[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6101503,"mediaKeyId","2807746-d73537b7646af0af20955d6b41f169f9","parentId",2807746,"title","Planning commission backs ordinance to let developers defer impact fees until occupancy","audioSeconds",1383,"startMs",851000,"endMs",2234000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2807746-d73537b7646af0af20955d6b41f169f9&start=851&end=2234","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2807746-d73537b7646af0af20955d6b41f169f9/thumbnail_851000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6101503/El-Segundo-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Planning-commission-backs-ordinance-to-let-developers-defer-impact-fees-until-occupancy","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6101503-6882270a1665850908d63527b54e84e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163198&Signature=K2ECpsOF23LoIY5pBwAFVJvnwz83KXRB4c9eapVUOFDuUBZk1gpxd2kIzMAofCwVToK9aHlu~a793iWxj3k05kMEyRUzAB49aES-XLWqIjJXUIJoDI3qJ4OPTHPvui8tknXcJQAzELPEMMTDi1DY28CJiiAQXM8sRN8sy3o2hLAQvUjw3e~zwGHLR6KhHX0ZuqejTQsi3UBVNaUKd2GNAG20aqtoSK6G6t0MsasMypyCu9TD2Ddw1DRXfL1oqs1~8fgYfhqAXpfuU5eLE4qG0gA9WzcQO3bvq0v4yVwlTPdvRtrsQ7KzoZU1EcRIELgNdzRdotm93n7zQnTX1ZcErQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of El Segundo CA","date","2025-03-28T00:05:22Z","article","The El Segundo Planning Commission on March 27 voted 3-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the municipal code to allow deferral of certain development impact fees and some building-permit fees until final inspection or certificate of occupancy.

The commission’s recommendation follows a staff presentation explaining that development impact fees are one-time charges intended to pay for future demand on city infrastructure and services. Michael (staff presenter) told commissioners that the city currently charges a mix of building-permit fees that cover inspection and administrative services and surcharges used to fund long-term projects, and that development impact fees were increased and phased in after a 2022 update that expanded fees from four to 11 categories and phased collection (50% in year one, 100% thereafter). Staff said these fees are indexed to CPI.

Staff said the proposed ordinance would make it explicit that impact fees for any development type may be collected at any time during the building permit process and that the default would remain front‑end payment when permits are issued. Under the proposed option, however, applicants could enter an agreement to pay deferred fees prior to final inspection or upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Michael said the city would not defer fees that fund front‑end services (inspections or immediate staff time) and that the primary targets for deferral are fees that pay for future infrastructure needs.

Staff gave two numerical examples to illustrate potential savings: a hypothetical $100,000 of fees could entail about $30,000 in one‑year carry costs, and a large, entitled commercial project staff used as an example carried roughly $1.5 million in combined permit and impact fees of which about $1 million might be deferrable, producing significant financing relief.

Commissioners asked how the city would enforce deferred payments. Staff described several collection mechanisms already discussed in draft language: recording a covenant or lien against the property, withholding certificate-of-occupancy until fees are paid, and recording a covenant as part of the permit record. Staff said council had removed a proposed automatic covenant-recording requirement after earlier feedback, but the city could still use liens, covenants, or withhold occupancy as enforcement options if needed. Staff also noted that, for very large projects, a development agreement could be used and that residential projects may be less likely to use the deferral option.

Commission discussion noted uncertainty about collection efforts and potential staff workload to pursue unpaid fees, but several commissioners said withholding occupancy would be a strong enforcement tool because it prevents revenue-generating use of a building. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the ordinance change; Commissioner Taylor, Commissioner McCafferty and Vice Chair Inga voted yes.

The item now goes to the City Council for consideration; staff said the ordinance would require two council readings before adoption.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting - Thursday March 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The El Segundo Planning Commission on March 27 voted 3-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance allowing certain development impact fees and some building-permit fees to be deferred until final inspection or certificate of occupancy.","taxTitle","El Segundo City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",70907,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6101498,"El Segundo commission recommends R1 code changes to comply with SB 450; removes affordability requirement for two‑unit splits",1514,2246000,3760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2807746-d73537b7646af0af20955d6b41f169f9&start=2246&end=3760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2807746-d73537b7646af0af20955d6b41f169f9/thumbnail_2246000.jpg","/articles/6101498/El-Segundo-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/El-Segundo-commission-recommends-R1-code-changes-to-comply-with-SB-450-removes-affordability-requirement-for-twounit-splits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6101498-48458d575f9c5338066fdc6a18b33627/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163198&Signature=m11fGkgS6SJQMjUM89yAdggnxVlOhYFPx7UfBl9hfo6Ro2YyaYA8XXoqP-kWAe~QqPvUEOG46FiJrQj827LauueIN2M5Z9T8YfRz6z3raCrVWbo0sHLYGoHYHKT1s-Xjbxg1XOSHbCSFmPjjFarboVf4gHHukOW-bhi5~pcRNFIfp0p54cyUQ3Zl3Tnlcwu5Na2birOj-h-FjlZ3~AI8endDuG4Jqxra75ZeOYPFCgxPIO5T53crai~-cNHOdPB8cqxM03p1vdmZwTFNCBKtQxzzzuLTL7ARj5OyMw43X76uzdC3ZfJXZMZiqMZ9Q6kpD4C4Pjb22fhLdvLKtN0g1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The El Segundo Planning Commission on March 27 voted 3-0 to adopt Resolution 2963 recommending City Council adopt an ordinance amending development standards for the single‑family R1 zone, including rules for two‑unit residential developments and urban lot splits, to comply with California Senate Bill 450.

Paul, principal planner, told the commission that SB 450 prevents cities from imposing development standards on urban lot splits that are more burdensome than the underlying R1 zone, except where the city chooses to make a standard more permissive to facilitate such development. The draft ordinance aligns the urban lot split chapter with the R1 regulations in multiple areas while preserving or carrying forward some incentives that the commission wanted to keep.

Major changes in the draft ordinance described by staff include switching the urban‑lot height standard to the R1 approach that differentiates pitched and flat roofs; applying the R1 22‑foot front‑yard setback uniformly while retaining permitted porch encroachments; harmonizing side‑yard setbacks so the R1 rule (10% of lot width with min/max) applies but setting a 4‑foot maximum for urban lot split lots where the code previously specified 4 feet; adopting the R1 60% floor‑area ratio for wider lots and a simplified 47% lot‑coverage rule for lots 25 feet wide or narrower; and applying the R1 driveway-width and alley‑access rules uniformly.

Paul said staff and the commission decided to remove a local affordability requirement previously applied to urban lot split projects (which had required at least one of the new units to be affordable at a specified income level). Staff told commissioners that removing that requirement does not affect the city’s previously adopted housing element compliance. The draft ordinance keeps an urban design incentive — requiring a minimum front‑yard tree — and adds that the tree must be a 24‑inch‑box minimum.

Other technical changes carried into the R1 code include a three‑foot minimum building separation (replacing a four‑foot standard in the urban lot split chapter), guidelines on garage offsets to reduce perceived bulk, and an entry‑orientation rule carried into the R1 code with allowances for porches or verandas so entries need not strictly face the street in every case.

Commissioners expressed that state law limited their options; several said the ordinance preserves as many local design standards as state law permits. The commission voted to recommend adoption; Commissioner Taylor, Commissioner McCafferty and Vice Chair Inga voted yes. The recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for two readings.","The commission voted 3-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance aligning single‑family R1 development standards and rules for urban lot splits with state law (SB 450), including removing a city affordability requirement for two‑unit urban lot splits and carrying several urban‑lot standards into the R1 code with limited exceptions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission backs ordinance to let developers defer impact fees until occupancy

El Segundo commission recommends R1 code changes to comply with SB 450; removes affordability requirement for two‑unit splits