Building Permit Waivers Go Before Full Council Tuesday

Thousands of homes were destroyed in the Palisades Fire. Fees should be waived for those who are rebuilding, they were not responsible for the loss of a home.

(Editor’s note: At the Turkey Trot today,  CTN found out that at the December 2 City Council meeting, councilmembers will discuss and vote on building fee waivers for rebuild. I’ll update the story with parking and other talking points, once it is received from the Councilmember Traci Park’s office.)

Pacific Palisades residents need to attend the L.A. City Council Meeting at City Hall at 10 a.m. on Tuesday , December 2, at to speak during public comment urging the council to adopt Mayor Karen Bass Executive Order to waive permit fees for rebuilding.

To recap, in April L.A. Mayor Karen Bass signed an executive order, waiving permit fees. Many Palisades residents assumed it was a done deal but did not realize that the City Council has to give final approval.

On October 14, the City Budget and Finance Committee met, and the five-member council did not seem to be receptive to waiving fees. That committee was told that the loss of fees would be significant to the city and that those fees pay the salaries for the Department of Building and Safety (DBS) staff.

The committee finally agreed to recommend waiving ONLY building permit fees associated with repair or reconstruction of single-family residences  and duplexes, damaged or destroyed up to 110 percent of the original structure.

That motion is now item 23 on the agenda for December 2 click here.

In making comments, one might consider:

• Your story, and how your home in the Palisades is generational. Make it personal. Give an example of why you need the fee waiver, such as I share the house with my daughter and her two children, and we are short of funds. Or maybe, we are both retired and living on a fixed income. People do not have the money to rebuild and there is trouble getting money from insurance. City permit fees could range between $40,000 and $95,000 and would not allow some to rebuild.
• DBS staff size is the same as it was before the fire, extra people have not been hired, and it should not be the responsibility of those who have lost homes to be responsible for fees.
• If people knew fees would be waived, they are more likely to rebuild and once that happens the city will have an increased tax base.

It is important in your comments to emphasize that homes in the Palisades are generational and the majority of us living here are not super wealthy.

 The following letter was sent to CTN and that information should also be presented to the Council, too.

My property at 650 Lachman Lane we purchased in 1995 exemplifies this inequity. My pre-fire home was 2,300 square feet. My neighbor at 656 Lachman had a home rebuilt in 2017 of 5,959 sq ft on the same size lot. It was a beautiful home. Under the 110% cap, I would be limited to 2,530 square feet for fee waiver eligibility. I am considering rebuilding a 4,300 square foot home, much less than my neighbor, with a project valuation of ~$4,000,000.

This means the arbitrary size restriction would exclude me from fee waivers, despite my intent to invest $4 million in rebuilding our community with state-of-the-art fire-resistant construction.

Here is the critical problem: because my planned rebuild exceeds the 110% threshold, I would lose the fee waiver for the entire $4,000,000 project. I would be required to pay the full $55,000 – $95,000 in building permit fees, despite being a fire victim, simply because I am rebuilding 1,770 square feet larger than the arbitrary cap allows.

This cap effectively punishes me for not having expanded my home before the fires. Had I built an addition years ago like my neighbor at 656 Lachman, I would qualify for full-fee waivers on a much larger rebuild under this legislation and implementation policy.

My neighbor who had already expanded beyond 3,900 square feet can rebuild with full waivers, while I cannot rebuild 4,300 square feet without paying full fees. This is fundamentally unfair and discourages the kind of substantial investment in fire-resistant construction benefiting the entire City of Los Angeles.

Economic Consequences for the City of Los Angeles

By capping reconstruction at 110% of January 7, 2025 building envelopes, the City of Los Angeles artificially limits future property tax revenue. The economics of my rebuild illustrate why unrestricted rebuilding serves the City of Los Angeles’ fiscal interests:

• Permit fees waived: $55,000 – $95,000 (one-time cost to the City of Los Angeles)
• Annual property tax generated: $40,000 – $50,000 (ongoing revenue from $4M property)
• Construction sales tax generated: $30,000 – $50,000 (immediate revenue)

Compare this to what the City of Los Angeles would collect if I’m discouraged from building the full 4,300 square feet:

• A 2,530 square foot rebuild (110% cap) valued at approximately $2.2M would generate only $22,000 – $28,000 annually in property tax
• Lost annual revenue: $18,000 – $22,000 per year
• Lost 30-year revenue: $540,000 – $660,000

The City of Los Angeles recovers the full waived fees in just 1-2 years through property tax revenue from an unrestricted rebuild, while gaining decades of enhanced tax base, more efficient homes, lower greenhouse gases, and untold benefits to the entire City of Los Angeles. The 110% cap doesn’t protect city revenues—it sacrifices them. Multiply this across hundreds of rebuilding properties, and the long-term revenue loss becomes staggering.

This single property demonstrates why fee waivers without arbitrary size caps represent sound fiscal policy. The City of Los Angeles cannot afford to leave this revenue on the table by creating disincentives to code compliant reconstruction.