Outlook
Fw: Agenda item 10c (project on Hawthorne Blvd. near Rolling Hills Road) From Sullivan, Patrick <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/5/2026 2:34 PM
To Ramirez, Michelle <[email protected]>; Garcia, Robert <[email protected]> PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN
City Attorney - Office of the City Attorney
310-618-5817 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This email, and any attachments to it, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential, legally privileged, and/or attorney work product, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient of this email. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments. Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From: Dave Roelen
Sent: Monday, 05 October 2026 14:33:34
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Chaparyan, Aram <[email protected]>; Sullivan, Patrick <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda item 10c (project on Hawthorne Blvd. near Rolling Hills Road) Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important October 5, 2026
Mayor Kalani and Members of the Torrance City Council:
The proposed project (10c) should be returned to the Planning Commission, or referred to a Select Council Committee, to allow additional consideration of reducing the project height to be no higher than a typical single story business building.
This would also allow the community to have more input on a project that is too large, too high, too noisy and too dense adjacent residential homes.
1 AGENDA ITEM 10C
PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT #1
Dave Roelen
Torrance
2 Outlook
Fw: Reconsidering your vote on Hawthorne Blvd. Senior Housing Project From Santana, Danny <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/1/2026 7:42 AM
To Ramirez, Michelle <[email protected]>; Garcia, Robert <[email protected]> Cc Albarran, Elisa <[email protected]>
FYI Michelle and Robert. Thanks.
DANNY SANTANA
Assistant City Manager - Office of the City Manager
310-618-5880 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.
Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 8:36 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Council Meeting Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Reconsidering your vote on Hawthorne Blvd. Senior Housing Project You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to request you reconsider your vote to approve the mixed-use, 20-unit senior housing project being planned for the east side of Hawthorne Blvd, approximately 200 feet north of Rolling Hills Road.
City Council unanimously held the project to be inappropriate for the location, having voted against the plans at the public hearing on 19 May 2026, and expressed the same disapproval of the project at the City Council meeting on 15 September 2026 (item 8O). Michelle Ramirez submitted the recommendation to deny the approval of the plans, expressing the project will be “detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare” among multiple other concerns of which I know you are aware. Your assessments of the project were comprehensive, objective, and correct. And then, for reasons that were not fully shared with or understood by the public, you voted to approve the project.
The reason for the reversal of your denial of the project was apparently inspired by a letter from California’s Housing and Development department, the contents of which were not shared but a potential threat implied by the letter was enough to persuade the Council’s change of action. 3 I urge the Council to not be intimidated by a potential threat, and reconsider your vote to approve this project which is not a potential threat to our Torrance community but one that has been assessed as a clear safety concern. We cannot put the lives of 20 senior citizens—and all the visitors to this proposed site—in peril, as they try to navigate a driveway that was deemed dangerous and insufficient for the location. This is in addition to the collective negative impact on the surrounding residential homes who will also lose a level of safety, with the relocation of the guardrail, as well as their rights to privacy, light and air. (We know the latter elements cannot be used to assess this project, as the developer redefined one of the 20 rental units as low-income, a last-minute housing development qualification effort which underscores their intent to win at any cost motivation.) I believe you have an opportunity and obligation to reconsider this project, based on its specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, which is a legitimate reason for denial of a housing development project. I implore the Council to fight for the safety of its citizens, and reconsider your vote.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Spatz
4 You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Outlook
FW: Demand to Cure or Correct - Agenda Item 8O, regular meeting of September 15, 2026; In re Walteria Garden Terrace
From Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/28/2026 3:11 PM
To Garcia, Robert <[email protected]>
Cc Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>
1 attachment (440 KB)
20260928 - In re Walteria Garden Terrace - Demand to Cure and Correct.pdf; FYI, didn’t see you in the CC: line.
Regards,
YOLANDA GOMEZ
Planning Associate - Community Development Department
310-618-5862 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.
Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From: Jason Ebbens
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2026 2:26 PM
To: Poirier, Rebecca <[email protected]>; Kalani, Sharon <[email protected]> Cc: Kartsonis, David <[email protected]>; Lewis, Bridgett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sheikh, Asam <[email protected]>; Barnett, Linda <[email protected]>; Lieu, Betty <[email protected]>; Gerson, Jeremy <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]>; Chaparyan, Aram <[email protected]>; Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]>; Ramirez, Michelle <[email protected]>; Mr. Jeff Lewis Subject: Demand to Cure or Correct - Agenda Item 8O, regular meeting of September 15, 2026; In re Walteria Garden Terrace
Dear Ms. Poirier, Mayor Kalani, and Members of the Council:
Attached please find a letter of today's date. A copy of the same has been sent via U.S. Mail. 5 Jason R. Ebbens (he/him)
Senior Paralegal
Jeff Lewis Law, APC
Email: • Web: www.JeffLewisLaw.com
This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately.
6 September 28, 2026
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected]; [email protected]) AND CONFIRMED BY U.S. MAIL
Rebecca Poirier, City Clerk
Hon. Sharon Kalani, Mayor
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90503
RE: WRITTEN DEMAND TO CURE OR CORRECT PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54960.1
Agenda Item 8O, regular meeting of September 15, 2026; In re Walteria Garden Terrace (20- unit Senior Residential / 1,608 sq. ft. Commercial), east side of Hawthorne Boulevard, approximately 200 feet north of Rolling Hills Road, Torrance; Case Nos. CUP21-00018, DVP21-00001, PRE21-00009, DIV21-00009; APNs 7547-004-040 through 7547-004-046.
Dear Ms. Poirier, Mayor Kalani, and Members of the Council:
This office is litigation counsel for David and Elaine Brent and Rolling Hills Business Center, LLC, together with the coalition of adjacent and downslope property owners in the Walteria community who appeared before this Council as appellants in the above-referenced matter. This letter is a written demand, made under Government Code section 54960.1, subdivision (b), that the Council cure or correct the action it took on Agenda Item 8O at its regular meeting of September 15, 2026, by rescinding that action.
We write in the same spirit as our letter of May 14, 2026: to give the City an opportunity to fix a problem before it results in unnecessary litigation. The problem is not a close question of planning judgment, and it is not a disagreement about housing policy. It is that the Council took an action its own posted agenda said it would not take, on the consent calendar, in a quasi-judicial proceeding whose public hearing had been closed four months earlier, apparently in response to purported communications from State officials that the public has never been permitted to see. Each of those facts is an independent problem under the Ralph M. Brown Act. Together they are fatal to the September 15 action.
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Government Code. 7
September 28, 2026
I. The Challenged Action
On May 19, 2026, the Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Agenda Item 9B, described on the posted agenda as “Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt RESOLUTIONS to Deny the Appeal and for the Approval of a Series of Entitlements” for the Project. Staff recommended that the Council deny the appeal and approve the entitlements. Before voting on the merits of the appeal, the Council unanimously voted to close the public hearing. After discussion by the thenmembers of the Council, the Council rejected staff’s recommendation. The Council voted unanimously to uphold the Appellants’ appeal, and because staff had prepared resolutions consistent with its recommendation to deny, directed staff to return with resolutions consistent with the determination the Council had made. There was no mention at the conclusion of the May 19, 2026 hearing that further evidence or public participation would be welcome or that the public hearing would be re-opened.
The agenda for the Council’s regular meeting of September 15, 2026 placed the matter on the consent calendar as Item 8O and described it as follows:
Community Development – Adopt RESOLUTIONS to Uphold the Appeal and Denial of a Series of Entitlements to Allow the Construction of a New Mixed-Use Development Comprised of 20 Senior Residential Apartments and 1,608 Square Feet of Commercial Space on Property Located on the East Side of Hawthorne Boulevard, Approximately 200 Feet North of Rollings Hills Road (APNs: 7547-004-040 through 7547-004-046) and Determine a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Expenditure: None.
The staff recommendation set out immediately beneath that description was equally plain. It began, “Based on City Council’s direction at their meeting date of May 19, 2026,” and asked the Council to (1) “Adopt RESOLUTIONS to uphold the appeal and deny” each of the four entitlements, and (2) “Determine the project is statutorily exempt from [CEQA] pursuant to CEQA State Guidelines, Section 15270(a) – Projects Which Are Disapproved.”
The agenda’s own preamble to the consent calendar told the public what an item placed there would mean: “Matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items.” The Council did not do what the agenda said. The Council declined to adopt the noticed resolutions, voted five to one with one abstention to deny the Appellants’ appeal, and directed staff to return with resolutions denying the appeal and approving the Project.1 That is an “action taken” within the 1 This description of the September 15, 2026 proceedings reflects the accounts of appellants who were present and the contemporaneous reports of counsel. The minutes of that meeting had not been approved as of the date of this letter. If the City’s record differs in any material respect, we ask that the City Clerk so advise us promptly and furnish the record, and we will amend this demand accordingly. Nothing in this letter should be read as an admission that the September 15 action was validly taken in any form.
8
September 28, 2026
meaning of section 54952.6.2 One of my clients, David Brent, requested to speak prior to the meeting and was denied the opportunity to speak at the de facto re-opened hearing in September.
One further fact bears on everything that follows. The Council that heard this appeal is not the Council that acted on it. The municipal election of June 2, 2026 and the District 4 appointment of August 25, 2026 changed four of the seven seats on the dais, including the Mayor’s.3 Councilmembers Kartsonis, Lieu, and Barnett were not in office on May 19, 2026 and did not hear this appeal. Mayor Kalani, then the Councilmember for District 4, and Councilmembers Lewis, Sheikh, and Gerson were in office on May 19, and each of them voted that evening to uphold the appeal. We state this plainly and without accusation: a change in the membership of a legislative body is an ordinary consequence of an election, and it is not itself a violation of anything. But it makes the September 15 procedure harder to defend, not easier, for the reasons set out in Part IV below.
II. The September 15 Action Violated Section 54954.2
A. The posted agenda described the opposite of the action the Council took.
Section 54954.2, subdivision (a)(1), requires that the posted agenda contain “a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting.” Subdivision (a)(3) forbids the legislative body from taking action on any item not appearing on that posted agenda. (See Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 862, 868 [the Act “requires … that an agenda be posted at least 72 hours before a regular meeting and forbids action on any item not on that agenda”].)
The description of Item 8O was not merely thin. It was affirmatively misleading. A resident who read it learned that the Council would be adopting resolutions upholding the appeal — that is, ratifying in writing a result already reached in the Appellants’ favor four months earlier. Nothing in that description, and nothing in the staff recommendation beneath it, would have told any member of the public that the public hearing would be re-opened, that new evidence would be received (such as purported communications from State housing regulators) or that a new vote would be taken on the merits of the appeal. The agenda informed the public that the Council would be considering whether to adopt a CEQA exemption based on the denial of a project. Staff’s second recommendation on this action item for September was, “Determine the project is statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA State Guidelines, 2 The City may be tempted to argue that a direction to staff to return with resolutions is not yet action taken. Section 54952.6 forecloses that argument. It defines “action taken” to include “a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision,” as well as “an actual vote by a majority of the members … upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance.” The Council did both. 3 We take the composition of the Council, and the dates on which its members took office, from the City’s own roster of elected officials as published on the City’s website. Mayor Kalani was elected Mayor on June 2, 2026, having previously served as the Councilmember for District 4; Councilmembers Kartsonis and Lieu were elected on June 2, 2026; and Councilmember Barnett was appointed to District 4 on August 25, 2026. If any of this is inaccurate, we will correct it on being told so.
9
September 28, 2026
Section 15270(a)4 - Projects Which Are Disapproved.” The public was not given any notice that entitlements might instead be approved or that a different CEQA Exemption might be debated and passed such as whether project was exempt under CEQA Guideline Section 15061 (b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).5 The September agenda and the September action taken are not different in degree. They are opposites.
If the “brief general description” requirement means anything, it means that a member of the public who reads the agenda can decide, before the meeting, whether the item is worth attending. An agenda that describes the inverse of the decision the body proceeds to make defeats that purpose entirely. It is worse than no notice at all, because it affirmatively tells the public to stay home.
B. Placement on the consent calendar compounded the defect rather than excusing it.
The consent calendar is, by the City’s own description, reserved for matters “considered routine” that “will be enacted by one motion and one vote” with “no separate discussion.” The City cannot have it both ways. If Item 8O was routine enough for the consent calendar, it was not an item on which the Council could reverse a contested quasi-judicial appeal. If it was contested enough to reverse, it did not belong on the consent calendar in the first place.
The practical consequence was precisely what the Brown Act exists to prevent. Appellants and their neighbors, having prevailed in May, read an agenda that promised a ministerial wrap-up of their victory and had no reason to organize testimony, retain their experts for another appearance, or prepare to defend a result they had already obtained. They were entitled to rely on the agenda. They did rely on it. And the Council acted in the opposite direction.
C. No exception under subdivision (b) applies.
Section 54954.2, subdivision (b), supplies three narrow exceptions, and none is available here. The Council made no majority determination that an emergency situation existed within the meaning of section 54956.5. It made no determination, by two-thirds vote or otherwise, that there was a need to take immediate action and that the need came to the City’s attention after the agenda was posted.
And Item 8O was not an item posted for a prior meeting held within the preceding five days and continued to September 15. The item had last been before the Council on May 19, nearly four months earlier.
4 Section 15270(a) of the guidelines provides, “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.”
5 Section 15061(b)(3) of the guidelines provides, “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”
10
September 28, 2026
III. The Undisclosed Communications from the State Violated Sections 54957.5 and 54953
The reversal was attributed, on the record and in the accounts of those present, to communications the City received from State officials concerning the City’s exposure under State housing law.6 We take the City at its word that such communications exist, because the City itself put them at the center of its explanation. Two consequences follow.
First, section 54957.5, subdivision (a), makes any writing distributed to all or a majority of the Council by any person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting a disclosable public record, required to be made available to the public “without delay.” Subdivisions (b) and (c) require that writings distributed less than 72 hours before the meeting be made available for public inspection at the time of distribution, and that writings distributed during the meeting be made available at the meeting. The public has received none of it. The Council deliberated on Item 8O with information in hand that the people it serves were not permitted to see, and then acted on it.
Second, if the substance of those communications was conveyed to a majority of the Council one member at a time — by staff functioning as an intermediary, by the City Attorney’s office outside a properly noticed closed session, or by any other route — then the Council used “a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on an item of business” within its subject matter jurisdiction, in violation of section 54952.2, subdivision (b), and therefore of section 54953, subdivision (a). (See Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v.
Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95.) A hub-and-spoke exchange in which a staff member carries an outside agency’s position to each member in turn, and carries each member’s reaction back, is the paradigm case the statute was written to reach.
We recognize that we are reasoning from an incomplete record. That is the point. Appellants are concurrent with this letter serving requests under the California Public Records Act directed at exactly these communications. A request served by a member of the appellant coalition on July 1, 2026 for correspondence between City staff and councilmembers and the applicant has now gone substantially unanswered for nearly three months.7 A city that has kept the underlying communications from the public for a quarter of a year is in a poor position to argue that the public was adequately informed on September 15.
6 We understand the references on the record to the “State” and to counsel “in Sacramento” to mean the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Housing Accountability Unit, the Attorney General’s Housing Strike Force, or both. The Public Records Act requests served with this letter are directed at identifying the actual participants. If the City contends no such communication occurred, it should say so in writing, and this portion of the demand will be withdrawn. 7 Government Code section 7922.535 required the City to determine within 10 days whether that request sought disclosable records and to notify the requester, with a single extension of no more than 14 days available in unusual circumstances. Roughly twelve weeks have elapsed. Staffing constraints are not among the “unusual circumstances” that extend the deadline, and in any event the extension is capped at 14 days.
11
September 28, 2026
IV. The September 15 Action Denied Appellants Procedural Due Process The Council’s adjudication of this appeal is quasi-judicial, and it is therefore governed by procedural due process. (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612–614; see Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152.) Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties of the action contemplated, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the decision is made.
Appellants received neither. The public hearing on this appeal was closed on May 19, 2026. They had no notice — not from the agenda, not from staff, not from any other source — that the Council was reconsidering the merits of a decision already rendered in their favor. They had no opportunity to address the new material the Council had evidently received from the State, because they did not know it existed and still have not seen it. And Mr. Brent, who attended the September 15 meeting, was told before it began that he would not be permitted to speak on the item.8 That defect is compounded by a rule considerably older than the Brown Act. An administrative body required to make a determination after a hearing “cannot act upon [its] own information, and nothing can be considered as evidence that was not introduced at a hearing of which the parties had notice or at which they were present.” (English v. City of Long Beach (1950) 35 Cal.2d 155, 158.) A hearing “requires that the party be apprised of the evidence against him so that he may have an opportunity to refute, test, and explain it, and the requirement of a hearing necessarily contemplates a decision in light of the evidence there introduced.” (Id. at p. 159.) That the file may also contain properly introduced evidence supporting the result is, our Supreme Court held, “immaterial.” (Ibid.) Here the Council acted on communications received from the State after the hearing had closed, never introduced at any hearing, and never disclosed to the Appellants. That is the precise vice English identifies.
There is a further problem particular to this Council. Three of the seven members who acted on September 15 — Councilmembers Kartsonis, Lieu, and Barnett — were not in office when the hearing was held and closed, and so did not hear the evidence, observe the witnesses, or receive the Appellants’ presentation. We do not suggest that a newly seated member may never participate in a matter pending when he or she takes office. But the hearing here had been closed since May, the item was placed on the consent calendar where by rule there is no discussion, and nothing in the September 15 agenda packet placed the May 19 evidentiary record before the new members. On this record neither the Appellants nor the public can tell what those members decided on the basis of.
We note that Councilmember Kartsonis, as we understand it, abstained.
An adjudicative body is not forbidden to change its mind, and a newly elected body is not bound by the policy preferences of its predecessor. What neither may do is reopen a closed quasi-judicial adjudication and decide it the other way without telling the parties, without disclosing the material it is relying on, and without letting them be heard. The remedy for that defect is not complicated:
reopen the hearing.
8 Mr. Brent will declare, if called upon, that he asked the Mayor before the September 15 meeting whether he could address Item 8O and was told he could not. We raise this because it bears directly on the opportunity to be heard, not to impugn anyone’s motives. If the City’s recollection differs we would like to hear it.
12
September 28, 2026
V. The Action the Council Took Is Internally Incoherent and Unsupported by Findings
Even setting the Brown Act aside, the September 15 action cannot stand on its own terms.
The only CEQA determination noticed for Item 8O was a statutory exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15270(a) — “Projects Which Are Disapproved.” That exemption exists because an agency that rejects a project has nothing left to analyze.9 Having voted instead to approve the Project, the Council is left with no CEQA determination at all. The categorical exemptions previously advanced by staff — Guidelines sections 15332 (in-fill development) and 15315 (minor land divisions) — were before the Council on May 19 and were not adopted, and for the reasons set out at length in our May 14, 2026 letter (incorporated here by reference) they could not lawfully have been adopted on this record in any event.
Nor were any findings made. Council action on a land-use entitlement must be supported by findings, and the findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514–515.) No findings were made on September 15, and none could have been: the item was on the consent calendar, where by the City’s own rule there is “no separate discussion.”
Finally, we anticipate the answer that the State left the City no choice. It did not. The Housing Accountability Act expressly preserves the authority to deny a housing development project on written findings of a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety measured against objective written standards, and it expressly preserves the City’s independent obligations under CEQA.10 Whatever the State communicated to the City in the interval between May 19 and September 15, it did not repeal the Brown Act, it did not excuse the City from making findings, and it did not authorize the Council to reverse a quasi-judicial determination on a consent calendar.
VI. Substantive Concerns That Remain on This Record
Because the Council will have to take this matter up again, we identify the concerns that will be pressed at any re-noticed hearing. Each is grounded in objective standards and each bears directly on the findings section 65589.5, subdivision (j)(1)(A), requires.
The guardrail. We understand the City stated at the September 15 meeting that it had not known the existing guardrail would be replaced. With respect, that is not the issue. The Project requires the 9 CEQA Guidelines section 15270(a) provides that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. The exemption is available precisely because there is no project to analyze. It has no application to a project the agency approves, and it cannot be repurposed as a finding supporting approval.
10 Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (j)(1)(A), preserves the authority to disapprove a housing development project on written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety measured against objective, identified written standards in effect when the application was deemed complete, and that no feasible mitigation exists. Subdivision (e) confirms that nothing in section 65589.5 relieves the City of its obligations under CEQA.
13
September 28, 2026
removal of a segment of the existing guardrail and its replacement in a different configuration, at a different alignment, and set back approximately six feet. The City installed that guardrail because traffic-engineering warrants supported it, on a curve of a high-speed arterial, above homes whose rooflines sit at or below the roadway elevation. The Project file still contains no engineering warrant analysis demonstrating that the warrant no longer obtains. Until it does, the record supports a finding of a specific, adverse impact on public safety, measured against Caltrans guidance and AASHTO’s Roadside Design Guide.
Excavation adjacent to occupied property. The Project excavates to substantial depth within approximately one foot of the Rolling Hills Business Center parking lot wall and of the Brent property. The material at that location is fill — not bedrock and not consolidated soil. The applicant’s own soils engineer’s recommendations are not carried through into the grading plan, and the interior slope approaches fifty percent.
Bonding. If the Project is approved over Appellants’ objection, my clients request as a condition of approval that the applicant post a performance and damages bond, in an amount set by the City Engineer, sufficient to cover (i) completion of the retaining structures and site stabilization in the event of abandonment, (ii) damage to adjacent structures, walls, and utilities from excavation and construction, and (iii) dust and construction air-quality mitigation. This is not a hypothetical concern. A project across Hawthorne Boulevard sat half-built for approximately three years. A halfbuilt retaining wall on this site would leave the Rolling Hills Business Center parking lot and the Brent residence unsafe for the duration.
Construction dust and air quality. Residents in this immediate area experienced significant respiratory effects during construction of the nearby project, and the Project’s excavation volumes on an exposed hillside are considerably greater.
The items raised in our May 14, 2026 letter. Each remains unresolved and is incorporated here by reference: the sewer-capacity analysis premised on the wrong pipe; the private sewer lateral routed across the Nakano property under an easement dedicated to the City for public purposes, with no private grant in existence; the hydrology report prepared for a superseded site plan; the acoustical measurements not taken at the Project frontage; the driveway accessibility study deferred to a postapproval condition; and the transformer siting and trash and loading areas likewise deferred.
VII. The Cure or Correction Demanded
Pursuant to section 54960.1, subdivision (b), Appellants demand that the Council, within 30 days of its receipt of this letter:
1. Rescind in its entirety the action taken on Agenda Item 8O at the regular meeting of September 15, 2026;
2. Make available to the public, and to the undersigned, every writing received from any State agency, officer, or employee — and every writing summarizing or transmitting the substance of any such communication — that was distributed to all or a majority of the Council in connection with Item 8O, as sections 54957.5 and 7922.525 require; 14
September 28, 2026
3. If the Council wishes to reconsider its May 19, 2026 determination, re-notice the matter as a separate public hearing item — not a consent calendar item — under a description that states plainly that the Council may deny the appeal and approve the Project, reopen the public hearing, and receive testimony and evidence from the Appellants and the public before acting; and
4. Direct that no entitlement, permit, approval, or ministerial clearance issue in reliance on the September 15, 2026 action pending the Council’s compliance with the foregoing.
VIII. Statutory Framework and Reservation of Rights
Section 54960.1, subdivision (a), authorizes an interested person to obtain a judicial determination that an action taken in violation of section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, or 54956 is null and void. Subdivision (c)(1) requires that a written demand be made within 90 days of the action, or within 30 days where the action was taken in open session in violation of section 54954.2. This letter is served within 30 days of the September 15, 2026 action and is therefore timely as to every ground asserted. (See Boyle v. City of Redondo Beach (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1109 [setting out the elements of a claim under section 54960.1]; Moreno v. City of King (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 17 [affirming a judgment declaring action null and void where the agenda was inadequate and the agency failed to cure].) Under subdivision (c)(2), the Council has 30 days from receipt of this demand to cure or correct the challenged action and to inform us in writing of what it has done, or to inform us in writing that it declines to do so. Under subdivision (c)(3), inaction within that period is deemed a decision not to cure. Appellants reserve every remedy that follows, including an action under section 54960.1, declaratory and injunctive relief under section 54960, a cease and desist letter under section 54960.2, and an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees under section 54960.5.11 Appellants further reserve all rights and remedies under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 and Public Resources Code section 21167, all rights under the California Public Records Act (Gov.
Code, § 7920.000 et seq.), and all claims arising from damage to their properties should the Project proceed. Nothing in this letter waives any right, argument, or claim, and nothing in it should be read as consent to the Project in any form.
11 Government Code section 54960.5 provides for an award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees to a plaintiff who prevails in an action brought under section 54960, 54960.1 or 54960.2. We mention it not as a threat but because the Council should understand that the cost of declining to cure a defect of this kind is not limited to the City’s own fees. 15
September 28, 2026
We would much prefer to resolve this without litigation, and the cure we have described costs the City nothing but a properly noticed hearing. I am available to discuss this matter by telephone or video conference at the convenience of the City Attorney, and I will make myself available on short notice.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey Lewis
cc: Clients
Hon. David Kartsonis, Councilmember, District 1 ([email protected]) Hon. Bridgett Lewis, Councilmember, District 2 ([email protected]) Hon. Asam Sheikh, Councilmember, District 3 ([email protected]) Hon. Linda Barnett, Councilmember, District 4 ([email protected]) Hon. Betty Lieu, Councilmember, District 5 ([email protected]) Hon. Dr. Jeremy Gerson, Councilmember, District 6 ([email protected]) Office of the City Attorney, City of Torrance ([email protected]) Aram Chaparyan, City Manager, City of Torrance ([email protected]) Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director, City of Torrance ([email protected])
Yolanda Gomez, Senior Planner, City of Torrance ([email protected]) 16 Outlook
Fw: Comments on Item 10C for the 10/6 City Council meeting From Sullivan, Patrick <[email protected]>
Date Sat 10/3/2026 6:18 PM
To Ramirez, Michelle <[email protected]>; Garcia, Robert <[email protected]> 1 attachment (59 KB)
2026-1003 Letter to City Council.pdf;
Email from Mike Griffiths to City Council
PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN
City Attorney - Office of the City Attorney
310-618-5817 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This email, and any attachments to it, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential, legally privileged, and/or attorney work product, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient of this email. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments. Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From: Mike Griffiths
Sent: Saturday, 03 October 2026 17:56:35
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on Item 10C for the 10/6 City Council meeting You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello Mayor Kalani and Councilmembers!
Attached, please find my comments on item 10C to be heard at the 10/6 City Council meeting.
Feel free to call me to discuss anything on this issue.
Thank you,
Mike
Mike Griffiths
17 Dear Mayor Kalani and members of the Torrance City Council, I am writing for 2 reasons - first, to thank you, and the City Council, and secondly, to discuss my thoughts about agenda item 10C on Tuesday’s upcoming Council meeting, regarding the proposed senior housing project on Hawthorne Blvd. Unfortunately, I will be out of town for this meeting and won’t be able to attend.
So first, I wanted to thank Torrance City Council for ensuring that we had a voting delegate from the City Council (CM Sheikh) who attended the Cal Cities (aka The League of California Cities) General Assembly on September 25th, in Anaheim. An item of high importance was on the Cal Cities agenda, requesting Cal Cities to become more involved with the issue of protecting ‘local control’ rights of Cities to do their own land-use and zoning, as opposed to having the State continue to take that responsibility away from Cities. As it turns out, it is my understanding that there were only enough voting delegates present to create a quorum needed for voting by only 1 member! Had we been absent, it may have caused this opportunity for a vote on this item to fail, which thankfully, did not happen. The Resolution for having Cal Cities become more actively involved in protecting local control for Cities passed by virtually a unanimous roaring voice vote.
This is a significant shift for Cal Cities, and I am hopeful that it signals a shift statewide about the issue of local control of land-use and zoning, which has been significantly eroded by State Legislation for the past many years. Torrance has been known as a leader in standing up for ‘Local Control’, and it would be wonderful to see that leadership continue! Making this vote was one way to show that leadership! Thank you Mayor Kalani and Councilmember Sheikh! My second reason for writing is regarding Agenda Item 10C. I have previously shared my comments about this horrible proposed project, specifically, my strong belief that there are just some places that should NEVER be developed, or are otherwise unbuildable. For a developer to leverage State Laws to allow this project to be pushed through confirms that a project that the Council voted unanimously to reject (May 19, 2026) should never be built. However, the purported THREAT of State punitive action against the City for not approving the project caused the Council to reverse their position (Sept 15, 2026), and approve the project moving forward by a 5-1 vote. (And Thank You to Councilmember Lieu for voting against this reversal!). Further, the CIty produced NO DOCUMENTATION to the public showing the specifics of such a threat to the City. If there is a threat being made to the City, I believe the public has a right to know the specific nature of these threats. This is a matter of CIty-wide concern! The residents should know clearly what the State is doing to Cities regarding housing policies taking away our previously held rights to manage our own land-use and zoning as well as forcing the City to abandon the protections of our residential housing via our long-standing ordinances like the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.
Torrance has been a ‘good citizen’ City from the standpoint of moving the State’s agenda for new housing forward, approving thousands of new residential units throughout the City, not because we wanted to, but because the State-imposed mandate to allow for building 5000 new residential units in Torrance before 2029 ‘tied’ your hands and forced you to say yes to the developments. To my knowledge, the City Council has not voted against ANY new housing 18 project over many, many years! This new project is for only 20 units, a drop in the bucket for the number of new housing units in process in our City. And yet, this project, if allowed, will have permanent long term negative consequences for the surrounding neighborhood and businesses, not to mention putting the very residents that this housing project is designed for - our seniors, at significant safety risk as discussed in so many previous conversations.
My request at this time with the information available to me is that Council should RECONSIDER their September 15th vote, and instead vote to UPHOLD the appeal (denying the project). Torrance should not just ‘roll over’ and take the abusive policies forced upon us by the State, especially over a truly disastrous small project. Our residents are worth fighting for! Fight! Take a Stand! IF the State actually moves beyond a threat, then take action at that time.
Torrance is not a bad actor when it comes to the State Housing bills - we have built and approved hundreds of ADUs and thousands of residential units in larger housing developments.
Imagine if every City started pushing back on these abuses by the over-reaching State Laws! We must stand up against bullying by the State and greedy developers, and stand up for the City and its residents! And if you are concerned about risk mitigation, I think even rolling over and allowing the State to threaten you into changing your previous unanimous decision AGAINST this project opens the City to potential liability and other litigation.
Lastly, every Councilmember has a voice and the opportunity to speak without a time limit. Take EVERY opportunity to EDUCATE the public on what is going on, give them options on what they can do to fight with you, and SPEAK OUT against what the State legislature has been doing.
Staff can’t speak for you - they are required to follow the State Laws. If you have passion about this subject as I do, show it! This is way more than just a vote on a 20 unit project. It is a perfect example of what has gone wrong in the State, and regardless of how you vote, because this is such an important topic, take the opportunity to speak up and show what you stand for! Thank you as always for listening.
Mike Griffiths
Torrance Resident
Founder of California Cities for Local Control
https://localcontrolca.com/
19 Read on blog or Reader
Riviera Homeowners Association
Walteria Terrace Garden Project — City
Council, Tuesday Oct. 6
By Catherine Modesitt, RHA VP on October 5, 2026
Outlook
FW: Walteria Terrace Garden Project — City Council, Tuesday Oct. 6 From Ramirez, Michelle <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/5/2026 8:38 AM
To Garcia, Robert <[email protected]>; Gomez, Yolanda <[email protected]> FYI ~
MICHELLE RAMIREZ
Community Development Director - Community Development Department 310-618-5996 | [email protected]
TorranceCA.Gov | Facebook | X (Formerly Twitter) | Instagram This email, and any attachments to it, may contain confidential information and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email and any attachments.
Any review, reliance, disclosure, copying, storing, distribution, forwarding without express permission, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
From: Riviera Homeowners Association
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 7:59 AM
To: Ramirez, Michelle <[email protected]>
Subject: Walteria Terrace Garden Project — City Council, Tuesday Oct. 6 Proposed Walteria Terrace Garden The Torrance City Council is scheduled to consider the Walteria Terrace Garden Project, a proposed mixed-use development on Hawthorne Blvd near Rolling Hills Road. The Council… 20 Proposed Walteria Terrace Garden
The Torrance City Council is scheduled to consider the Walteria Terrace Garden Project, a proposed mixed-use development on Hawthorne Blvd near Rolling Hills Road.
The Council previously denied the project following concerns about safety and potential impacts on nearby businesses and residents. It is now back before the Council for consideration on Oct. 6 as Item 10C.
The RHA believes the proposal merits further community discussion. If you have a view on this project, we encourage you to review the plans, attend the meeting, and let the Council know. Meeting details:
Tuesday, Oct. 6
6:30 PM
21 LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chamber, 3031 Torrance Blvd.
City Council agenda:
https://torranceca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting…
Project plans and supporting studies:
https://www.torranceca.gov/…/Walteria-Terrace-Garden…
Can’t make the meeting? Email or call your City Council in advance with your feedback OR submit a comment before 5:30 PM on Monday, October 5th.
Questions for the RHA? Email us:
Like
Riviera Homeowners Association © 2026.
Unsubscribe or manage your email subscriptions.
Get the Jetpack app
22 Subscribe, bookmark, and get real-time notifications – all from one app! Automattic, Inc.
23