29.1 Cancelation  $          11,267  $       12,522 111% ‐10%

29.2 New  $            6,103  $         3,131 51% 95%

29.3 Non‐Renewal  $                939  $         1,044 111% ‐10%

30 ZONING REQUESTS

30.1 Planned Development  $          16,749  $       10,629 63% 58%

30.2 Residential Planned Development Review  $          16,375  $       13,186 81% 24%

30.3 Residential Planned Development (if processed concurrently with subdivision)  $          10,314  $         9,142 89% 13%

30.4 Zoning Map Amendment Review  $          11,023  $         8,557 78% 29%

30.5 Zoning Map Amendment Review (If processed concurrently with GPA or ANX)  $            8,910  $         3,241 36% 175%

30.6 Zoning Text Amendment Review  $          11,727  $       10,980 94% 7%

30.7 Zoning Confirmation Letter  $            1,526  $         1,696 111% ‐10%

31 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICES

31.1 City Council Meeting  $            2,103  $         2,268 108% ‐7%

31.2 LAFCO Meeting ‐ each additional  $            1,643  $         1,826 111% ‐10%

31.3 Planning Commission Meeting  $            2,221  $         2,178 98% 2%

Public Noticing

31.4 Up to 50  $                  59  $               66 112% ‐11%

31.5 Over 50  $                  59  $               78 133% ‐25%

City of Morgan Hill
Planning ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee

31.6 Envelopes  Actual Costs  Actual Costs

31.7 Postage  Actual Costs  Actual Costs

31.8 Public Noticing (publication)  $            1,760  $                  ‐ 0% NEW

32 OTHER SERVICE CHARGES

32.1 Annual Charge for Entire PC Packet  $                122  $       122.00

32.3 Document Printing/Copying (per page)  $               0.10  $           0.10

32.4 Oversized Copy 24X36 (per page)  $               2.26  $           2.26

32.5 Oversized Copy 18X26 (per page)  $               2.01  $           2.01

32.6 Oversized Copy 24X36 (Color) (per page)  $               2.93  $           2.93

32.7 Oversized Copy 11X17 (per page)  $               0.55  $           0.55

32.8 Other Oversized Copies  n/a  n/a

32.9 Electronic Search of the Public Records  see City Clerk   see City Clerk

32.1 Record Research Service (Deposit Required) ‐ hourly  $                235   $            251  107% ‐6%

33 MAPS

33.1 General Plan (Color)  $                  13  $         13.00

33.2 Zoning and Boundary   $                    8  $           8.00

34 Business License Zoning Review

34.1 Home Based Business  $                117  $            130 111% ‐10%

34.2 All Other Types  $                117  $            130 111% ‐10%

35 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule

35.1 During Business Hours  $                235  $            251 107% ‐6%

35.2 After Business Hours  $                270  $            251 93% 7%

City of Morgan Hill
Land Development Engineering ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee Land Development Engineering
1 Public Improvement ‐ Plan Check
$                                                                                                                    50,000  base fee up to $50,000   $           15,161   $             6,650  44% 128% each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $                      ‐                133.00  0% ‐100% $                                                                                                                  100,000  base fee @ $100,000   $           15,161   $          13,300  88% 14% each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $             57.41                118.00  206% ‐51% $                                                                                                                  200,000  base fee @ $200,000   $           20,902   $          23,600  113% ‐11% each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $             18.52                103.00  556% ‐82% $                                                                                                                  500,000  base fee @ $500,000   $           26,459   $          51,500  195% ‐49% each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $             10.22                  88.00  861% ‐88% $                                                                                                               1,000,000  base fee @ $1,000,000   $           31,569   $          88,000  279% ‐64% each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $               2.90                  88.00  3030% ‐97% $                                                                                                               5,000,000  base fee @ $5,000,000   $           43,184   $        440,000  1019% ‐90% each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $               8.64                  88.00  1019% ‐90%

2 Public Improvement ‐ Inspection
$                                                                                                                    50,000 base fee up to
$50,000   $           20,129   n/a  0% NEW
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $                      ‐   n/a  0%
$                                                                                                                  100,000  base fee @ $100,000   $           20,129   n/a  0% NEW
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $           124.22   n/a  0% NEW
$                                                                                                                  200,000  base fee @ $200,000   $           32,551   n/a  0% NEW
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $           118.85   n/a  0% NEW
$                                                                                                                  500,000  base fee @ $500,000   $           68,207   n/a  0% NEW
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $           105.36   n/a  0% NEW
$                                                                                                               1,000,000  base fee @ $1,000,000   $        120,886   n/a  0% NEW
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $             16.85   n/a  0% NEW
Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee

City of Morgan Hill
Land Development Engineering ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee
$                                                                                                               5,000,000  base fee @ $5,000,000   $        188,288   n/a  0% NEW
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof  each add'l
$1,000   $             37.66   n/a  0% NEW

3 GIS / Technology Fee flat
5% of Public
Improvement
Fee
5% of Public
Improvement
Fee

4 Map Check
Parcel Map  flat  $             8,725   $             6,029  69% 45% Tract Map/Subdivision Map (Service No. 149) flat  $           10,309   $             9,627  93% 7%

5  Certificate of Compliance ‐ Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger  flat  $             6,875   $             3,914  57% 76%

6 Parcel Map ‐ Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger flat  $             7,396   $             3,151  43% 135%

7 Public Easement Review flat  $             3,106   $             2,645  85% 17%

8 Street Vacation flat  $             8,972   $                203  2% 4319%

9 Easement Abandonment flat  $             8,972   $             4,654  52% 93%

10 Plan Revision (after approval of Public Improvement Plans)  T & M (Min 2 hrs)   $                230   $                530  230% ‐57%

11 Reimbursement Agreement flat  $             4,946   $             2,292  46% 116%

12 FEMA Compliance
Base Fee
New Structure flat  $                965   $                423  44% 128% New Accessory Structure and New ADU flat  $                735   $                423  58% 74% Improvement of Existing Structure
Non‐Substantial Improvement without Detailed Review per structure  $                549   $                423  77% 30% Non‐Substantial Improvement with Detailed Review per structure  $                779   $                423  54% 84% Substantial Improvement (other than accessory structure) per structure  $             1,252   $                423  34% 196% Substantial Improvement of Accessory Structure and ADU per structure  $                850   $                423  50% 101% Additional Review Fees
Elevation Certificate Review per structure  $                633   NEW  0% NEW Flood Field Inspection flat  $                575   NEW  0% NEW Flood Study Review with Valley Water Coordination flat  $             1,495   NEW  0% NEW Review of CLOMR/CLOMR‐F/LOMR/LOMR‐F flat  $                920   $             2,328  253% ‐60% Public Outreach for LOMR/LOMR‐F flat  $             1,380   $                847  61% 63% Review of BFE Determination for Zone A without a BFE or Zone D flat  $                460   NEW  0% NEW

13 Stormwater Runoff Management Plan Review
Tier 1 Project flat  $             2,645   NEW  0% NEW
Tier 2 Project flat  $             6,901   $             2,963  43% 133% Tier 3 Project flat  $             9,892   NEW  0% NEW

City of Morgan Hill
Land Development Engineering ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee
Tier 4 Project flat  $           11,962   NEW  0% NEW

14  Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Review & Compliance
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects
< 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat  $                518   $                787  152% ‐34% 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat  $                863   $             1,269  147% ‐32% Type 3 Projects flat  $                403   NEW  0% NEW Type 4 Projects flat  $                288   NEW  0% NEW

15 Stormwater Construction Inspections
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects
< 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat  $             9,179   $          12,695  138% ‐28% 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat  $           16,367   $          12,695  78% 29% Type 3 Projects flat  $                   93   $                  68  73% 37% Type 4 Projects flat  $                   93   $                  68  73% 37%

16 Stormwater BMP Operations & Maintenance Agreement flat  $             2,070   NEW  0% NEW

17 Private Sanitary Sewer Agreement flat  $             2,645   NEW  0% NEW

18 Assessment District Reapportionment
City Staff flat  $             2,760   NEW  0% NEW
Contractor Costs actual costs  Actual Costs   $             5,000

19 Preliminary Review on Projects / Engineering Services flat  $             2,300   $             2,030  88% 13%

20 Additional Plan Review (after 3rd submittal)  hourly (min 2 hrs)   $                230   $                203  88% 13%

21 Re‐Inspection Fee  hourly
(min 4 hrs)   $                230   $                203  88% 13%

22 Complexity Fee  flat   $             2,760   $             2,436  88% 13%

23 FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) Annual Reporting flat  $           12,422   NEW  0% NEW

24 Agreement Extensions / Improvement Agreement Amendments With City Manager Approval flat  $             2,876   NEW  0% NEW With City Council Approval flat  $             4,371   NEW  0% NEW

25 Citywide Inspection for Construction or Stormwater Improvements flat See
Stormwater
Construction
Inspection
See
Stormwater
Construction
Inspection

City of Morgan Hill
Land Development Engineering ‐ User Fee Study FY 2021
Schedule of Proposed Fee at Full Cost Recovery vs Current Fee Percentage
Increase/
Decrease
Existing Cost
Recovery % No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type
Cost of
Service Per
Activity/
Proposed Fee
Current Fee
26 Building Grading Support flat
Included in
Public
Improvement
Plan Check
Included in
Public
Improvement
Plan Check

27 NPDES ‐ above and below 1 acre. Put in tier.  flat
See
Stormwater
Construction
Inspection
See
Stormwater
Construction
Inspection

28 Private Street Review  flat
Included in
Public
Improvement
Plan Check
Included in
Public
Improvement
Plan Check

29 Preliminary Fee Estimate  flat   $                345   $                305  88% 13%

30 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule
During Business Hours per hour  $                230   $                255  111% ‐10% After Business Hours per hour  $                265   $                255  96% 4%

RESOLUTION NO.
_______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF MORGAN HILL ESTABLISHING NEW AND

UPDATED PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT

ENGINEERING FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 3.50.010 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code (“Code”), requires the recovery of costs reasonably born from fees and charges levied in providing the regulation, products or services enumerated in Code Chapter

3.50 – Fee and Service Charge Revenue/Cost Comparison System; and WHEREAS, the City of Morgan Hill has conducted a fee study to calculate the costs reasonably borne to provide the specified Planning and Land Development Engineering services prepared by NBS Government Finance Group, which study has been available to the public for at least ten (10) days prior to the adoption of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, a virtual public meeting were held with members of the development community on January 6, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the proposed establishment of the fees that are the subject of this Resolution was agendized for consideration by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at a duly noticed public hearing of the Council held on January 19, 2022 at which hearing all interested persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said proposed fees; and WHEREAS, the Council heard all relevant testimony and reviewed all written materials submitted in connection with its hearing on this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council has conducted an extensive analysis of its Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees, including the cost to the City for special services and development applications and the revenues produced by those paying Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees; and

2. Current Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees charged for the City's Services do not adequately recoup the City's costs of providing certain Services; and

3. The City Council finds that providing these Services is of special benefit to Applicants both separate and apart from the general benefit to the public; and therefore, in the interests of fairness to the general public, the City desires to better recover the costs of providing these Services from Applicants who have sought the City's Services by revising its schedule of City-Wide Fees; and

4. The proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees are initially based upon the information contained in a document by City staff and Consultant entitled "City of Morgan Hill Report For Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering", dated December 13, 2021; and

5. Based upon the analysis and the provided information, the City (i) identifies the purpose of the proposed fees, (ii) identifies the use to which the fees will be put, (iii) demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fees’ use and the types of services on which the fees are imposed, and (iv) demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the cost of the City's services attributable to the applications on which the fees are imposed; and

6. The City Council finds and determines the fees calculations utilized to establish new and updated Planning and Land Development Engineering fees will not cause fee revenues to exceed the estimated cost reasonably borne of providing the services which the fees are levied; and

7. The City Council hereby adopts and approves the establishment of new and updated Planning and Land Development Engineering fees as set forth in attached Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference; and

8. The City Council finds and determines that it is reasonable to continue to annually adjust the fees set forth in Schedule by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose Area, and hereby instructs, authorizes and directs the City Manager or his/her designee to so annually adjust the applicable fees as set forth Resolution 6503 adopted January 18, 2012; and

9. The City Manager or his/her designee is hereby authorized and directed to amend the City Fee Schedule to reflect the fees as set forth in Exhibit A.

10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption; provided, however, that the New and Updated Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees established hereunder shall first be imposed and collected sixty (60) days from the date of adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of January, 2022.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
____________________________ ___________________________ RICH CONSTANTINE, Mayor MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk
 CERTIFICATION 
I, Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Morgan Hill, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. ________, adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on January 19, 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE: _____________________ ___________________________________ Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk
Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1 ANNEXATION  $          24,587

1.2  LAFCO Processing   $          28,167
Plus additional fees collected by other agencies
LAFCO fee
$1,154 plus
SBE fees

2  APPEALS
Commission/Board Decisions

2.1  Applicant Appeal   $            8,316

2.2  Public Appeal   $               544

Staff Decisions

2.1  Applicant Appeal   $            6,802

2.2  Public Appeal   $               544

3  APPROVAL AMENDMENT

3.1 Major Approval Amendment  (Non Admin ‐ s/b Major)  $          12,682

3.2 Minor Approval Amendment  (Admin ‐ s/b Minor)  $            7,101

4  CC&Rs

4.1  CC&Rs   $            1,160
Plus City Attorney Fees  Actual Cost

4.2  Other Agreements / Documents Review   $               469 Plus City Attorney Fees  Actual Cost

5  CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES
Consultant Portion  Actual Cost
City's Portion 15%
GIS/Tech 5%

6  CULTURAL RESOURCES

6.1  Alteration (Major ‐ $10,000+ valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs)          $            5,047 No. Fee Description Proposed Fee

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees No. Fee Description Proposed Fee

6.2  Alteration (Minor ‐ under $10,000 valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs)                                  $               352

6.3  Demolition or Relocation (Formerly Alteration)   $            5,737

6.4  Designation                                          $            7,511

7 DESIGN PERMIT

7.1 Landscape Plan Review Only  $            2,347

7.2 Non‐Residential Design Permit (Major)  $          17,418

7.3 Non‐Residential Design Permit (Minor)  $            9,574

7.4 Plan Detail Review (misc. site details, e.g., lighting, trash encl.)  $            1,976

7.5 Residential Design Permit ‐ 6 units or less  $          11,624

7.6 Residential Design Permit ‐ 7 units to 15 units  $          14,412

7.7 Residential Design Permit ‐ 16 or more units each additional 25 units  $          18,107

7.8 Site Plan Only  (no new square footage)  $            6,286

8 DESIGN REVIEW (PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW)

8.1 Conceptual Plan Review (Staff)  $            6,232

8.2 Non‐Residential (Major) Preliminary Plan Review to PC  $            9,914

8.3 Non‐Residential (Minor) Preliminary Plan Review to PC  $            6,877

8.4 Residential SB330 Preliminary Application Review (staff)  $          12,673

8.5 Residential ‐ 6 units or less Preliminary Plan Review to PC  $            7,509

8.6 Residential ‐ 7 units or more Preliminary Plan Review to PC  $          10,776

9  DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/RDCS

9.1  Non Residential Development Agreement   $          12,206

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees No. Fee Description Proposed Fee
Residential Development Agreement

9.2  Filed Concurrent with Other Entitlement Applications   $          12,206

9.3  Filed Alone ‐ Non Concurrent with Other Applications (Includes RDCS Compliance Monitoring  0 ‐ 3 Yrs.)   $          13,379

9.4  RDCS Compliance Monitoring ‐ each year after 3 years   $            2,347

10  ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA)

10.1  Environmental Impact Report   $          25,966

10.2  Expanded Initial Study   $          14,966

10.3  Historic Assessments ‐ Historical Consultant (Deposit)   Actual Cost

10.4  Historic Assessments ‐ Staff‐level   $            4,648

10.5  Initial Environmental Assessment     $            2,108

10.6  Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Per Year)   $            1,174

11  EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPROVALS

11.1  Administrative    $            1,995

11.2  Non Administrative        $            3,580

12  GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

12.1  Land Use Diagram Amendment   $          16,511

12.2  Text Amendment   $            9,352

13  HABITAT PLAN FEES (SC VALLEY)

13.1  Habitat Plan Related Reviews   $               469 14  HOUSING IN‐LIEU FEE

15 MINOR EXCEPTION  $            2,990

16  OPEN SPACE IN∙LlEU FEE (Per 20 Dwellings)
17  OUT OF AGENCY CONTRACT FOR SERVICES

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees No. Fee Description Proposed Fee

17.1  City staff   $            9,800
Plus additional fees collected by other agencies  Actual Costs

18  PLANNING CONSULTATION ‐ hourly   $               235

19  REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS
Determined
by Planning
Director ‐
billed at
hourly rate

19  RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM (RDCS)

19.1  Preliminary Measure S Review    $            6,920

19.2  Final Measure S Review (RDCS)     $          29,496

19.3 RDCS Extension  $            3,974

19.4 RDCS Appeal  $            8,084

20 RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE LIVESTOCK PERMIT  $               761

21 REVERSION TO ACREAGE PROCESSING  $            2,934

22 SIGN REVIEW

22.1 Alteration to existing Sign  $               176

22.2 Sign Review Over the Counter ‐ Copy Change  $               235

22.3 New Sign Permit ‐ First Sign  $               352

22.4 Each additional Sign  $               117

22.5 New Sign within a Master Sign Program  $               176

22.6 Subdivision/Real Estate Tract Signs  $               704

22.7 Temporary/Promotional Signs  $                  59

22.8 Uniform Sign Program  $            3,404

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees No. Fee Description Proposed Fee
23 SUBDIVISION

23.1 Tentative Parcel Map Review ‐ 4 lots or less  $            6,774

Tentative Subdivision Map Review

23.2 5 to 15 lots  $            9,093

23.3 16 ‐ 25 lots  $          11,431

23.4 26 lots or more ‐ each additional 25 lots  $          14,229

24 TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT CREDIT (TDC)

24.1 Application Fee  $            8,333

25 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT  $               109

26 URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT

26.1 City Processing  $          15,220

26.2 LAFCO Processing  $          28,167

26.3 Plus Additional Fees Collected by Other Agencies
LAFCO fee
$11,574 plus
Actual Costs

27 USE PERMIT

27.1 Administrative Use Permit  $            1,201

Conditional Use Permit

27.2 New Construction  $          11,293

27.3 No New Construction  $          10,833

27.4 Temporary Use Permit  $            5,734

27.5 Temporary Use Permit (Non‐Profit)  $               100

27.6 Temporary Use Permit Amendment  $            1,196

28 VARIANCE  $          10,052

29 WILLIAMSON ACT

29.1 Cancelation  $          11,267

29.2 New  $            6,103

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees No. Fee Description Proposed Fee

29.3 Non‐Renewal  $               939

30 ZONING REQUESTS

30.1 Planned Development  $          16,749

30.2 Residential Planned Development Review  $          16,375

30.3 Residential Planned Development (if processed concurrently with subdivision)  $          10,314

30.4 Zoning Map Amendment Review  $          11,023

30.5 Zoning Map Amendment Review (If processed concurrently with GPA or ANX)  $            8,910

30.6 Zoning Text Amendment Review  $          11,727

30.7 Zoning Confirmation Letter  $            1,526

31 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICES

31.1 City Council Meeting  $            2,103

31.2 LAFCO Meeting ‐ each additional  $            1,643

31.3 Planning Commission Meeting  $            2,221

Public Noticing

31.4 Up to 50  $                  59

31.5 Over 50  $                  59

31.6 Envelopes  Actual Costs

31.7 Postage  Actual Costs

31.8 Public Noticing (publication)  $            1,760

32 OTHER SERVICE CHARGES

32.1 Annual Charge for Entire PC Packet  $               122

32.3 Document Printing/Copying (per page)  $              0.10

32.4 Oversized Copy 24X36 (per page)  $              2.26

32.5 Oversized Copy 18X26 (per page)  $              2.01

32.6 Oversized Copy 24X36 (Color) (per page)  $              2.93

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees No. Fee Description Proposed Fee

32.7 Oversized Copy 11X17 (per page)  $              0.55

32.8 Other Oversized Copies  n/a

32.9 Electronic Search of the Public Records  see City Clerk

32.1 Record Research Service (Deposit Required) ‐ hourly  $               235

33 MAPS

33.1 General Plan (Color)  $                  13

33.2 Zoning and Boundary   $                    8

34 Business License Zoning Review

34.1 Home Based Business  $               117

34.2 All Other Types  $               117

35 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule

35.1 During Business Hours  $               235

35.2 After Business Hours  $               270

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees Land Development Engineering
1 Public Improvement ‐ Plan Check
$                                                                                                                   50,000 base fee up to $50,000   $           15,161
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $                      ‐
$                                                                                                                 100,000 base fee @ $100,000   $           15,161
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $             57.41
$                                                                                                                 200,000 base fee @ $200,000   $           20,902
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $             18.52
$                                                                                                                 500,000 base fee @ $500,000   $           26,459
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $             10.22
$                                                                                                             1,000,000 base fee @ $1,000,000   $           31,569
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $               2.90
$                                                                                                             5,000,000 base fee @ $5,000,000   $           43,184
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $               8.64

2 Public Improvement ‐ Inspection
$                                                                                                                   50,000 base fee up to $50,000   $           20,129
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $                      ‐
$                                                                                                                 100,000 base fee @ $100,000   $           20,129
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $           124.22
$                                                                                                                 200,000 base fee @ $200,000   $           32,551
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $           118.85
$                                                                                                                 500,000 base fee @ $500,000   $           68,207
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $           105.36
$                                                                                                             1,000,000 base fee @ $1,000,000   $        120,886
No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type  Proposed Fee

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type  Proposed Fee
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $             16.85
$                                                                                                             5,000,000 base fee @ $5,000,000   $        188,288
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000   $             37.66

3 GIS / Technology Fee flat
5% of Public
Improvement
Fee

4 Map Check
Parcel Map  flat  $             8,725
Tract Map/Subdivision Map (Service No. 149) flat  $           10,309

5  Certificate of Compliance ‐ Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger  flat  $             6,875

6 Parcel Map ‐ Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger flat  $             7,396

7 Public Easement Review flat  $             3,106

8 Street Vacation flat  $             8,972

9 Easement Abandonment flat  $             8,972

10 Plan Revision (after approval of Public Improvement Plans) T & M (Min 2 hrs)   $                230

11 Reimbursement Agreement flat  $             4,946

12 FEMA Compliance
Base Fee
New Structure flat  $                965
New Accessory Structure and New ADU flat  $                735 Improvement of Existing Structure
Non‐Substantial Improvement without Detailed Review per structure  $                549 Non‐Substantial Improvement with Detailed Review per structure  $                779 Substantial Improvement (other than accessory structure) per structure  $             1,252 Substantial Improvement of Accessory Structure and ADU per structure  $                850 Additional Review Fees
Elevation Certificate Review per structure  $                633 Flood Field Inspection flat  $                575
Flood Study Review with Valley Water Coordination flat  $             1,495

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type  Proposed Fee
Review of CLOMR/CLOMR‐F/LOMR/LOMR‐F flat  $                920 Public Outreach for LOMR/LOMR‐F flat  $             1,380 Review of BFE Determination for Zone A without a BFE or Zone D flat  $                460

13 Stormwater Runoff Management Plan Review
Tier 1 Project flat  $             2,645
Tier 2 Project flat  $             6,901
Tier 3 Project flat  $             9,892
Tier 4 Project flat  $           11,962

14  Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Review & Compliance
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects
< 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat  $                518 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat  $                863
Type 3 Projects flat  $                403
Type 4 Projects flat  $                288

15 Stormwater Construction Inspections
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects
< 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat  $             9,179
1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat  $           16,367
Type 3 Projects flat  $                  93
Type 4 Projects flat  $                  93

16 Stormwater BMP Operations & Maintenance Agreement flat  $             2,070

17 Private Sanitary Sewer Agreement flat  $             2,645

18 Assessment District Reapportionment
City Staff flat  $             2,760
Contractor Costs actual costs  Actual Costs

19 Preliminary Review on Projects / Engineering Services flat  $             2,300

20 Additional Plan Review (after 3rd submittal) hourly
(min 2 hrs)   $                230

21 Re‐Inspection Fee hourly
(min 4 hrs)   $                230

22 Complexity Fee  flat   $             2,760

Exhibit A ‐ Proposed Planning and Land Development Engineering Fees No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type  Proposed Fee

23 FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) Annual Reporting flat  $           12,422

24 Agreement Extensions / Improvement Agreement Amendments With City Manager Approval flat  $             2,876
With City Council Approval flat  $             4,371

25 Citywide Inspection for Construction or Stormwater Improvements flat See
Stormwater
Construction
Inspection
26 Building Grading Support flat
Included in
Public
Improvement
Plan Check
27 NPDES ‐ above and below 1 acre. Put in tier.  flat
See
Stormwater
Construction
Inspection
28 Private Street Review  flat
Included in
Public
Improvement
Plan Check

29 Preliminary Fee Estimate  flat   $                345

30 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule
During Business Hours per hour  $                230
After Business Hours per hour  $                265

10 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Edith Ramirez, Assistant City Manager
Chris Ghione, Public Services Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC CALMING AND MONTEREY ROAD

LANE REDUCTION AND PLACE-BRANDING PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Approve the proposed Traffic Mitigation Plan Implementation Schedule to support the Monterey Road Lane Reduction Program;

2. Approve the re-design of traffic lanes for Monterey Road from Dunne Avenue to Main Avenue to be implemented as approved in the Implementation Schedule;

3. Direct staff to install pedestrian safety bollards at pedestrian crossings on Monterey Road and First, Second, and Fourth Streets;

4. Direct staff to bring forward a review of the Parklet Program and develop a Parklet Fee Financing Assistance Program;

5. Direct staff to explore the creation of a community parklet that incorporates an interactive art installation;

6. Direct staff to bring forward a consulting contract to implement a Property-Based Improvement District (PBID); and

7. Adopt a resolution to amend the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Budget and appropriate $210,530 from the General Fund.

Estimated Time: 2 Hours

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
Economic Development
Transportation
Guiding Documents
Bikeways, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan

10 Economic Blueprint
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
Vision Zero
Station Area Master Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:

Should the City Council implement a Traffic Mitigation Plan in advance of the Downtown Lane Reduction implementation?
Should the Implementation Schedule for the Downtown Lane Reduction be flexible, allowing it to occur prior to the completion of the Hale Avenue Extension if traffic is significantly reduced with the proposed mitigations?
Should the City Council collaborate with Downtown property owners to develop a Property Business Improvement District (PBID) to finance safety, maintenance, and other beautification enhancements in Downtown?
Should the City Council create a financing mechanism to make parklets more affordable and accessible to businesses?
Should the City Council approve and finance the creation of a community parklet? REPORT SUMMARY:

On May 19, 2021, the City Council directed staff to move forward with the first step in implementing a Downtown Lane Reduction with Place Branding/Beautification. As part of this action, the City Council approved funding for the Lane Reduction and directed staff to supplement funds from a Transit Development Act Funds grant. For the community engagement process, the Council directed staff to solicit feedback from a Working Group made up of Downtown and citywide community and business representatives.

Even though slowing down traffic and making the Downtown a more vibrant and inviting destination to shop, dine, and gather is supported by many City guiding documents, the Downtown Lane Reduction effort has been a controversial topic and discussed and evaluated for over 20 years. The 2015 Monterey Road Complete Streets Pilot Project which converted one lane of traffic into a bike lane to increase safety, was terminated early and Council directed staff to delay the Complete Streets project until the completion of future congestion management projects, including the Hale Avenue Extension Project.

The COVID-19 Pandemic has forced outdoor dining and encouraged outdoor living. To support community safety and business recovery, in 2021, the Council directed staff to advance the design of the Lane Reduction.

While staff has been doing extensive community outreach on this controversial project, on June 8, 2021, a Notice of Intention for an initiative titled “Citizens’ initiative amending

10 the General Plan to require voter approval of any future Monterey Road Lane Reduction” was submitted. According to the Ballot Summary: “The measure is proposed to add a new policy to the Transportation Element of the City’s General Plan. If adopted, the new policy would require voter approval in order to implement any future Monterey Road Lane Reduction through Downtown Morgan Hill." The initiative language was reviewed and accepted on June 9, 2021, and on December 21, 2021, the proponents submitted the completed initiative signature packets. After a prima facia review, it was determined that the initiative met the minimum number of signatures required and was accepted. The initiative needed at least 2,796 signatures to qualify; it was submitted with 3,467. The initiative was then delivered to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voter’s Office (ROV) to complete the count and voter signature verification via random sampling per the elections code. The ROV has until February 4, 2022, to complete the verification and provide the results to the City Clerk.

If the petition qualifies, it will go before the City Council for certification. The Council shall do one of the following:
a. Adopt the ordinance;
b. Submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters pursuant to Section 1405; or
c. Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the legislative body, the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within ten days or order an election pursuant to subdivision (b).

If approved by the voters or the City Council, the initiative would impact any Lane Reductions to Monterey Road following that approval. It is very clear that the primary concern associated with the Downtown Lane Reduction project is associated with the traffic impacts. Therefore, as part of the implementation of the project, a Traffic Mitigation Plan has been created along with an Implementation Schedule that outlines the timing of the implementation of the traffic mitigation solutions. This report outlines the following key elements that are part of the implementation of the Downtown Lane Reduction and Place Branding/Beautification effort:

A. Traffic Mitigation Plan
B. Implementation Schedule
C. Lane Reduction Design
D. Parking
E. Place Branding and Beautification Solutions
F. Community Engagement
G. Project Background
Over the past seven months, the City has held numerous community meetings, worked alongside a 28-member community-based Working Group, with a traffic engineer from Ruggeri, Jensen & Azar firm, and with an architectural design firm, AP+I Design, to

10 develop alternatives that best implement the Downtown Lane Reduction and Place Branding/Beautification project, while at the same time, mitigating traffic impacts. Based on community feedback, City staff have developed designs and recommendations on how to best slow down traffic through Downtown, make Downtown safer for cars, bikes, and pedestrians, while supporting the need for parking. The recommendations presented in this report incorporate the feedback received through an extensive community engagement process as well as design solutions presented by traffic engineering and landscape architectural consultants.

A. TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN
Traffic continues to increase within the City, and while much of that traffic growth is due to increased regional cut-through traffic, it is understood that the most significant concern for residents related to the Downtown Lane Reduction is increased traffic congestion.

Staff recommends implementing a plan to reduce the traffic delays for residents traveling north-south and mitigate traffic impacts on the surrounding streets as part of the Downtown Lane Reduction. To ensure community concerns are addressed, staff recommends these traffic mitigation improvements occur before implementing the Lane Reduction.

According to traffic studies, the construction of Hale Avenue will significantly reduce the number of vehicles using Monterey Road through the Downtown. The Hale Avenue Extension is currently under construction, but it is not estimated to be completed until late 2023. Significant amounts of traffic could be moved from Monterey Road to Butterfield Boulevard, prior to the completion of the Hale Avenue Extension with certain improvements, supporting reduced traffic through the Downtown and facilitating better traffic movement throughout the City.

Physical Improvements
The primary near-term strategy to reduce traffic Downtown is to improve Butterfield Boulevard by increasing traffic signal efficiency by synchronizing the entire corridor and making additional physical improvements to specific intersections. While these efforts will improve north-south traffic delays considerably, it should be noted that there will be longer wait times for drivers using the cross streets to cross or access Butterfield Boulevard during peak hours. The proposed roadway upgrades are estimated to cost approximately $106,000 and it is anticipated that the improvements would increase the traffic flow on the roadway by a very significant percentage.

To implement the traffic signal upgrades, the installation of 13 new traffic signal controllers is required. These advanced signal controllers will allow for the synchronization of signals through the corridor. The synchronization would allow a person driving on Butterfield Boulevard during peak hours to make their way through the entire corridor, while driving the speed limit, on green lights. This will further incentivize drivers to use this alternate route and allow for increased capacity during peak hours.

Additionally, the intersection of Monterey Road and Cochrane Road, which is a key intersection for traffic flow, will be adjusted to prioritize the movement of vehicles onto Cochrane/Butterfield over continuing south on Monterey Road.