DEPARTMENT OF

CITY PLANNING

200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM 525 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-4801

City of Los Angeles C ALIFORNIA

S. GAIL GOLDBERG, AICP DIRECTOR

(213) 978-1271

AND

6262 VAN NUYS BLVD., SUITE 351 VAN NUYS, CA 91401

VINCENT P. BERTONI, AICP

C

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

(213) 978-1272 JOHN M. DUGAN, AICP

WILLIAM ROSCHEN PRESIDENT

REGINA M. FREER VICE-PRESIDENT SEAN O. BURTON DIEGO CARDOSO ROBIN R. HUGHES FR. SPENCER T. KEZIOS RICARDO LARA CINDY MONTAÑEZ MICHAEL K. WOO C JAMES WILLIAMS

EXECUTIVE OFFICES

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

(213) 978-1274 EVA YUAN-MCDANIEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Antonio R. Villaraigosa MAYOR

COMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

(213) 978-1300

(213) 978-1273 FAX: (213) 978-1275 INFORMATION (213) 978-1270

www.planning.lacity.org

June 19, 2009

Honorable Members of the City Council c/o Office of the City Clerk Room 395, City Hall Mail Stop 160 Attention: Lauraine Braithwaite, Legislative Assistant DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE FEE STUDY – CF 09-0969 On April 17, 2009, the Department of City Planning submitted its comprehensive fee study and fee recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. The report was heard at a joint Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) and Budget and Finance Committee meeting on June 1, 2009. The two Committees made a decision to forward the item to City Council without recommendation. In addition, the Department was requested to provide additional input on various questions from members of the respective Committees. The Department is hereby attaching three documents in response to the joint Committee request as follows: 1) List of responses to questions from the joint meeting; 2) Revised Attachment A from the original report adding estimated annual case volumes and fees without the Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) rate and; and 3) Sample Case Fee Calculations. In considering this additional information, the Council should be aware that any reduction or contribution from the General Fund to offset the fees will result in less revenue to the Department. The original report estimated that the new fee schedule could result in additional annual revenues of $7 – 8 million. In the 2009-10 Adopted Budget additional revenue in the amount of $6 million was included in the Department’s projection to account for a nine-month implementation period. If CAP rates are not included in the fees, total estimated annual revenue will be reduced to approximately $6.7 million. A nine-month implementation period on that amount would be $5 million.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM JOINT PLUM AND BUDGET AND FINANCE MEETING OF JUNE 1, 2009

Why didn’t we raise the fees earlier? (Rosendahl) The City has increased the entitlement application fees by 20% in Fiscal Year 2008-09 and by 15% in Fiscal Year 2007-08. Before that time, the fees were increased by 5% each year in Fiscal Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Even with these increases, the fee study has shown that the City is still subsidizing planning applications by as much as 60%. How do we compare with other cities? (Reyes) In the recent fee analysis, the City of Los Angeles was compared with seven western cities and six regional cities/agencies. In the western cities analysis, the City’s current fees are comparable; however, the proposed fees will be higher. In the regional cities analysis, some jurisdictions have higher fees (Santa Clarita and Pasadena), but most of the other cities have lower fees compared to both the current and proposed fees. Should we be charging the CAP overhead rate on the fees like we charge for federal grants? (Parks) This is ultimately a policy decision by the City Council. The CAP 30 overhead rate used in the Fee Study was 41.56%, which is the Citywide Central Services rate for City Planning. A revised fee scheduled is attached showing what the fees would be without the CAP rate. What was the thought process for the density bonus fees? (Reyes) All fees were calculated based on the amount of staff time required to process applications, plus benefits and overheads. It is less expensive to process density bonus applications that are on-menu compared to those requests for off-menu services. Did we increase the budget to include these fees? (Greuel) Yes, revenues for the Planning Department in the amount of $6 million were added to the 2009-10 adopted budget to account for these fee increases. I have concerns over the following fee charges: (Greuel) Fee

Current Fee

Certified Farmer’s Market Relief from Fence Height Service of Alcohol in a Small Restaurant Development Agreement Coastal Development Permit for SFD Residential with exceptions Historic Preservation Overlay

1

586 794

Proposed Fee 2,641 4,525

Fee without CAP 2,035 3,488

229 4,074

6,040 29,690

4,656 23,098

1,285 1,361

7,057 136,656

5,440 107,384

Mobile Home Impact Report Affordable Housing (Density Bonus – On Menu)

2,484

13,992

10,906

1,278

7,115

5,530

All fees were calculated based on the amount of staff time required to process applications, plus benefits and overheads. It is ultimately a policy decision by the City Council to subsidize any specific fee items. While individual fee items may appear high, the Department’s report recommends discounting multiple entitlements as follows: 100% for the highest fee; 50% for the second highest; and 25% for every additional application. This discount will substantially reduce individual fee amounts if they are submitted in combination with other entitlements (see question and attachment below). Can you pick certain categories and provide examples? (Greuel) See Sample Case Fee Calculations attachment showing a cost comparison of three cases at the current fees, proposed fees without the CAP, and full cost recovery proposed fees. Will these fees prohibit lower income residents from filing permits? Should we look at a concept like Lifeline to provide a discount? (Parks) The City's entitlement fee structure has never been based on income or other categories. However, City Planning is recommending a 50% subsidy to homeowners of single family dwellings and additional subsidies for certain historic applications and appeals. Subsidizing entitlements based on income or other category could be made by the City Council as a policy decision. How will this impact non-profits and for-profits to build affordable housing? (Rosendahl) Planning application fees are only a small portion of the costs for developers building affordable housing regardless of whether they are being built for-profit or for a non-profit entity. Explain the difference between surcharges and fees. (Rosendahl) Fees are charges for services provided by a government agency to a public citizen or group normally set on a per unit/per project basis. Surcharges are generally assessed as a percentage of fees or some other metric, such as valuation, and are meant to recover costs from entire groups who receive overall benefits from services rather than individual clients. Are there any fees proposed by the consultant that the Department doesn’t agree with? (Rosendahl) The Department concurs with all the fee recommendations from the consultant since our staff was instrumental in providing the time estimates. After the final report was received, the Department recommended subsidizing fees for single family dwelling applications, certain historic resources applications, and appeals.

2

Why is the Department down by 100 staff? (Rosendahl) Over the past couple of years, the Department has been fortunate in acquiring new positions raising our position authorities to just over 400. However, due to the Managed Hiring Policy, combined with attrition, the Department has been unable to fill the 100+ vacancies, leaving us with a 25% vacancy rate. Are you applying or receiving any Economic Stimulus funding? (Rosendahl) The Department has received approval for stimulus funding for the SurveyLA match in the amount of $300,000 and for the Mixed Income CEQA work in the amount of $400,000. Provide a report with case type and volume by Council District. (Rosendahl) The revised Attachment A provides estimated annual volumes by case type. The Department does not have the capacity to break these out by Council District.

3

Cost of Services (User Fee Study) FY 2009

NEW FEE NO.

STUDY FEE NO.

1

1 2

Fee Name LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS GPA (Stand Alone without ZC or Annexation)* Zone Change - SFD/MF Residential ( up to 49 Units)

2 3 4 5

3 4 5 6

Zone Change - SFD/MF Residential (add'l fee for each 50 units over 49) Zone Change - Non-residential ( ≤ 49,999 s.f. ) Zone Change - Non-residential ( ≥ 50,000 s.f. ) Height District Change (each)

6

7

Amendment of Council's Instructions: Removal of T Class. (each)

7

9

8

10

9

11

10 11

12 13

12

14

13

15

14

16

15 16

17 18

17

19

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

City of Los Angeles, CA Department of City Planning Master Summary Schedule

ATTACHMENT A

Supplemental Use District: Establishment (Including, but not limited to O, S, G, RPD, K, CA, POD, CDO, MU, FH, RFA, and SN Districts) Supplemental Use District: Change or Removal (Including, but not limited to O, S, G, RPD, K, CA, POD, CDO, MU, FH, RFA, and SN Districts) Building Line (Establishment, Change or Removal) Zone Boundary Line Adjustment (each) Approval of Transfer of Floor Area Plan (each) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (≤399 Units., 499K s.f (comm/ind), 249K s.f. (mixed use)) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (≥400 d.u., 500K s.f (comm/ind), 250K s.f. (mixed use)) Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, (≤399 d.u., 499K s.f (comm/ind), 249K s.f. (mixed use)) Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, (≥400 d.u., 500K s.f (comm/ind), 250K s.f. (mixed use]) Land Use Determinations by City Planning Commission (each) SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVALS Project Permit Compliance and other Specific Plan Reviews (SPP or SPR) Project Permit Compliance and other Specific Plan Reviews (Single Family) Project Permit With DRB Project Permit With DRB (Single Family) DRB - Preliminary DRB - Preliminary (Single Family) Project Permit Modification (each) Project Permit Adjustment (each) Specific Plan Exception (each) Specific Plan Amendment (each) Specific Plan Interpretation (each) CUP's and OTHER SIMILAR QUASI JUDICIAL APPROVALS

Code Section

Average Current Fee/ Unit

12.32 F

12,608

delete reduced

6,688 12,695 12,695 2,399

reduced reduced

12.32 F 12.32 F 12.32 F 12.32 F 12.32 H + D14

12.32 S

Subsidized Fees & Notes

2,179

-

New

Full Cost Recovery Fee Amount

Proposed Fee Amount w/out CAP

11,734

9,121

36

5,747 11,737 16,440 11,123

4,462 9,124 12,783 8,647

2 4

4,264

3,309

3

134,608

104,744

1

Estimated Annual Volume -

2

12.32 S

1,626

66,289

52,843

12.32 R 12.30 H + K 14.5.1 - 14

3,217

8,833

6,866

3,812 14,549

5,476 16,292

4,253 12,670

11.5.8

17,578

23,884

18,574

11.5.8

22,823

32,116

24,979

-

11.5.8

4,793

46,357

36,061

-

4,121

62,566 11,060

48,675 8,597

-

11.5.7 C

1,187

3,808

2,958

11.5.7 C 11.5.7 C 11.5.7 C 16.50 E3 16.50 E3 11.5.7 D 11.5.7 E 11.5.7 F 11.5.7 11.5.7

1,187 1,187 1,187 594 594 594 2,395 3,847 17,570 4,300

1,904 5,395 2,698 3,044 1,522 3,308 4,901 14,932 40,560 2,994

1,479 4,193 2,097 2,364 1,182 2,570 3,809 11,611 31,555 2,323

11.5.8 12.24.1

run date: 6/19/2009

-

New

50% subsidy 50% subsidy 50% subsidy

reduced

2 5 18

411 25 83 2 25 1 -

1 of 6

Cost of Services (User Fee Study) FY 2009

NEW FEE NO.

STUDY FEE NO.

City of Los Angeles, CA Department of City Planning Master Summary Schedule

ATTACHMENT A

Fee Name

28

27

Conditional Use by APC or CPC (each)

29 30

28 29

Child Care ( ≤ 50 children in the R3 Zone, or Large Family Daycare) Conditional Use by ZA (All other uses)

31

30

32 33 34

31 32 33

35 36 37

34 35 36

38 39

37 38

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

39 41 42 43 44

49

Conditional Use by ZA (Alcohol (on- or off-site sales) Entertainment (dance halls, hostess dance halls, massage parlors)) Adult Entertainment Business Exception (Within 500 feet of another Adult Entertainment ) Reasonable Accommodation Determination (each) Variances (All) Adjustments by ZA (All except SFD (including, but not limited to, reduced parking for theaters or historic buildings, adaptive reuse, open storage for autos, or live/work)) Adjustments by ZA (SFD (policy)) Slight Modification by ZA (each)

Code Section 12.24 U + 12.24 V 12.24 X, 24 & 25 12.24 W 12.24 W1 + 12.24W18 12.22 A20 12.22 A27 12.27

Full Cost Recovery Fee Amount

Proposed Fee Amount w/out CAP

Estimated Annual Volume

4,490

13,224

10,281

13

1,280 4,490

4,601 5,358

3,547 4,130

reduced

6,459

4,979

New

5,317 3,311 6,448

4,099 2,570 4,970

-

5,370 2,685 3,941

4,139 2,070 3,038

-

Average Current Fee/ Unit

6,474

Subsidized Fees & Notes

401 5,879

166

228 4 140

12.28 A 12.28 A 12.28 B2

5,398 1,423 215

12.21 A2 12.24 X

397 4,326

5,831 6,093

4,495 4,698

48 50 51

ZA Interpretation of Yard or Use Regulations (ZAI) (Yards and hillsides) ZA Determinations under 12.24 X (unless listed separately) (each) Relief from Fence Height Limitation (Fences not to exceed 8 feet in the required front, side, or rear yard in the A and R zones (X7) or Not to exceed 8 feet in the front yard of a group of lots (X8) ) Certified Farmer's Market (each) Service of Alcohol in a Small Restaurant (≤ 50 seats) Approval to Erect Amateur Radio Antenna (each) Coastal Development Permit - SFD/MF Residential Coastal Development Permit - SFD Residential (no exceptions) Coastal Development Permit - Non-residential Coastal Development Permit - Exemption Determination (each) Coastal Development Permit - Approval in Concept (each)

12.24 X7 + X8 12.24 X6 12.24 X2 12.24 X3 12.20.2 12.20.2 12.20.2 12.20.2.1 12.20.2

794 586 229 530 1,285 1,285 10,643 108 340

4,525 2,641 6,040 2,592 7,057 3,529 7,798 684 703

3,488 2,035 4,656 1,998 5,440 2,720 6,011 527 542

52

Coastal Development Permit - Amendment (Residential/Single-family or 12.20.2.1Q + 12.20.2 O Multi-family and Non-residential))

217

6,456

4,976

-

Coastal Development Permit - Amendment (Residential Single-family no exceptions)

12.20.2.1Q + 12.20.2 O

217

50% subsidy

3,228

2,488

-

Coastal Development Permit - Amendment (Non-residential)

12.20.2.1Q + 12.20.2 O

1,280

Combine with Fee 49 New

6,456 828 16,938 6,369

4,976 638 13,171 4,909

-

7,115

5,530

50

51 52 53

53 56 57 58

54

59

Mello Compliance Review (each)* Public Benefits - Alternative Compliance Proposal (each) Eldercare Facility Unified Permit Application (each) DENSITY BONUS Application for Density Bonus (Request for one or more Incentives included in the Menu of Incentives)

14.00 B 14.3.1

4,490 7,266

12.22 A25 (e)

1,278

run date: 6/19/2009

reduced 50% subsidy

-

50% subsidy reduced

reduced

48 6 14 129

22 21 258 53

1 -

11

2 of 6

Cost of Services (User Fee Study) FY 2009

NEW FEE NO.

STUDY FEE NO.

55

60

56

61

57 58

62 63

59 60 61

64 65 66

62 63

67 68

64 65 66

69 70 71

67 68 69 70

72 73

71

76

72

77

73

79

75

74

75

76

80 81 82 83

85

City of Los Angeles, CA Department of City Planning Master Summary Schedule

ATTACHMENT A

Fee Name Application for Density Bonus (Request for an Incentive not included in the Menu of Incentives)

Code Section 12.22 A25 (e)

Full Cost Recovery Fee Amount

Proposed Fee Amount w/out CAP

4,490

23,287

18,109

-

-

Average Current Fee/ Unit

Subsidized Fees & Notes

Application for Density Increase in excess of that permitted by Section 12.22 A.25 (each) SITE PLAN REVIEW

12.24 U25 + 14.00 A2

4,490

20,718

16,114

Site Plan Review - (Residential Projects of 50 or more dwelling units) Site Plan Review - (All Other) PLAN APPROVALS Conditions of Approval for Oil Drilling (each) Surface Mining Permits (each) Modification of Existing CUP by APC or CPC (each)

16.05 16.05

1,278 2,398

7,806 7,925

6,064 6,156

13.01 H 13.03 12.24 M

3,269 1,258 2,750

7,650 2,640 8,878

5,896 2,035 6,903

1,280 607

5,754 4,428

4,436 3,441

338 338 487

260 260 376

Modification or Review by ZA (Plan Approval Applications, and, for example, non-conforming oil wells, landscaping nonconforming in the A and R Zones, shared parking, and 12.24 J, L, parking near transit. Existing CUP or Variance) M Clarification of Q or D Limitations (each) 12.32 H ADMINISTRATIVE CLEARANCES Public Benefit Projects (SIGN OFF FOR BY-RIGHT PROJECT Shelter for Homeless with ≤ 30 beds in the R3, M1, M2, or M3 Zones; or Shelter for Homeless in ≤ 6 trailers by a church, religious institution, or philanthropic institution ) 14 Public Benefit Projects (All Other Public Benefit Projects) 14 RIVER Clearance (each)* Green Building Program Application (Includes staff time only. Consultant costs are a pass through and will be calculated separately.) Miscellaneous Clearances - ZA Decision (each) Miscellaneous Clearances - ZA Decision (SFD - no exceptions) Time Extension (All (except maps)) Letters of Correction, Modification, or Clarification of a ZA's, Director's, or DAA's Determination (each) Supplemental Use District Sign-Off (Pedestrian Oriented District/ Transit Oriented District Community Design Overlay RPD) Miscellaneous Clearances - CPB (For example, ICO and Director's Determination Conditions) Miscellaneous Clearances - CPB (For example, ICO and Director's Determination Conditions) (Single Family - no exceptions) OTHER delete Development Agreement Application - Initial (each) Change of or Addl Hearing Scheduling (each)* Cancellation of Hearing (each)* PARCEL AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS SFD (RE 20 or less restrictive zone) (up to 4 lots)

586 4,490 -

16.10

282

reduced reduced New

1

233 8

75

reduced New 50% subsidy New

115 1,722 861 708

88 1,327 664 546

-

New

1,331

1,026

1

199

155

150

3,124

2,431

228

50% subsidy

1,562

1,216

29,690 0 0

23,098 0 0

2

delete delete

8,935

6,964

16

294

reduced

745 745

12.32

4,074 -

run date: 6/19/2009

5 12

-

13

17.50 17.58

Estimated Annual Volume

1,115

24 144

-

3 of 6

Cost of Services (User Fee Study) FY 2009

City of Los Angeles, CA Department of City Planning Master Summary Schedule

ATTACHMENT A

NEW FEE NO.

STUDY FEE NO.

77

86

SFD (RE 20 or less restrictive zone) ( 5 to 10 lots)

78

87

SFD (RE 20 or less restrictive zone) (11-49 lots)

79

88

SFD (RE 20 or less restrictive zone) (add'l fee for each 50 lots over 49)*

80

89

SFD (RE 40 or more restrictive zone) (up to 4 lots)

81

90

SFD (RE 40 or more restrictive zone) ( 5 to 10 lots)

82

91

83

92

SFD (RE 40 or more restrictive zone) (11-49 lots) SFD (RE 40 or more restrictive zone) (add'l fee for each 50 lots over 49)*

84

93

Multi-Family (