California’s expanded incentives are attracting projects, but a City Hall hearing exposed the next challenge: turning special treatment for major productions into dependable service for everyone.

Los Angeles can assemble a world-class crew, build almost any set and put a century of filmmaking experience behind a production. Getting that production through the city’s approval process remains a less reliable proposition.

That disconnect was at the center of a September 9 City Council committee hearing, where officials examined why efforts to make filming easier and cheaper are taking so long to reach the people booking locations, scheduling crews and balancing budgets.

The discussion offered a revealing picture of Hollywood’s recovery effort. California has expanded its annual film and television tax credit program to $750 million. City leaders have promised faster approvals and fewer obstacles. Yet the official responsible for helping productions navigate Los Angeles says he needs more staff to deliver the service the industry is asking for.

For producers weighing where to shoot, the question is increasingly practical: Once Los Angeles wins the project, can it make the production work?

At the inaugural meeting of the council’s Ad Hoc Committee on Film, Entertainment and Creative Industry, chief film liaison Steve Kang described the intensive coordination that helped Fox’s Baywatch reboot film in Venice. According to Katie Campione, city, county and coastal authorities worked alongside other stakeholders in weekly meetings with producer Fremantle to resolve problems as they emerged.

The effort demonstrated that Los Angeles can respond quickly when agencies work together. It also exposed how much personal intervention that response can require.

Kang, who also serves as president of the Board of Public Works, told lawmakers that an additional approved staff position had been frozen until January because of budget forecasts. His film liaison operation remains a one-person office, separate from FilmLA’s permitting organization.

Committee vice chair Traci Park pressed the essential follow-up: How does the city extend that experience to productions with fewer resources?

A television reboot can command attention across multiple agencies. An independent feature needs an approval process it can navigate without that level of intervention. Predictable turnaround times, clear requirements and an identifiable person who can resolve conflicting instructions all affect whether a location remains viable.

Committee chair Adrin Nazarian’s frustration was explicit.

“The city’s current pace of implementation falls short of the industry needs. Quite frankly, it’s unacceptable,” he said, according to Deadline.

The production figures explain the urgency. FilmLA recorded 4,711 on-location shoot days in the second quarter of 2026, down 12.7 percent from a year earlier. Television drama showed some improvement, rising 55.1 percent from the preceding quarter, although it remained below its year-earlier level. Incentivized projects accounted for 38.3 percent of drama shoot days. Those figures cover permitted location filming in FilmLA’s jurisdictions, rather than the full volume of work on soundstages.

The state’s longer production pipeline offers grounds for optimism. In July, the California Film Commission reported that the expanded program’s first fiscal year had awarded credits to 170 projects, representing a projected $6.6 billion in direct California production spending and nearly 35,000 cast and crew jobs. Those projections describe anticipated activity across the state; they should not be mistaken for spending already completed or a recovery already secured in Los Angeles.

City Hall has made tangible changes. In March, Mayor Karen Bass announced lower filming fees at Griffith Observatory and the reopening of the Central Library to production after more than a decade. The city also reported faster application review at the Port of Los Angeles and preapproved procedures for certain downtown street closures.

Smaller shoots have gained an option, too. FilmLA and the city launched a reduced-cost Low Impact Permit Pilot Program in April, with FilmLA committing operating reserves to support it for up to six months. That program is distinct from the proposed free micro-shoot permit Nazarian questioned at the September hearing.

The distinction matters. A reduced-cost program that filmmakers can use today and a free permit still awaiting implementation represent different kinds of progress.

They also reveal the funding problem underneath the reform agenda. Kang told the committee that some departments have struggled to identify replacement revenue when asked to waive fees. Making production cheaper can require the city to fund services it previously charged productions to provide.

FilmLA, meanwhile, says it held its own service fees steady for a second consecutive fiscal year, while some jurisdictions changed their separate charges. Treating every filming expense as a FilmLA fee obscures which agency controls the cost—and which decision would lower it.

For the production community, the next test should be measurable: how quickly applications are resolved, whether requirements are consistent, what productions ultimately pay and whether smaller projects can get timely help.

Kang has advocated expanding the state incentive allocation to $1.5 billion. That remains an argument for further investment, rather than an approved increase. The city’s immediate work is making the production already attracted to California easier to execute.

The Baywatch experience suggests a useful model: agencies communicating early, problems reaching someone empowered to solve them and decisions arriving while a production can still act on them.

Los Angeles now needs to make that experience routine. Its recovery will become convincing when producers can confidently book the location, release the equipment order and send the crew a call sheet.