Within the 300-plus pages of the draft charter unveiled last week by the Appointed Charter Reform Commission is a little-mentioned change that would either create a new nightmare for developers or give local communities a stronger voice over land use depending on which side one believes.

The provision calls for the creation of three to seven area planning commissions, with each one handling land-use matters in different sections of the city. A citywide commission would be maintained for certain matters.

To further increase local control over land use, the draft charter calls for the creation of advisory neighborhood councils. These groups would have a first crack at proposed developments in their neighborhoods, forwarding their recommendations to the area planning commissions but having no decision-making power.

Opinions vary widely on what such a set-up would accomplish.

For some neighborhood activists, the proposal doesn’t go far enough. And for some developers and planning consultants, it’s unnecessary at best and would lead to more fragmentation and provincialism in the system. It would also make it difficult to develop certain kinds of projects because local decision-makers would be susceptible to NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard).

“What happens on a citywide basis should be no different in San Pedro or Brentwood. No one wants to live next to a toxic waste dump,” said Paul Novak, principal with land-use and planning consulting firm Novak + Associates. “If we do this, where will we be able to put a mini-mall or a truck yard? You won’t be able to put in anything anybody considers a less than attractive use.”

Supporters including the Building Industry Association of Southern California say area planning commissions are a sound idea, as long as a citywide commission is retained for larger matters and no extra steps are added for approval of new developments.

“It could make the process go faster and free the citywide commission to do real citywide business, instead of looking at every yard variance,” said Jeff Lee, chairman of the association’s L.A. City Government Affairs Committee and president of the Lee Group Inc., a residential developer.

The area planning commissions would each have five members, who would be appointed by the mayor with City Council approval, and would be required to reside in their area of jurisdiction. They would decide quasi-judicial matters, such as conditional use permits. The citywide commission would decide legislative matters, such as zoning changes and general plan amendments.

If a project needs approvals that fall under more than one jurisdiction, it would go to the citywide commission. And there would still be just one layer of appeal under the proposed charter.

The advisory neighborhood councils have proven to be one of the most controversial aspects of the draft charter. The Appointed Charter Reform Commission opted not to give them decision-making authority because it felt such a move would be costly, create another layer of government and lead to the kind of NIMBYism most feared by developers.

George Kieffer, chairman of the appointed commission, said no city in the country has gone to the extreme of creating neighborhood councils with decision-making powers.

Advisory councils have proven to be “extraordinarily influential” in other cities, agreed Raphael Sonenshein, executive director of the appointed commission.

But the arrangement falls short of some neighborhood activists’ hopes.

“Our conclusion is, they have come up with nothing of any value to the residential community,” said Val Cole, president of the California Country Club Homes in Cheviott Hills. “The advisory councils should be decision-making. If not, they’re insignificant, meaningless.”

Developers, meanwhile argue that since the current system works, why fix it?

“The current Planning Commission is filled with professionals who understand land use and planning throughout the city. I don’t know if we need to change that,” said Doug Brown, managing partner of commercial developer Regent Properties. “Whenever we go in front of the Planning Commission, they constantly surprise us with how familiar they are with the different areas.”

But Brown said area commissions could work if the members are “truly people who are technically oriented and understand urban planning.”

Consultant Larry Kosmont, president of Kosmont & Associates, said multiple commissions “would be a disaster. It’s going to skew development patterns. You’d have different standards and you’d end up lobbying districts.”

Other land-use and planning consultants and developers agreed that it’s important to have a citywide body for the sake of consistency and to avoid politicizing the process.

“I believe there’s legitimate input by smaller planning groups into the overall process as long as it doesn’t result in spot zoning by popularity contest,” said Cliff Goldstein, a partner with developer J.H. Snyder Co.