2021-11-16 CC Agenda - Public Communications related to Item 18 - Brand-Huang-Mendoza2021-11-16 CC AGENDA PACKET
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION RELATED TO ITEM #18 - BRAND-HUANG-MENDOZA
Harada, Patricia
From:
Weaver, Tracy (City Clerk)
Sent:
Wednesday, November 17, 2021 7:30 AM
To:
*ALL CITY CLERKS
Subject:
Fwd: Comment re: Item D.18
Council received email below-
-Tracy
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Holop <dholop@gmail.com>
Date: November 16, 2021 at 7:38:37 PM PST
To: ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS <ALLELECTEDOFFICIALS@elsegundo.org>
Subject: Comment re: Item D.18
Dear City Council and City Staff,
My name is David Holop and I'm an El Segundo resident and parent. I am writing regarding Item D.18,
the Resolution to Support The Brand -Huang -Mendoza Tripartisan Land UsOe Initiative. Apologies for the
late comment but I appreciate you considering it.
First, I must say that I disagree with several of the points in the brief analysis, e.g., that supporting this
initiative will have no indirect fiscal impacts on the City, and especially that the new laws "will drive up
housing costs." I understand the argument regarding local control in this policy area from the City's
perspective and some of the concerns raised. But my concern —and the concern that has led to a point
where laws like SB 9 and SB 10 have come to be —is that cities, including El Segundo, for decades 1) have
not planned nor allowed for anything close to enough housing to be built to meet increasing demand,
and 2) have objected to state initiatives that override local housing control, claiming they will do it on
their own, but have continually failed to do so —and this has led us to the housing crisis our state now
finds itself in. If Cities don't want the State overriding them on housing, they should have a plan to
actually address it.
I have observed many City Council meetings and know that you all understand economics well enough
to know that artificially limiting supply in the face of excess market demand will raise prices above the
market equilibrium —or you can just look at real estate price trends in town. While this is great for
current homeowners who are seeing their home values appreciate rapidly and those in the real estate
business, this is not good for the health of our city or the region we live in. I get that long-time residents
are worried about new housing changing the neighborhood character, but what I don't understand is
how they don't realize that opposing additional housing is itself changing the neighborhood character.
We continue to move closer to a situation where teachers, nurses, public servants, many of the next
generation of our children, etc.— all but the wealthiest will not be able to afford to live here. It's already
happening: e.g., Dr. Farris at the July 211 School Board meeting said that the District's biggest problem
in retaining teachers is the cost of housing. It's only going to continue to get worse and a huge part of
lowering the cost of housing is to increase the supply and build more housing.
As for the specific concerns about SB 9, you all know enough about development to know that large
developers aren't going to want to build projects where they are only adding 1-3 units on a lot;
moreover, the choice is still up to the owner of the property, and there are tenant protections in the bill
to protect renters. Further, I have never understood this argument from people who otherwise are
generally in favor of strong property rights, free markets, less regulation, and the like: why should a
property owner control whether their neighbor chooses to add 1-3 housing units to their property
(assuming there are no nuisance issues or the like)? As it has been said: why do people think when they
buy a house that they have bought the whole block? If we continue to allow this thinking that has come
to dominate over the last several decades, we will never solve our housing crisis.
The Resolution states that a part of the City's objection to the new state laws is that they "eliminat[e]
the opportunity for local jurisdictions to implement effective policies that will create more affordable
housing and affirmatively further fair housing practices," and inhibit the City's "ability to effectively plan
for and implement policies to stimulate the City's efficient production of housing, especially affordable
housing." I disagree with this assessment that the City could not still implement effective policies that
will create more affordable housing and affirmatively further fair housing practices due to these new
state laws. Why could the City not meet its goals and also support these additional units being built?
If the City does choose to the Support the Brand -Huang -Mendoza Initiative and the constitutional
amendment is eventually approved, I truly hope the City follows through and takes affirmative steps on
its own to stimulate the production of housing, especially affordable housing, as you say here. I am
looking forward to seeing what Many Mansions proposes and what affordable housing requirements
end up in the final Pacific Coast Commons. My hope is that you show as much support for affordable
housing then as you do now. Otherwise, I suspect we will find ourselves in this situation again soon, with
the State feeling it has no choice but to take action to address the affordable housing crisis that we face
collectively as a state. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
David Holop