LA City Charter Amendment II: City administration and operations

Measure II (along with its companion Measure HH ) is a mishmash of proposed changes to the City Charter that largely tackle the minutiae of city operations. These proposals can get pretty deep in the weeds, but they make a difference in how city departments and officials do their work (and in some cases, whether they get sued).

Official title on the ballot: City Administration and Operations. Charter Amendment II

You are being asked: Shall the City Charter be amended to: clarify that the El Pueblo Monument and the Zoo are park property; clarify that departments may sell merchandise to support City operations; include gender identity in non-discrimination rules applicable to employment by the City; clarify the Airport Commission’s authority to establish fees and regulations; and make other changes and clarifications related to City administration and operations?

Understanding Measure II

The six L.A. city ballot measures you’re seeing this year are part of a larger charter reform effort that began in late 2022 after three city officials and a labor leader were caught on tape making racist and homophobic remarks while discussing how to amass more power in the city’s once-a-decade redistricting process. Since then, the pressure’s been on for city officials to reform the structure of city government to create more transparency and accountability. That starts with amending the L.A. City Charter.

The biggest topics of discussion have been about reforming the Ethics Commission and creating an independent redistricting commission (which you’ll get to vote on with Measures DD and ER ).

But there are several more minor charter amendments being proposed, largely to clarify rules that have caused confusion or set new rules to address problems. Measures HH and II are collections of these amendments covering different aspects of how city governance and operations work.

The history behind it

In December 2023, the L.A. City Council directed various city departments to look through the City Charter and recommend sections that needed updates or changes. It then whittled down those recommendations to about two dozen proposed amendments and grouped them into two ballot measures: Measure HH and Measure II.

Any revisions to the L.A. City Charter have to get approved by voters before they go into effect, which is why you’re seeing them on the ballot.

How it would work

Measure II would amend about two dozen sections of the L.A. City Charter. Many of these are technical updates, like changing outdated references to department names. Here are some of the more substantial changes included:

• City sales of food and merchandise: City departments would be allowed to sell food and merchandise as long as they’re in line with city purposes and operations.
  
  • Background: Currently, the City Charter prohibits city departments from engaging in “purely commercial” activities. This amendment would carve out an exception for selling food or merchandise under certain circumstances — for instance, selling shirts or posters at the Greek Theatre, which is owned by the City of L.A.
• Gender non-discrimination in city employment: The city would be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or gender expression when it comes to hiring or paying city employees.
  
  • Background: The current non-discrimination policy in the charter prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or marital status. This amendment would add gender identity and gender expression.
• Airport commission powers: The Board of Airport Commissioners would be explicitly allowed to set fees and regulations for use of airport property for flights or ground transportation.
  
  • Background: The current charter already allows the Board of Airport Commissioners to “fix and collect rates and charges for the use of Airport Assets,” and to set rules and regulations on anything involving air transportation equipment or airport machinery and buildings. The new language specifies that these powers extend to ground transportation as well. The Los Angeles World Airports suggested this language to account for evolving technology and new pricing systems, like congestion pricing.
• Park property: The El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument and the L.A. Zoo would be explicitly named as public parks.
  
  • Background: Both sites used to be managed by the Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners, although they are now overseen by their own respective commissions (the Zoo Commission and the El Pueblo Commission). This change would specify that both locations are still dedicated park property, and that their respective commissions can exercise the same power over them that park commissioners have over the city’s parks.
• Leasing park land: The Department of Recreation and Parks would be allowed to lease park land to the L.A. Unified School District.
  
  • Background: Currently, city parks can be leased to L.A. County, California or the United States for up to 50 years if any of these governments wanted a public building on park property. This change would add L.A. Unified to the list.

Other changes cover the use of electronic signatures for revenue bonds and public access to zoning regulations. You can read the full text of the proposed amendments here .

What people who support it say

Supporters include City Councilmember Paul Krekorian (District 2), who wrote the official argument in favor of Measure II. He argues that several of the proposals would “make tangible improvements in public services.” Krekorian says the measure would mean:

• More park space for children
• Better ground transportation to and from the airport
• An easier way to fill out City forms and applications remotely
• More food and drink options at City functions and facilities

Read the official argument in favor of the measure here .

What people who oppose it say

Nobody has submitted official arguments opposing Measure II.

Potential financial impact

Measure II doesn’t require any additional funding. However, the financial impact statement submitted by the Chief Administrative Officer notes that “departments selling merchandise or setting fees and regulations may require additional resources to support the generation and collection of revenues.” It also notes that there is “insufficient information” to know how much the proposals in Measure II would cost the affected departments or how much revenue they would generate.

Follow the money

There hasn’t been any spending for or against Measure II in this election cycle so far.