10C
Date: October 6, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director
By: Yolanda Gomez, Planning Associate | [email protected] Subject: Community Development – Supplemental Report – Item 10C
DISCUSSION
Attached, please find a copy of the City Attorney’s letter to Jeffrey Lewis, attorney representing the appellant. The attached letter is responding to Mr. Lewis’ original letter dated September 28, 2026, and included as an attachment to Item 10C, under “Public Comment Report #1”, page 7, titled “WRITTEN DEMAND TO CURE OR CORRECT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54960.1”.
Staff continues to recommend denial of the appeal and approval of the project.
ATTACHMENT
1. Correspondence from Torrance City Attorney
1 1. City Response to Written Demand to Cure or Correct, dated October 5, 2026 Community Development - Supplemental Material #1 for Agenda Item 10C
C I T Y O F
TORRANCE
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
Patrick Q. Sullivan
e-mail:
[email protected]
City Attorney
Patrick Q. Sullivan
Deputy City Attorneys
Jocelyn N. Sarigumba
Jeanne-Marie K. Litvin
Brandon J. Gonzaque
Jennifer V. Guerrero
Christopher P. Mellone
AndrewJ. Gordon
Law Office Administrator
Jessica C. Corona
October 5, 2026
VIA E-MAIL (Jeff(a)JeffLewisLaw.com)
AND US. MAIL
Jeffrey Lewis
JEFF LEWIS LAW, APC
827 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 209
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
CITY RESPONSE TO WRITTEN DEMAND TO CURE OR CORRECT
Agenda Item 80, regular meeting of September 15. 2026
Re:
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This letter serves as the City of Torrance’s (“City”) response to your September 28, 2026 written demand to cure or correct pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (the “Brown Act”), as it relates to the City’s discussion of the Walteria Garden Terrace Project (“Project”) consisting of 20 senior housing units and 1,608 square feet of commercial space. As you point out, at the September 15, 2026 City Council meeting (“September Meeting”), City Staff recommended that the City Council adopt resolutions to uphold the appeal and deny the Project entitlements. However, after pulling the item from the consent calendar for separate discussion and deliberation, the Council provided alternative direction to staff to draft resolutions to deny the appeal and approve the Project entitlements. Therefore, the vote providing direction to Staff was not a final decision by the City Council. As you point out, the Council did not make required findings and did not pass or enact any resolutions, and thus such deliberations are not seen as a final “action taken” by the City.
Importantly, the public was given the opportunity to speak in connection with this discussion on September 15, 2026. Contrary to the claims made in your letter, at no point did anyone attempt to speak but was denied the opportunity to do so.
Nevertheless, the Project is currently agendized to come before the City Council again during the October 6, 2026 City Council meeting, at 6:30 p.m. in the LeRoy J. Jackson Council Chambers, at 303 1 Torrance Blvd. ♦ Torrance, CA 90503-5059 * Telephone 310/618-5810 • Facsimile 310/618-5813 2 ATTACHMENT 1
Jeffrey Lewis
October 5, 2026
which time a final action will likely be taken. Specifically, the Project is part of the regular agenda - not consent calendar - as Item IOC, and the public and your clients will be able to provide public comment regarding the Project. Moreover, Item IOC has been accurately noticed and all provisions of the Brown Act have been complied with. Notably, staff is recommending that the appeal be denied, and the Project be approved; thus, you cannot claim any lack of notice in that regard. Any harm you allege to have suffered has now been cured by this subsequent City Council action and opportunity to provide written and oral comments either before or during the consideration of Item IOC.
In your letter, you quote the agenda by stating, “[mjatters 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.” This is partially correct. You ignored the language on the agenda under Oral Communications that states “[tjhis portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items under the Consent Calendar or items that are not on the agenda . . . Speakers under Orals are limited to either Oral Communications #1 or Oral Communications #2 and no longer than 3 minutes per speaker.” Importantly, you fail to quote the following sentence present in all City agendas, which states, “[i]f discussion is desired, that item will be pulled by a Councilmember from the Consent Calendar and considered separately.” This is precisely what happened at the September Meeting, at which the Council’s motion was to direct staff to bring back resolutions to deny the appeal and allow the conditional use permit. At the October 6'*’ meeting, the City Council will be well within its authority and police power to make any decision regarding the Project that it sees fit, while taking into account both state and federal law. Ultimately, there has been no violation of the Brown Act because the City has not taken definitive action on the Project to date.
On a related note, the fact that the September 15* item was described as an action that would approve the appeal and deny the Project does not somehow mean that a decision to do the opposite is a Brown Act violation. Quite the opposite - all that is required is that notice be provided of the subject matter of the City Council item, but the City Council is free to follow, reject, or modify City’s staff s recommendation in any way. Staffs recommendation is just that, and the City Council ultimately makes the decision. Councils all over the state routinely take actions that differ from staff recommendation(s) in city council agendas, without fear of a Brown Act violation.
Finally, you allege undisclosed communications that the City received from State official concerning the City’s exposure under State Housing law allegedly violated sections of the Brown Act. City staff did receive an email from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) about the Project. In that email, HCD requested a meeting with the City. There was no mention of the City’s exposure under State housing law in the HCD email. I have attached a copy of the HCD email to this letter. Any communication between my office and the City Council regarding the HCD email are protected by the attorney client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine and would be exempt from disclosure under the PuWic Records Act. Therefore, your allegations of a Brown Act violation related to the HCD email are without merit. 3 Jeffrey Lewis
October 5, 2026
As for the remaining claims in your letter (Sections IV-VI), this response letter does not address, comment, or discuss the merits or validity of such claims. The City reserves all rights, arguments, and defenses it may have related to such claims. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at PSullivan@TorranceCA .Gov.
Sincerely,
Patrick Q. Sullivan
City Attorney
Attachment:
HCD 09-03-2026 email
4 I
©
s
z
o
2 P on 00
n
3-
S.c
3 Q)
I n> ■8
f
5 3 3- 55
O.
ii5-
X
09 c T3
<
3 Oi O
O
% i >g
n
1 3 5 cn if Q.
c
a
g
1 SP
5 3.
I
c
«,A
W
o
%
I
i c 3"
09 *o
(2
X
B
O
a
o O)
o if
°
£5
a c
I
SI
5 b
cn
CD 09S'
J 09
zc/)
o CD*
093 09 </> 3
R
I n
f
a09V9
iS (/)
I
o
a
cx
S
t n
5 O
S'
09 ?
to Sil %
if3 iX>
a
§
i
a>
s
a
? S’
c
I
I
I 09 X
a.
a O)
R o
5C09
I
oXa
I
iX%sF-«J2
f->J2-g
5