Letter: Fee Waiver Restrictions Don’t Make Sense

People who are building homes larger than previous homes may not be entitled to fee waivers.

(Editor’s note: Although L.A. Mayor Karen Bass signed an executive decision in April for building permit fee waivers, the City Council must approve it. The Budget and Finance Committee in a meeting on October tk, is sending an recommendation to the City Council to only approve single family residences and like for like, plus 110 percent. The City Council must approve the executive order for that to occur. Palisades resident Hank Wright sent a letter to Councilmember Traci Park explaining the issues with that recommendation.)

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.