Election 2026 · City of Los Angeles
Charter Amendment PL: Planning appeals and approvals
Charter Amendment PL would replace the City's seven Area Planning Commissions with one Neighborhood Appeals Commission and change how and when the City Council reviews planning decisions. It would also let the Council change the Charter's limit on building size by ordinance.
Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: City Clerk's voter information pamphlet.
At a glance
| Charter Amendment PL | |
|---|---|
| Charter sections changed | 6 amended (104(e), 245(e), 552, 555(e), 560, 561), 4 repealed (562-565) |
| Appeals body | 7 Area Planning Commissions (35 members) replaced by 1 Neighborhood Appeals Commission of at least 7 |
| Building size limit | 13 times the site's buildable area, unless the Council provides otherwise |
| Cost | About $360,000 a year less for commission staffing (City estimate) |
| Council vote to place it | 13-0 (Hutt, Price absent), June 30, 2026. General Plan item passed 8-7 on June 17 |
| Ballot arguments | For: Raymond Meza, Roy Samaan. Against: none submitted |
| Money raised | No committee for or against reported, as of Sept. 30, 2026 |
| Latest public poll | None found |
What does a yes vote on Charter Amendment PL mean?
One citywide Neighborhood Appeals Commission, with at least seven members, would hear planning appeals in place of the seven Area Planning Commissions, and would decide them fresh without deferring to staff. General Plan amendments backed by the Planning Commission and the Mayor would be approved if the Council doesn't act within 75 days. The Council could change the 13-to-1 floor area limit by ordinance. Rules for variances and conditional use permits would move from the Charter to ordinances.
What does a no vote on Charter Amendment PL mean?
The seven Area Planning Commissions stay, the Council's current process for planning decisions stays, and the floor area limit and variance rules stay in the Charter.
What would Charter Amendment PL cost?
The City Administrative Officer estimates commission costs would fall by about $360,000 a year, from $1.1 million to $740,000. The CAO expects no effect on revenue.
The details
| Official title | City Planning Department |
|---|---|
| Type | Charter amendment placed on the ballot by the City Council |
| Votes needed to pass | Simple majority (more than 50% yes) |
| Council file | 26-1100-S12 |
The question on your ballot
Shall the City Charter be amended to: establish a Neighborhood Appeals Commission to replace Area Planning Commissions and establish a process for City Council review of Neighborhood Appeals Commission and City Planning Commission decisions; change the timing and process for City Council action on certain planning decisions; grant the Planning Department the authority to investigate, hear, and determine applications for quasi-judicial review; and allow for changes to floor area regulations by ordinance?
What would change
| Today | If PL passes | |
|---|---|---|
| Who hears planning appeals | Seven Area Planning Commissions with 35 commissioners, each serving part of the City (impartial summary) | One Neighborhood Appeals Commission of at least seven members, appointed like City Planning Commission members, with geographic or other qualifications set by ordinance (Sec. 552) |
| How appeals are judged | The appeals body looks for “error or abuse of discretion” by the Zoning Administrator (Sec. 552, deleted text) | Appeals are heard “de novo,” a fresh look with no deference to the first decision (Sec. 552(a)) |
| Council takeover of planning decisions | The Council can take a case from the City Planning Commission or an Area Planning Commission and act in its place (Sec. 245(e)) | Same power, plus deadlines: if the Council vetoes and sends a case back, the commission has 30 days to agree or disagree, then the Council has 21 calendar days (not counting recess) to act or the commission’s decision is final (Sec. 245(e)) |
| General Plan amendments | City law gives the Council 75 days and treats no action as a disapproval (impartial summary) | If the Planning Commission and Mayor both recommend approval and the Council does not act within 75 days of the Mayor’s recommendation, the amendment is approved (Sec. 555(e)) |
| Building size limit | Floor area of all buildings on a site may not exceed 13 times the buildable area (Sec. 104(e)) | Same limit “unless as otherwise provided by Council,” which may regulate floor area, buildable area, height and bulk by ordinance (Sec. 104(e)) |
| Who decides individual project applications | The Charter names the Office of Zoning Administration for variances (Sec. 561) | The Planning Department decides all “quasi-judicial” applications through staff the Planning Director appoints, including Zoning Administrators, a Deputy Advisory Agency and Hearing Officers (Sec. 561) |
| Variances, conditional use permits, multi-approval projects | Procedures, appeal routes and the findings needed for a variance are written in the Charter (Secs. 562-564) | Repealed from the Charter. Ordinances would govern them (impartial summary) |
“Quasi-judicial” decisions are case-by-case rulings on one property, such as variances and conditional use permits (impartial summary). The seven Area Planning Commissions date to the Charter that took effect in July 2000. Before that, one five-member Board of Zoning Appeals heard these appeals (impartial summary).
Every Charter section that changes
From the pamphlet’s full text, where added words are underlined and deleted words are struck out (full text, pp. 40-44):
| Charter section | Subject | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 104(e) | Floor area restriction | 13-to-1 limit applies “unless as otherwise provided by Council”; Council may regulate buildable area too |
| 245(e) | Council review of planning commission actions | Adds the 30-day remand and 21-day final vote deadlines; renames the commissions |
| 552 | Area Planning Commissions | Replaced with the Neighborhood Appeals Commission (de novo appeals, other matters by ordinance) |
| 555(e) | General Plan amendments | Deemed approved after 75 days of Council inaction when the Planning Commission and Mayor both approve |
| 560 | Hearings and investigations | Refers to the Neighborhood Appeals Commission |
| 561 | Office of Zoning Administration | Retitled “Quasi-Judicial Review”; gives the Planning Department authority over all quasi-judicial applications; keeps the Office of Zoning Administration for variances; drops a line on public inspection of Zoning Administrator rules |
| 562 | Variances | Repealed, including the Charter’s list of findings for a variance |
| 563 | Conditional use permits and other approvals | Repealed |
| 564 | Projects requiring multiple approvals | Repealed |
| 565 | Delegation of legislative authority to Area Planning Commissions | Repealed |
Source: pamphlet full text, summarized by CityHallPass.
How it got on the ballot
The City Council placed PL on the ballot. It grew out of the Charter Reform Commission, which, according to its report, the Council created in June 2024 “in response to the City Hall leaked tape scandal” (Charter Reform Commission report, p. 20).
- April 2, 2026: The commission recommended replacing the Area Planning Commissions with a five-member appeals body and the other planning changes (CRC 6 to CRC 10) (Charter Reform Commission report; CLA report, p. 50).
- June 10, 2026: The Chief Legislative Analyst recommended not moving forward with the new commission, the Council deadlines or the General Plan rule, supported the floor area change, and called for more study of the quasi-judicial changes (see Independent analysis) (CLA report, pp. 50-55).
- June 17, 2026: The Council voted item by item. The Neighborhood Appeals Commission, now with seven members, passed 14-1 (Heather Hutt no). The Council deadlines, floor area change and quasi-judicial change each passed 14-1 (Imelda Padilla no). The General Plan rule passed 8-7, with Eunisses Hernandez, John Lee, Adrin Nazarian, Padilla, Traci Park, Curren Price and Hugo Soto-Martinez voting no (Rules committee recap of Council votes). An amendment by Hernandez and Lee asked the Planning Department to report on how the new commission would affect approval of affordable housing (recap, item 9).
- June 26-29, 2026: The City Attorney’s first draft left out the Council’s repeal of Secs. 562-565 and the update to Sec. 560. The Planning Department flagged the omissions, and the City Attorney sent a corrected text on June 29 (City Attorney report R26-0388; Planning Department letter).
- June 30, 2026: The Council adopted the corrected resolution and the election ordinance 13-0, with Hutt and Price absent (Council action). Mayor Bass approved it July 14, and the election ordinance took effect July 16 (Ordinance 188994).
- Aug. 4, 2026: Three people asked to write the argument for PL: commission chair Raymond Meza, Justi Sexton and Chad Hamilton Shields. Nobody asked to write one against. Meza was designated, and the Rules committee approved 4-0 (City Clerk list of applicants; committee memo).
Related measures on this ballot. The same process produced Charter Amendments LA, EE, PRK, PRT and SC (City Attorney report R26-0380).
What each side says
In the City pamphlet. Ballot arguments are the authors’ opinions. No City agency checks them for accuracy (City pamphlet).
Argument for, signed by Raymond Meza, chair of the Charter Reform Commission, and Roy Samaan, president of the Engineers & Architects Association (argument in favor; signers):
- Politics: when planning decisions “depend too heavily on political discretion, it creates opportunities for special interests to seek preferential treatment.”
- Process: one appeals commission creates “a more consistent citywide process,” and professional staff can decide routine cases.
- Housing: letting the Council update building density by ordinance gives the City “greater flexibility to respond to changing housing, development, and neighborhood needs.”
No argument against was submitted, so there are no rebuttals (City pamphlet).
Outside the pamphlet.
- The Planning Department told the Council the final changes “represent meaningful improvements to the City Planning process” and described Secs. 562-564 as “redundant to existing provisions of the Municipal Code” (Planning Department letter, June 29, 2026).
- Daily News columnist Susan Shelley recommended no, writing that PL replaces the seven commissions with one and “allows the City Council to impose higher housing density by simply passing an ordinance” (Daily News, Sept. 29, 2026).
Checking the main factual claims against official records.
| Claim | Who makes it | What official records show |
|---|---|---|
| PL lets the Council raise density by ordinance | Shelley; Yes argument | The Council could set a floor area limit other than 13-to-1 by ordinance (Sec. 104(e)). The CLA wrote that this could allow denser development in areas such as Downtown, Hollywood and Century City (CLA report, p. 53). |
| PL “preserves public participation and oversight” | Yes argument | Appeals remain, and the Council keeps its power to take over cases. It would face new deadlines, and General Plan amendments could be approved without a Council vote (Secs. 245(e), 555(e)). |
| The repealed sections duplicate the Municipal Code | Planning Department | The CLA reported that all appeal processes are in the Municipal Code and that the only appeals required by state law are CEQA and subdivision appeals (CLA report, pp. 54-55). After repeal, those rules could be changed by ordinance without a public vote. |
| The 75-day General Plan deadline is new | Context | The deadline already exists in City law. What changes is the result of Council inaction, from disapproval to approval (impartial summary). |
Who supports and opposes it
Supporters
- Raymond Meza, chair of the Charter Reform Commission, and Roy Samaan, president of the Engineers & Architects Association, signed the argument in favor. A signer’s title is for identification only (signers).
- Justi Sexton and Chad Hamilton Shields also asked to write the argument for (City Clerk list of applicants).
- Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council said in May 2026 that it “supports replacing Area Planning Commissions with a qualified, independent appeals body,” commenting on the commission’s five-member version (community impact statement, May 27, 2026).
Opponents
- No person or group asked to write the argument against (City Clerk list of applicants).
- Westside Neighborhood Council voted in May 2026 to support the commission’s package only if the five-member appeals commission and several other items were removed (community impact statement, May 15, 2026).
Editorial boards and columnists. We found no LA Times or Daily News editorial board position on PL as of Sept. 30, 2026. Susan Shelley recommended no in her Daily News column (Daily News).
Parties and other groups. We found no published position from the Los Angeles County Democratic or Republican parties, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters or housing advocacy groups as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Money for and against
No committee has formed to support or oppose PL. The City Ethics Commission’s election totals show $0 raised, $0 spent and no independent spending for or against it (City Ethics election totals). The City’s list of campaign statements filed through the Sept. 19, 2026 reporting period includes no committee named for PL (City campaign statements filed). We checked both on Sept. 30, 2026.
Independent analysis
The City’s official analyses are the Chief Legislative Analyst’s impartial summary (City pamphlet) and the City Administrative Officer’s financial impact statement (City pamphlet). Before the Council voted, the CLA reviewed each planning proposal (CLA report, pp. 50-55):
| Proposal | CLA recommendation | CLA’s reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Neighborhood Appeals Commission (CRC 6) | Note and file (do not proceed) | It “will concentrate Citywide land use authority” in one non-elected body and reduce local control. De novo review gives no deference to expert staff, and commissioners have no required qualifications. The Council later raised the size from five to at least seven |
| Council deadlines on remanded cases (CRC 7) | Note and file | It may “dilute the Council’s land use authority” when the Council cannot act within 21 days |
| General Plan amendments deemed approved (CRC 8) | Note and file | It treats inaction as approval, which could shut out the district’s councilmember. The City Attorney raised concerns about environmental review (CEQA) and consistency with state law. A Charter change is not required, since an ordinance could do it |
| Floor area limit (CRC 9) | Present to voters | The 13-to-1 limit “is an outdated restriction that originated in the 1950s.” Removing it could allow more housing in regional centers |
| Quasi-judicial review and repeal of Secs. 562-565 (CRC 10) | Further study | Impacts of the new Planning Department authority and the repeals needed more review |
Source: CLA report, June 10, 2026, pp. 50-55.
Cost. The CAO estimates commission staffing costs fall from $1.1 million to $740,000 a year. The savings go to the Planning Case Processing Special Fund, which the General Fund subsidizes (CAO statement).
Timing. The Planning Department told the Council that many of the changes need new ordinances, and suggested either adopting them before the election or delaying the Charter changes’ start. The final text includes no delayed start (Planning Department letter; full text).
If it passes
- New commission. The Council must pass an ordinance creating the Neighborhood Appeals Commission and setting its members’ qualifications (Sec. 552). The text does not say when the seven Area Planning Commissions stop meeting or what happens to pending appeals.
- Planning procedures. Rules for variances, conditional use permits and multi-approval projects would be governed by ordinance (impartial summary).
- Floor area. The 13-to-1 limit stays until the Council passes an ordinance changing it (Sec. 104(e)).
- Affordable housing report. The Council asked the Planning Department to report on the new commission’s effect on affordable housing approvals (recap, item 9). We found no report as of Sept. 30, 2026.
- Legal challenges. We found no announced challenge. If one part is struck down, the rest stays in force (Sec. 11).
Key moments
We found no debate or forum focused on PL in news coverage or City records as of Sept. 30, 2026.
- CLA advises against most of it (June 10, 2026). Only the floor area change got a clear recommendation to go to voters (CLA report).
- Council keeps the package (June 17, 2026). Votes ranged from 14-1 to 8-7 (Council votes).
- Drafting error caught (June 29, 2026). The repeal of Secs. 562-565 was added back after the Planning Department noticed it was missing (City Attorney report R26-0388).
Polls
We found no public poll on PL as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Read the official text
- Ballot question and impartial summary (by the Chief Legislative Analyst)
- Financial impact statement (by the City Administrative Officer)
- Arguments for and against
- Full text of the measure
Official voter information in other languages: Español · Հայերեն · 中文 · فارسی · हिन्दी · 日本語 · ខ្មែរ · 한국어 · Русский · Tagalog · ไทย · Tiếng Việt