HOUSING COMMITTEE. Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Transcription

1 HOUSING COMMITTEE Wednesday, January 20, 2016 JOHN FERRARO COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 340, CITY HALL - 1:00 PM 200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA *** NOTE LOCATION CHANGE FOR THIS MEETING *** MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBER GILBERT A. CEDILLO, CHAIR COUNCILMEMBER FELIPE FUENTES COUNCILMEMBER JOSE HUIZAR COUNCILMEMBER CURREN D. PRICE, JR. COUNCILMEMBER MARQUEECE HARRIS-DAWSON (John A. White - Legislative Assistant - (213) or john.white@lacity.org) Click here for agenda packets Note: For information regarding the Committee and its operations, please contact the Committee Legislative Assistant at the phone number and/or address listed above. The Legislative Assistant may answer questions and provide materials and notice of matters scheduled before the City Council. Sign Language Interpreters, Communication Access Real-Time Transcription (CART), Assistive Listening Devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided upon request. To ensure availability, you are advised to make your request at least 72 hours prior to the meeting/event you wish to attend. Due to difficulties in securing Sign Language Interpreters, five or more business days notice is strongly recommended. For additional information, please contact the Legislative Assistant listed above. ITEM NO. (1) HOUSE LA: Motion (Cedillo Harris-Dawson - Wesson) instructing the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department (HCIDLA), in coordination with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, to report relative to the feasibility and strategies for using air space above City-owned parking lots for affordable housing developments. (Also referred to the Ad Hoc on Comprehensive Job Creation Plan and the Entertainment and Facilities Committees.) Fiscal Impact Statement Submitted: No Community Impact Statement: None submitted ITEM NO. (2) Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 1

2 HOUSE LA: Motion (Cedillo Huizar) requesting the City Attorney, in conjunction with the Department of City Planning, to prepare an ordinance to permit the substitution of one shared vehicle for every four required parking spaces for residential or mixed-use buildings located on or within one quarter mile of a transit corridor; and, instructing the Department of City Planning to report relative to reducing and/or eliminating parking requirements based on certain criteria. (Also referred to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee.) Fiscal Impact Statement Submitted: No Community Impact Statement: Yes Against: Valley Village Neighborhood Council ITEM NO. (3) HOUSE LA: Motion (Cedillo Huizar) instructing the Department of City Planning, in consultation with HCIDLA, to report with an evaluation of the Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Ordinance as a model to encourage the production of micro-units, the potential impact micro-units can have on affordable housing needs, and the benefit of expanding this model to other areas of the City. (Also referred to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee.) Fiscal Impact Statement Submitted: No Community Impact Statement: Yes Against: Valley Village Neighborhood Council ITEM NO. (4) S1 HOUSE LA: Motion (Cedillo Fuentes) instructing the Department of Building and Safety to report relative to the number of illegal/unapproved second units occupying single-family residential properties, and in conjunction with the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) to identify options for preserving unapproved second housing units; and, requesting the City Attorney, in conjunction with the Departments of City Planning and Building and Safety, to prepare an ordinance prescribing a permit process to allow the development of Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with Assembly Bill Fiscal Impact Statement Submitted: No Community Impact Statement: Yes No Position: San Pedro Neighborhood Council Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 2

3 ITEM NO. (5) HOUSE LA: Motion (Cedillo O Farrell) instructing the Department of City Planning to report relative to amending the Site Plan Review Ordinance to increase the threshold from 50 residential units, and to establish an administrative zoning clearance process for projects below this threshold as a strategy to increase the City's affordable housing production. (Also referred to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee.) Fiscal Impact Statement Submitted: No Community Impact Statement: Yes Against: Valley Village Neighborhood Council ITEM NO. (6) HOUSE LA: Motion (Cedillo Krekorian Wesson) instructing the Department of Building and Safety, with the assistance of the CLA and the City Administrative Officer, to report relative to which use service fees can be deferred and collected when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a residential development. (Also referred to the Budget and Finance Committee.) Fiscal Impact Statement Submitted: No Community Impact Statement: None submitted ITEM NO. (7) HOUSE LA: Motion (Cedillo Wesson) instructing the Department of City Planning to report relative to the feasibility of expanding the Department's Expedited Processing Section to include the review of projects with new environmental impact reports. (Also referred to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee.) Fiscal Impact Statement Submitted: No Community Impact Statement: None submitted COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST WITHIN THIS COMMITTEES SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 3

4 If you challenge this Committee's action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to, the public hearing. Any written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk before the City Council's final action on a matter will become a part of the administrative record. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office at 200 North Spring Street, Room 395, City Hall, Los Angeles, CA during normal business hours. Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 4

5 MOTION ENTERTAINMENT AND FACILITIES HOUSE LA: City Owned Land as Sites for Affordable Housing The City s adopted Housing Element identifies the need for 82,002 new housing units through Last October, Mayor Eric Garcetti pledged to surpass these numbers by setting the goal to produce 100,000 new housing units by To meet this critical need, the City must be creative, innovative and aggressive in developing alternative housing solutions. The lack of federal, state and local funds should not impede Los Angeles from creating and exploring alternatives in incentivizing the production of housing development. One key strategy worth revisiting is the utilization of City-owned parking lots as sites for the shared development of affordable housing with public parking spaces. Former Mayor Tom Bradley endorsed the idea of leasing "air space" above some of the City's 105 parking lots. In the 1980s, several lots were redeveloped with affordable housing above public parking spaces. Today Highland Park is set to unveil an 80-unit housing development built on three City-owned parking lots adjacent to the Gold Line Transit Station. Recently the City s Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) and Department of Transportation (LADOT) will enter into an agreement with a non-profit affordable housing developer to create an affordable senior housing project on a City-owned parking lot. Both developments will replace parking spaces serving the public. With more than 100 surface parking lots in various neighborhoods, the City should continue to explore the strategy of utilizing the air-space on City-owned parking lots as opportunities to create shared affordable housing development with public parking. I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Housing Community Investment Department, in coordination with the Department of Transportation, to prepare and present a report with recommendations on the feasibility and strategies to utilize air-space above City-owned parking lots for affordable housing developments while preserving or replacing existing parking spaces, including but not limited to any financial, administrative and other benefits and obstacles that may enhance or impede the development of housing and other pertinent considerations. I FURTHER MOVE that the City Council instruct the City Administrative Office, Asset Management Team to provide a report on any other city-owned properties that may be potential sites for the development of affordable housing. A PRESENTED BY i GILBERT A. CEDILLO CoiWilman, 1st District SECONDED BY C5 AU6 2$ W Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 5

6 MOTION r LANNING & LAND USE MANAGEMENT HOUSE LA: Expanding the Use of Shared Vehicles Los Angeles continues to face a critical shortage in housing, resulting in high rental prices and less homeownership opportunities. One of the primary reasons for the high cost of housing is the cost of construction in Los Angeles, contributing to the City s housing policy challenges and a major reason that the City is now among the least affordable housing markets in the country. In order to promote responsible development, increase our housing stock, and incentivize affordable housing, the City should continue to identify innovative policies and strategies to lower the cost of housing production. A major development cost is building parking for vehicles. Today construction costs range from $25,000 to $40,000 per parking space, and up to $50,000 for subterranean spaces. The City has adopted policies to encourage the use of public transit by reducing parking requirements for housing developments proposed within a Transient Oriented Development (TOD). The State Density Bonus Law under SB1818 allows for reduced parking as an incentive in exchange for the provision of affordable housing. The City s bicycle parking ordinance is another tool that allows for the reduction of vehicular parking requirements up to 20% and 30% in TOD areas. State legislation has been introduced (AB 744) to expand the Density Bonus Law by allowing developers who request a density bonus from a city to also request that the city eliminate minimum parking requirements for a development if it is within % mile of transit, a senior-only project, or serves special needs individuals. The City and County of San Francisco have enacted regulations that eliminate minimum parking requirements and set a maximum requirement. Recode LA is in the process of updating our Zoning Code and the Downtown Development Code to reflect minimum parking requirements. The City s Housing Element directs the City to develop alternative parking strategies that reduce the cost of housing production. One such solution is allowing the use of shared vehicles in housing developments located near rail transit or high frequency bus transit. Buildings that are in close proximity to transit would be marketable and feasible with fewer parking spaces if one or more shared vehicles were available to tenants. Buildings that assure tenants easy and reliable access to such vehicles have been successful in other California cities, and can satisfy the need of many households for a vehicle or a second vehicle. Shared vehicles can provide the convenience which tenants need while dramatically reducing the cost of building housing. I THERFORE MOVE the City Council request the City Attorney in conjunction with the Department of City Planning prepare an ordinance that permits the substitution of one shared vehicle for every 4 required parking spaces for residential or mixed-use buildings located on or within % mile of a transit corridor. I FURTHERMOVE the City Council instruct the Department of City Planning to prepare and present a report with recommendations on vehicular parking regulatory reform with an analysis of strategies to reduce and/or eliminate parking requirements based on selected criteria, including but not limited to certain types of developments, specific zones and proximity to transit. qqqav PRESENTED BY GILBERT A. CEDILLO Councilman, 1S1 District us ft ms / SECONDED BY Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 6

7 Contact Information Neighborhood Council: NC Valley Village Name: Anthony Braswell Phone Number: The Board approved this CIS by a vote of: Yea(11) Nay(0) Abstain(0) Ineligible(0) Recusal(0) Date of NC Board Action: 09/16/2015 Type of NC Board Action: Against Impact Information Date: 09/25/2015 Update to a Previous Input: No Directed To: City Council and Committees Council File Number: Agenda Date: Item Number: Summary: NC Valley Village unanimously opposes the motion by Councilmen Cedillo and Huizar requesting the City Attorney in conjunction with the City Planning Department to prepare an Ordinance that permits the substitution of one shared vehicle for every 4 required parking spaces for residential or mixed-use buildings located on or within ¼ mile of a transit corridor. Motion by Ms. Liebowitz-Neglia, second by Mr. Walker The motion to oppose this Council action was approved unanimously Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 7

8 Neighborhood Council Valley Village Board of Directors Meeting September 16, 2015 Draft Board Members present: Daniel Brady, Daryl Baskin, Ginny Hatfield, Mark Woersching, Suzanne Lewis, Dale Liebowitz-Neglia, Paulette Stokes, Steven Stokes, Jeff Walker, Alice Hart, Richard Davies, Alex Rostad Board Members absent: Tony Braswell, Charles Sulahian, Sandy Hubbard, Richard Poole Motion to oppose Council File (Cedillo/Huizar) NCVV opposes the motion by Cedillo/Huizar requesting the City Attorney in conjunction with the City Planning Department to prepare an Ordinance that permits the substitution of one shared vehicle for every 4 required parking spaces for residential or mixed-use buildings located on or within ¼ mile of a transit corridor. Motion by Ms. Liebowitz-Neglia, second by Mr. Walker The motion to oppose this Council action was approved unanimously Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 8

9 MOTION HOUSE LA: Permitting Micro-Unit Housing PLANNING & LAND USE MANAGEMENT For many Angelinos, pursuing the purchase of an oversized house has lost its appeal particularly with the prospect of an unmanageable mortgage. At the same time, people are remaining single, living alone or choosing not to have children for longer periods of time. These demographic shifts, changing lifestyle preferences and affordability constraints have led to a rise in popularity of small self-contained homes popularly known as microunits". Tiny houses and micro apartments are an emerging niche trend in the housing market. Smaller spaces are touted as being more environmentally friendly, more affordable and perhaps even more communal. This type of smaller unit appeals to young, single professionals who desire the convenience of living in areas such as Downtown or near transit and might not be able to afford a conventional one bedroom apartment. Micro-units also provide an alternative housing option for senior, single-households and others who prefer lower housing costs. These relatively small apartments (by traditional standards), leasing at approximately 20% to 30% lower monthly rent than conventional units, have been offered or are being considered in urban and urbanizing locales, particularly in high-density, expensive metropolitan markets such as Boston, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. The size of a micro-unit is determined by the housing market. The unit sizes in New York City are in the 300 square-foot range whereas those in some Midwestern and Texas markets may range in size from square feet, In Los Angeles, the current Building Code does not effectively facilitate this new housing type. Density limitations also restrict the application of micro-units: a regulatory system prescribing density based on a maximum number of units per acre or a minimum lot area per unit creates an impediment to creating these type of units. In 2007, the City Council adopted the Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Ordinance (Ordinance No. 179,076) which eliminated the restrictions on the allowable number of housing units in residential and mixed-use developments in the City's Downtown Area while retaining the floor area ratio and height regulations defining a building s envelope. By ail accounts, the legislation has contributed to the stimulation of housing production within the target area, while providing the possibility of producing micro-units as an alternative housing solution. Given the City s compelling need to produce housing serving a full spectrum of household and providing a range of housing types, City policymakers ought to explore the applicability of this model to other areas where it makes sense, given the real world experience with the ordinance. In areas where density regulations currently appiy, such as near transit, creating incentives to produce microunits could help to provide a more affordable housing option using an alternative approach eliminating the traditional measure of density using dwelling units per acre. The placement of micro-unit housing may not be appropriate in all locations, but as a unit type, it is worth considering as an alternative housing solution and should be part of the conversation amongst policymakers about future housing affordability in Los Angeles. I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Department of City Planning, in consultation with Housing and Community Investment Department, to prepare and present a report with an evaluation of Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Ordinance as a model to encourage the production of micro-units, the potential impact micro-units can have on our affordable housing needs, and the benefit of expanding this mocfetj to apply to other geographic areas of the City C5 PRESENTED BY Gl Coi i SECONDED BY a- I RT A. CEDILLO liman, 1st District i Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 9

10 Contact Information Neighborhood Council: NC Valley Village Name: Anthony Braswell Phone Number: The Board approved this CIS by a vote of: Yea(11) Nay(0) Abstain(0) Ineligible(0) Recusal(0) Date of NC Board Action: 09/16/2015 Type of NC Board Action: Against Impact Information Date: 09/25/2015 Update to a Previous Input: No Directed To: City Council and Committees Council File Number: Agenda Date: Item Number: Summary: NC Valley Village Board of Directors opposes the motion by Councilmen Cedillo and Huizar requesting the City Planning Department, in consultation with the Housing and Community Investment Department, prepare and present a report with an evaluation of the Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Ordinance as a model to encourage the production of micro-units with the potential impact that micro-units can have on affordable housing needs with the intention of expanding this model to apply to other geographic areas of the City. NCVV opposes the use of or production of microunits to address affordable housing needs. Motion by Ms. Liebowitz-Neglia, second by Mr. StokesThe motion to oppose this City Council action was approved unanimously Neighborhood Council Valley Village Board of Directors Meeting September 16, 2015 Draft Board Members present: Daniel Brady, Daryl Baskin, Ginny Hatfield, Mark Woersching, Suzanne Lewis, Dale Liebowitz-Neglia, Paulette Stokes, Steven Stokes, Jeff Walker, Alice Hart, Richard Davies, Alex Rostad Board Members absent: Tony Braswell, Charles Sulahian, Sandy Hubbard, Richard Poole Motion to oppose Council File (Cedillo/Huizar) NCVV opposes the motion by Cedillo/Huizar requesting the City Planning Department, in consultation with the Housing and Community Investment Department, to prepare and present a report with an evaluation of the Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Ordinance as a model to encourage the production of micro-units with the potential impact that micro-units can have on affordable housing needs with the intention of expanding this model to apply to other geographic areas of the City. NCVV opposes the use of or production of micro-units to address affordable housing needs. Motion by Ms. Liebowitz-Neglia, second by Mr. Stokes The motion to oppose this City Council action was approved unanimously Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 10

11 HOUSING MOTION HOUSE LA: Facilitating Accessory Dwelling Units Safely constructed, legally permitted second units occupying a property with a single-family home offer numerous neighborhood and household benefits in addition to increasing the housing supply citywide. The units can provide an important source of affordable rental housing. Neighborhoods with second units can be more walkable with more public transit opportunities and more local services because more people reside nearby. Backyard homes may also help to stabilize communities by providing flexible housing alternatives while offering families the opportunity to stay in their house for decades. The potential rents from second units can make it easier for young or middle-class households to own single family homes. They can provide flexible space for growing families, and nearby but independent housing for adult children. They also provide an unmatched opportunity for seniors to live independently with their caregivers in close proximity. Yet another benefit may be the opportunity to provide a smaller unit for households that seek to age in place and do not need all the living space afforded by the primary unit but may need the supplemental income that comes from renting the larger, front house. Nearly 500,000 single-family residential properties exist in the City of Los Angeles. For various reasons, not all of these lots will be appropriate sites for a backyard home, nor will all property owners want a second unit, but the challenges Los Angeles continues to face with its housing shortage warrants the need to facilitate a process that allows for both flexibility and provides other housing alternatives. Cities and states throughout the country have recognized the benefits of Accessory Dwelling Units. Seattle, Portland, Denver, Santa Cruz and other jurisdictions have revised zoning codes to permit interested homeowners to build Accessory Dwelling Units. In 2002, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1866 to encourage Accessory Dwelling Units by requiring cities to reduce or eliminate local barriers to their development. The American Dream of owning a free-standing home remains a strong ideal, even though it has moved further out of reach for most Angelinos. Accessory Dwelling Units cannot completely solve the City s housing crisis, but offer a strategy to improve conditions for many. Of the half million single-family residential properties in Los Angeles, creating only 10% with Accessory Dwelling Units will add 50,000 new housing units. I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Department of Building and Safety to report on the number of illegal/unapproved second units occupying single-family residential properties discovered per year by building inspectors over the last five years, including but not limited to the number of unapproved housing units corrected and legalized, the number eliminated from the housing market, and how many remain out of compliance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code. I FURTHER MOVE thafcthe Council instruct the Department of Building and Safety to work with the Chief Legislative Analyst and any other appropriate city departments to identify options for preserving unapproved second housing units, including measures utilized by other jurisdictions to preserve unapproved units. I FURTHER MOVE that the Council request the City Attorney, in conjunction with the Department of City Planning and Department of Building and Safety, to prepare and present an ordinance that prescribes a permit process to allow the development of Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with Assembly Bill f AUG l 5 <ioff PRESENTED BY: Glj-pERT CEDILLO Councilman, 1st District S Ecom (?D ST' Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 11

12 Contact Information Neighborhood Council: Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Name: Laurie Jacobs Phone Number: The Board approved this CIS by a vote of: Yea(10) Nay(0) Abstain(0) Ineligible(0) Recusal(10) Date of NC Board Action: 12/14/2015 Type of NC Board Action: Neutral Position Impact Information Date: 12/23/2015 Update to a Previous Input: No Directed To: City Council and Committees Council File Number: S1 Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 12

13 MOTION PLANNING & LAND USE MANAGEMENT HOUSE LA: Site Plan Review Modifications The current shortage in housing in Los Angeles can be attributed to a serious lack of supply combined with a high level of demand. Rising rents is evidence to.signal that more households would like to live in the area than there is housing to accommodate them. As the City s population grows, the shortfall in housing availability will have far-reaching and devastating effects on the Los Angeles region if City policymakers and community stakeholders fail to make a positive commitment to change. The number of new residents in Los Angeles County grew by 1,382,520 between 1990 and During the same time period, there were only 201,440 new housing units produced. That means that only one housing unit was constructed for every 6.86 new people that needed housing. And numbers throughout the rest of the region say much the same thing -- demand continues to rise and the number of people per household has increased as the result of inadequate housing stock. Key strategies to increase the housing stock include updating the City s Zoning Code to encourage responsible development, streamlining the approval of building permits, and expediting housing production when appropriate. In 1990, the City enacted an ordinance that mandates a site plan review process for any proposed project that results in an increase of 50 or more residential units or guest rooms, or 50,000 non-residential square feet or more of non-residential floor area, or a change of use resulting in an increase of 500 or more daily vehicle trips. Since its enactment, the City has imposed a common set of mitigation measures on most housing developments. These common measures could be built into the Building and Zoning Codes as standard requirements imposed on new housing developments of 50 units or more. The City should consider increasing the site plan review threshold from 50 units to a higher threshold so that only the largest projects are subject to the review while the development of in-fill housing consistent with the Zoning Code in already urbanized areas are permitted to be built. Projects that comply with the underlying zoning, meet design guidelines, and reach local affordability goals could be exempted from site plan review and allowed to proceed through the building permit approval process. The current housing crisis merits an evaluation of the City s planning policies in relation to the ability to entitle, construct and deliver much-needed housing units to market. It is timely to evaluate the City s site plan review ordinance, given its 25-year history and the need to build certainty into the City s entitlement and permitting processes. I THEREFORE MOVE the City Council instruct the Department of City Planning to prepare and present a report with recommendations to amend the site plan review ordinance, increasing the threshold from 50 residential units and establishing an administrative zoning clearance process for projects below this threshold as a strategy to increase the City's affordable housing production. PRESENTED BY: SECONDED BY: m GILBERT A. CEDILLO C ilman, 1st District <3 ; is 2 Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 13

14 Contact Information Neighborhood Council: NC Valley Village Name: Anthony Braswell Phone Number: The Board approved this CIS by a vote of: Yea(11) Nay(0) Abstain(0) Ineligible(0) Recusal(0) Date of NC Board Action: 09/16/2015 Type of NC Board Action: Against Impact Information Date: 09/25/2015 Update to a Previous Input: No Directed To: City Council and Committees Council File Number: Agenda Date: Item Number: Summary: NC Valley Village Board of Directors opposes the motion by Councilmen Cedillo and O Farrell requesting the City Planning Department to prepare recommendations to amend the site plan review ordinance increasing the threshold from 50 residential units and establishing an administrative zoning clearance process for projects below this threshold as a strategy to increase the City s affordable house production. NCVV opposes any change in the site plan review ordinance. Neighborhood Council Valley Village Board of Directors Meeting September 16, 2015 Draft Board Members present: Daniel Brady, Daryl Baskin, Ginny Hatfield, Mark Woersching, Suzanne Lewis, Dale Liebowitz-Neglia, Paulette Stokes, Steven Stokes, Jeff Walker, Alice Hart, Richard Davies, Alex Rostad Board Members absent: Tony Braswell, Charles Sulahian, Sandy Hubbard, Richard Poole Motion to oppose Council File (Cedillo/O Farrell) NCVV opposes the motion by Cedillo/O Farrell requesting the City Planning Department to prepare recommendations to amend the site plan review ordinance increasing the threshold from 50 residential units and establishing an administrative zoning clearance process for projects below this threshold as a strategy to increase the City s affordable house production. NCVV opposes any change in the site plan review ordinance. Motion by Ms. Liebowitz-Neglia, second by Mr. Walker The motion to oppose this Council action was approved unanimously Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 14

15 MOTION BUDGET & FINANCE PLANNING & LAND USE MANAGEMENT HOUSE LA: Deferred Fees The California Legislative Analyst s Office (LAO) recently issued a report titled "California s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences which asserts that higher building costs contribute to higher housing costs. The report points to three factors which determine developers cost to build housing: labor, materials and government fees. All three of these components are higher in California than in the rest of the country. Development fees - charges levied on builders as a condition of development - are higher in California than other states. A 2012 national survey found that the average development fee levied by California local governments (excluding water-related fees) was just over $22,000 per single-family home compared with about $6,000 per single-family home in the rest of the country. Altogether the cost of building a typical single-family home in California s metropolitan areas likely is between $50,000 and $75,000 higher than in the rest of the country. One way of facilitating increased housing production could be to alleviate the high cost of development by deferring certain fees until completion of construction of a residential project and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. While many fees are imposed to offset the costs of City staff time in reviewing and processing building plans and inspecting the progress of construction on site, there are other fees imposed on residential development which are not processing fees. Rather they are fees related to the use of services once construction of the housing unit has been completed and the residence is occupied. Such fees include, but are not limited to: sewer connection fees, storm water fees, traffic mitigation fees, park fees, water and power installations, utility fees, and school fees collected on behalf of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Fees for these services could be collected in conjunction with the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy following project completion rather than at the beginning of the building permit application process. Deferring said use fees until project completion would help to reduce predevelopment and financing costs - ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 per unit. Deferring and collecting these specific fees at the Certificate of Occupancy stage would have no impact on the City s General Fund; all other required funds for all City services would still be paid at the start of the building application process and collected by the City. I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Department of Building and Safety with the assistance of the Chief Legislative Analyst and the City Administrative Officer, in consultation with any other relevant city department, to prepare and present a report on which use fees could potentially be deferred and collected until the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a residential development. AUB PRESENTED BY: 2 GILBERT A. CEDILLO CounSiknan, 1st Djystrict SECONDED BY O Wednesday - January 20, PAGE 15

16 PLANNING & LANU ubt MMNAbtMtN I Motion HOUSE LA: Expanding City Planning's Expedited Processing Section (EPS) As the City of Los Angles continues to struggle with a Housing Crisis, officials must do what they can to facilitate the growth in our housing stock - both to bring affordability and to encourage the economic growth of this City. Established in 2003, the Expedited Processing Section (EPS) of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning provides the public with a faster alternative for processing entitlement applications. Cases are "expedited" for an additional fee paid by the applicants and can yield a 30% to 50% time savings over the traditional process. EPS is currently not available for projects that require a new EIR. Major Project's unit and EIR unit handle larger projects, but applicants continue to be challenged with significant bottlenecks in the review of complex residential, commercial and mixed-use projects requiring a full EIR. The Department of City Planning estimates that an EIR case takes months to complete, not including entitlements. Recent data show 49 pending EIR cases in the Department of City Planning's pipeline, representing approximately 23,700 housing units. This is in addition to over 600 other environmental cases pending in the Department of City Planning. It may be to the City's benefit to expand its EPS unit to further expedite projects that require a new environmental. Having the capacity to expedite approval of projects currently in the pipeline by reducing the time it takes to complete review of an EIR may help the City to address its current housing crisis and encourage other housing projects to be built. Los Angeles, along with a number of other cities, utilize technical consultants on a case-by-case basis to assist with preparation and review of environmental documents. The Department could expand its use of this technical support to effectively reduce the processing time for environmental documents, including a full EIR. I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Department of City Planning to report back within 30 days on the feasibility of expanding the Expedited Processing Section (EPS), to include the preparation and review of projects with new EIR's; recommendations should include criteria for development projects to be eligible for expedited service, targets to reduce process time and track progress, and an appropriate fee structure, including the use of outside technical support. PRESENTED BY: v\v^rv.t ^ GILBERT A. CEDILLO Councilman, 1st District I# & Wednesday SECONDED BY: - January 20, PAGE 16