06/15/2000GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 15, 2000
The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the
Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on June 15,
2000 at 7:06 p.m. by Chairwoman Fran Van Gelder.
PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson
Matt Addington, Commissioner
Mary Trainor, Commissioner
Maryetta Ferre', Commissioner
John Lampe, Planner
Pat Lunsford, CEDD Secretary
ABSENT: Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairperson
Patrizia Materassi, Community and Economic Development Director
7:06 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Ferre'
Roll Call
Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless
extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer
presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the
Community Development Director.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
C
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2
June 15, 2000
ITEM#1 Page 2 Of 8
MC-00-01
WORKSHOP REGARDING UPDATE OF PLANNING FEES
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY-WIDE
Staff report was presented by Planner John Lampe who explained staff recently
completed a survey of the planning fees of 13 surrounding Inland Empire entities and
revealed the City of Grand Terrace has some of the lowest planning fees ( a copy of
the survey results was included in the Planning Commission packet). The City
Manager requested staff review the survey with the idea of increasing our City's
planning fees, thus allowing for recoupment of a larger percentage of the costs
associated with case processing. In addition, there is emphasis on maintaining fees at
a comparable level with surrounding cities. Mr. Lampe explained that revision of the
fee structure will require an ordinance by City Council, but staff is first seeking input
from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lampe gave some examples of fee differences as reflected in the fee survey.
A. A conditional use permit is Grand Terrace is $2,000 for 3,000 sq. ft.
In Redlands a CUP for the same square footage is $4,450.
B. A development standard variance in Grand Terrace is $1,450, whereas, in
0 Norco it is $2,500.
C. A Grand Terrace general plan amendment is $1,900. Riverside County
charges over $8,000.
The survey showed that the fee range is very extreme. The general trend is that most
jurisdictions have significantly higher fees than Grand Terrace.
This fee study for a possible ordinance change is also looking to establish a new fee
for preliminary project review. Frequently staff time is taken up speaking with
prospective applicants about development concepts for which applications have not
been filed. Mr. Lampe cited the recent proposal for development on the north side of
Blue Mountain. Staff spent many, many hours on the proposal meeting with the
prospective applicants and their consultants, doing research, reviewing concept plans,
going on a site visit and preparing correspondence. There were never any applications
filed so no money was collected for the staffs time and efforts, and the prospective
developers have apparently gone away. Staff would like to find a way to charge a fee
for preliminary project review to recoup some of the cost of staff time for the City. Staff
is proposing that the new fee schedule include many of the tasks staff does for which
there is currently no fee.
Another example Mr. Lampe cited was one where staff receives a request for a "zoning
letter". Loan companies request such a letter to be certain that a piece of property they
! intend to loan money on complies with the City's zoning requirements and is in
conformance with the City's regulations. Many times such a letter is routine and takes
a minimum amount of time, although sometimes they become rather complicated and
involved. Recently the City was requested to do such a letter for the Highlands
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3
June 15, 2000
Page 3 of 8
Apartments. The planner involved needed to review two large boxes of files. This
"zoning letter" request took three days to complete. Again, there was no fee collected
to recoup staff time for research and preparation of this "zoning letter."
Mr. Lampe summarized by saying it is staffs intent to establish a fee schedule to
recoup fees for tasks for which there is currently no fee. Also, staff is proposing an
increase in the fees currently charged for planning activities. Mr. Lampe passed out to
Planning Commissioners Table 2, a tentative new fee schedule. He explained staff will
be doing more work to refine Table 2 before it goes to City Council for review.
Staff prepared five questions for general discussion with the Planning Commission on
the subject of planning fees. He indicated staff is not looking for motions on the
questions but rather a general discussion.
Question #1: "What is the Planning Commissioner's feeling about whether the City of
Grand Terrace should recover most, if not all of the costs of planning
activities?"
Chairwoman Van Gelder said "Yes, there is no business in town which could stay in
business without recouping costs."
CCommissioners Ferre' and Addington agreed costs should be recovered.
Commissioner Trainor said she feels the City should not operate at a deficient to
provide these services, but the City represents public money so some of the fees have
already been collected. She said the City is not in business to make money either.
She asked staff if the cost of providing planning services is more than the fees paid for
services. Mr. Lampe answered in the affirmative. He explained the City is not
proposing to charge a preliminary fee to the homeowner, for instance, who wishes to do
a room addition. The preliminary fee would apply for projects which have some
significance such as large residential developments, commercial or industrial projects.
Question #2: "Should the City attempt to stay competitive in terms of its fee schedule
with surrounding jurisdictions? Should the City continue to have the
lowest fees in the Inland Empire? Or should the City "some of the lowest
fees"?
Commissioner Addington said looking historically, he does not see that having the
lowest fees has attracted businesses to Grand Terrace. Businesses don't base their
decision to come to Grand Terrace on the lowest fees. Continuing to have the lowest
fees won't serve any purpose. He said he felt the City should stay competitive. As
development moves toward the Inland Empire and development becomes more dense
in the Inland Empire then Grand Terrace will develop also.
Chairwoman Van Gelder said years ago one of the ideas of keeping the fees low was
to entice businesses to come to Grand Terrace. That idea didn't work and the City had
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4
June 15, 2000
Page 4 of 8
not progressed from there.
Commissioner Ferre' said that considering the financial situation of the City, the fees
need to be raised. The fees need to be competitive but she cautioned that the City
needs to be astute in doing so. Possibly the City should have "some of the lowest fees"
but not all of the lowest.
Commissioner Trainor said she would go along with "staying competitive". She agreed
with Commissioner Addington, there is no obligation for the City to be the lowest, just to
say we are the lowest in fees. The fees should be set at a fair price.
Mr. Lampe concluded by saying it has been his personal experience that very few
decisions on where to locate a project revolve around "what are the planning fees". It
may have some bearing in that it makes people look at an area, but the final decision
on whether they go ahead with a project is not based on the filing fees. Chairwoman
Van Gelder commented that the new businesses tend to say City fees are too high
now. No matter what the City charges, they will say the fees are too high. Mr. Lampe
said there are other fees, i.e., impact fees, that have more of a financial impact on a
project than the planning filing fees.
O Question #3: "Our proposed option would be to average the fees of the cities surveyed
and stay compatible with other cities' fees."
Mr. Lampe said another method of establishing new fees would be to analyze the fees
as to the amount of staff work it takes to accomplish the tasks. He cited an example of
a minor deviation which is done at staff level with a fee of $300 vs. an administrative
site and architectural review, also done at staff level, for which we charge $200. The
minor deviation requires only staff analysis of the proposal and a letter to applicant re
staffs decision on the application. The administrative site and architectural review
involves a full review by reviewing agencies, writing conditions of approval, meeting
with the applicant to resolve any disputes with the conditions, etc. It is a much more
labor intensive procedure than the minor deviation, yet the City collects $100 less
money. Mr. Lampe said for a starting point on fee adjustment staff may want to look at
the average of fees charged by other cities, then temper that by how much work is
actually involved in completing that particular project.
Commissioner Ferre' suggested staff would have enough experience to do an analysis
and determine what they think should be the fee set which would equal the amount of
work required on a specific type of project. She said she would prefer staff to do a
work/time analysis then see how that figure compares to the "average" fees charged by
other cities. He said the figures on Table 2 reflect his "gut" feeling as to the amount of
work involved in some of these types of applications.
Commissioner Addington suggested staff base fees on the market. Whichever
applications are filed most often, staff may wish to price somewhat higher, thus
generating some additional revenue for the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5
June 15, 2000
Page 5 Of 8
In response to a question by Commissioner Trainor, Mr. Lampe explained Table 2,
current Grand Terrace planning fees, proposed fees and fees of 13 other local
jurisdictions which he prepared for this evening's hearing. He told Commissioners this
is a tentative schedule which he has not been able to discuss with the Director because
of her vacation and family illness.
Commissioner Trainor proposed a methodology that would follow an analysis of the
particular type of application rather than averaging. Averaging may appear arbitrary. It
would be much easier to win approval of the concept if the costs are tied to something
tangible and displayable.
Mr. Lampe said he was surprised to find so much diversity among cities as to how they
price their planning fees. Some have a fee schedule tied to the size of the project;
some have it tied to the nature of the project, i.e., residential vs. commercial conditional
use permits have different fees. It seems every city has found a different rationale for
setting up their fee schedule.
Question #4: "Should we keep different fees for different scale projects or base the fee
only on the type of uses, as most cities do?"
Mr. Lampe said the City wants to simplify the planning fee schedule, but also wants to
have fair fees for the small property owners and business owners.
Commissioner Trainor asked if other cities have a scale? Mr. Lampe said, "no, they
seem to tie it to the nature of the use involved, rather than tying it to the square footage
of the project." Commissioner Trainor said in a perfect world she would suggest we
look for a simple scale to distinguish between a very small project and a very large one
of the same nature where the costs to the city can be demonstrated to be larger for the
larger scale project.
Commissioner Addington said he has a concern regarding raising fees for the residents
of the City. He said room addition fees, for instance, should be kept low. Residents do
already pay taxes. Mr. Lampe explained the code requires a Land Use Application for
a room addition of 500 sq. ft. or less which currently costs $33. Staff is proposing that
Land Use fee go to $100. Mr. Lampe explained the steps involved in reviewing and
approving such a Land Use Application. Chairwoman Van Gelder and Commissioner
Ferre' agreed $100 is a reasonable planning fee for a 500 sq. ft. room addition.
Mr. Lampe said as a courtesy to Commission Members staff will send to each of them a
copy of the draft ordinance when it is prepared for hearing by City Council.
Question #5: "if a proposal involves more than one application such as site and
architectural review, a CUP and a zone change staff proposes the cost of
each application be reduced by 25% - 50%."
Mr. Lampe said it is a fairly standard practice to reduce the cost of some fees in some
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6
June 15, 2000
Page 6 Of 8
urisdictions where large projects require many application to go forward. Staff
recognizes there will be one public hearing for all applications. At this time staff is
unsure what the percentage reduction should be.
Chairwoman Van Gelder and Commissioner Ferre' agreed the concept of a fee
reduction in the instance of filing multiple applications is fair.
Commissioner Addington said in the years he has worked in engineering he does not
recall any cities which give a discount for multiple applications. He said he feels 25%
would excessive since the City needs the revenue. He would propose no reduction or
possibly 10% reduction.
Commissioner Trainor said the concept of a reduced fee on the basis of a consolidated
project and consolidated process with one public hearing warrants the consideration of
a reduction. She did not have an opinion as to the reduction percentage.
Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if staff had statistics from cities which reduced fees
when multiple applications were filed. Mr. Lampe said he did not have that information
at the meeting.
Commissioner Ferre' asked if there are many instances where multiple applications are
filed for a single project. Mr. Lampe responded that it is not common but it is not rare
either. He recited the cases of Colorado Pacific (for a housing project on Blue
Mountain) which would require a specific plan, zone change, site and architectural
review, tentative tract map and environmental review. Another instance involves a
proposed truck repair business which would require a zone change, general plan
amendment, conditional use permit, site and architectural review and environmental
assessment.
Mr. Lampe thanked the Planning Commission for their input. He said it will be very
valuable as he continues to work on the revised planning fee ordinance for
presentation to City Council. Chairwoman Van Gelder commended Mr. Lampe for the
work done on the report.
Mr. Lampe said staff will send each Commissioner a copy of the proposed ordinance
prepared for the City Council consideration. The ordinance will most likely go to
Council at the second meeting in July, 2000.
7:45 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARDIPLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7
June 15, 2000
Page 7 Of 8
7:45 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
• Information from Commissioners
a. Chairwoman Van Gelder asked when the Barton Road Median will go
before City Council. Mr. Lampe said he will find out and call the
Chairwoman next week.
b. Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if staff knew why the soccer association
fees have doubled this year. Mr. Lampe said he will find out and call the
Chairwoman next week.
C. Chairwoman Van Gelder observed there are still no city entry signs at the
northerly and easterly entrances to Grand Terrace. She said it would be
nice to have signs as people enter the City. Mr. Lampe said there have
been discussions about entry signs but perhaps one important factor is
the cost of construction of such signs.
d. Chairwoman Van Gelder asked for an update of the Rite Aid project. Mr.
Lampe said he has been in contact with the developer recently because
of property maintenance complaints. He said the property appearance
has been cleaned up. There is no news on a potential occupant
drugstore for the property.
e. Chairwoman Van Gelder said the Town and Country Center has recently
had the parking lot re -surfaced and re -striped, however there appears to
be fewer parking stalls available due to the many restricted yellow zones.
She asked staff what percentage of the lot is required to be "restricted" as
it is very difficult to find a parking space. She also said there are four
large palm trees at the entrance to the center which have up lights at the
base of each tree. She has been told the center owner refuses to turn on
the lights and would like to see them illuminated in light of the recent
Planning Commission recommendation to do landscaping lighting. Mr.
Lampe said he will check into the parking lot requirements and phone the
center owner, Mr. Shamolian, regarding the lighting.
f. Commissioner Addington asked what business is going into the old
Sprouse -Ritz store. Mr. Lampe said it will be a beauty supply/salon
moving from Colton and will occupy approximately 1/3 of the old building.
• Information to Commissioners
7:55 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7
June 15, 2000
been discussions about entry signs but perhaps one important factor is
the cost of construction of such signs.
d. Chairwoman Van Gelder asked for an update of the Rite Aid project. Mr.
Lampe said he has been in contact with the developer recently because
of property maintenance complaints. He said the property appearance
has been cleaned up. There is no news on a potential occupant
drugstore for the property.
e. Chairwoman Van Gelder said the Town and Country Center has recently
had the parking lot re -surfaced and re -striped, however there appears to
be fewer parking stalls available due to the many restricted yellow zones.
She asked staff what percentage of the lot is required to be "restricted" as
it is very difficult to find a parking space. She also said there are four
large palm trees at the entrance to the center which have up lights at the
base of each tree. She has been told the center owner refuses to turn on
the lights and would like to see them illuminated in light of the recent
Planning Commission recommendation to do landscaping lighting. Mr.
Lampe said he will check into the parking lot requirements and phone the
center owner, Mr. Shamolian, regarding the lighting.
f. Commissioner Addington asked what business is going into the old
Sprouse -Ritz store. Mr. Lampe said it will be a beauty supply/salon
moving from Colton and will occupy approximately 1/3 of the old building.
• Information to Commissioners
7:55 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JULY 20, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved by,
f ���✓r%1
Patrizia Materassi Fran Van Gelder
Community and Economic Development Director Chairperson, Planning
Commission
al: 1• 11 .
w:\planning\minutes\06-15-OO.min