2026-06-02 CC Agenda Packet - Public Communications related to Item C13 - Charter #22026-06-02 CC AGENDA PACKET
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO ITEM C13 - Charters #2
Mir Outlook
Charter city proposal
From Chau Nakada <cnakada@me.com>
Date Mon 6/1/2026 2:56 PM
To ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS <ALLELECTEDOFFICIALS@elsegundo.org>
Dear city council members,
My name is Chau Nakada and I live at 1517 E. Elm Ave. El Segundo.
I am writing regarding the charter city proposal to ask the council to:
• delay any November ballot measure
• conduct a genuine public engagement process first
• hold public workshops and town halls
• create a resident advisory committee
• provide neutral educational materials
• and give residents sufficient time to study and debate the issue before any election
Sincerely,
Chau Nakada
Outlook
Public Comment re: Item C.13 Charter City Proposal
From David Holop <dholop@gmail.com>
Date Tue 6/2/2026 12:00 PM
To ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS <ALLELECTEDOFFICIALS@elsegundo.org>
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing tonight regarding Item C.13.
El Segundo has been a General Law city since its found 109 years ago. If we are considering changing
that and adopting what is often described as a city's "constitution," I believe residents deserve a broader
community conversation before such an important question is placed on the ballot.
My concern about the Charter City proposal is not primarily whether charter status is ultimately good or
bad.
My concern is about the process. Or more accurately, the lack of one.
To illustrate why I feel this way, I think it is important to review exactly what has happened over the past
two years.
At the May 21, 2024 City Council meeting, the City Attorney briefly mentioned during his closing report
that there would be an item on the next agenda for a discussion regarding the possibility of placing a
Charter City measure on the November 2024 ballot. No such discussion appeared on the next agenda.
At the February 4, 2025 City Council meeting, under Council Member Reports, Mayor Pimentel
requested direction on whether the City should explore becoming a Charter City. The discussion lasted
only a few minutes. Mayor Pimentel and Councilmember Baldino expressed interest in exploring the
concept, and Council agreed that the matter should return on a future agenda.
The issue then appeared on the June 17, 2025 agenda as "Charter City Consideration and Committee
Appointment." Following a relatively brief discussion, the Council voted 4-0 to appoint Mayor Pimentel
and Mayor Pro Tern Baldino as a committee to draft a charter, assess costs, and evaluate placing a
measure on the November 2026 ballot.
At the September 16, 2025 meeting, during Council Reports at the end of the meeting, Mayor Pimentel
asked the City Attorney for a rough timeline regarding the Charter City subcommittee's work. The
exchange lasted roughly 90 seconds.
The matter then appeared on the March 17, 2026 agenda. For the first time, the public saw a draft
charter, a proposed timeline, and a summary of the differences between General Law and Charter
Cities. Council discussed the item and directed staff to proceed with the legally required hearing
process.
The first legally required public hearing was held on April 21, 2026. The hearing generated one speaker.
And that brings us to tonight's second legally required public hearing.
What is striking about this timeline is not what occurred, but what did not occur.
There was no effort at all to engage the community before a draft charter was prepared and before the
City began moving toward a ballot measure.
No emails, no social media posts (until a basic informational one was posted yesterday, stating only that
a hearing was happening on this and the Budget, and only after a widely seen Facebook post noted this
lack of meaningful community engagement). Just the legally required notice buried in the Herald.
There were no community workshops, no town halls, no resident surveys, no advisory committee made
up of residents, no public education campaign.
I understand that the Council has held the minimum public hearings required by law. However, a legally
required public hearing process is not the same thing as a genuine community engagement effort.
El Segundo knows how to conduct meaningful public outreach when it wants to:
Vision 2050 involved a series of public meetings, workshops, and outreach efforts that gave residents
opportunities to participate in discussions about the City's future.
Similarly, the Housing Element process included multiple public meetings and opportunities for
community input that were widely publicized via the City's communication channels before major policy
decisions were made.
This process has looked nothing at all like that.
The argument I have heard is that nothing has been decided and voters will ultimately decide whether to
adopt a charter. That is true, but it misses the point.
The question is not whether voters get the final say. Of course they do.
The question is whether residents have had a meaningful opportunity to participate before the City
reaches the point of asking that question.
Once a measure is placed on the ballot, the discussion is no longer a community planning process. It
becomes a political campaign. The charter has already been drafted and cannot be amended further.
The City has invested time and resources. Positions become hardened. The opportunity for collaborative
public engagement largely disappears.
In other words, by the time the question reaches the ballot, the horse is largely out of the barn.
That is why so many California cities have undertaken workshops, surveys, advisory committees, town
halls, and public education efforts before deciding whether to place a charter measure before voters.
The public process comes first. The ballot comes later.
I have reviewed the City's discussions on this issue, and the primary rationale offered so far appears to
be trying to gain flexibility for possible future changes in state law or state policy.
If that is the rationale, then there does not appear to be any urgent problem requiring rushed action this
November.
And if there is no urgent need, then there is no reason not to slow down, engage residents more broadly,
and conduct the kind of thoughtful community process that the City has successfully used on other
important issues.
Whether residents ultimately support or oppose Charter City status, a decision this significant deserves
more than the minimum legally required process.
After over a century as a General Law city, El Segundo residents deserve a genuine community
conversation before being asked to vote on changing something so central to our City's structure and
governance.
I respectfully urge the Council not to place this measure on the November ballot until a more robust
public engagement process has occurred.
Thank you,
Dave Holop