Public Comments Report — Torrance City Council, July 14, 2026

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2026 5:49 PM
To: Mattucci, Aurelio <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Chen, George <[email protected]>; Kalani, Sharon <[email protected]>; Lewis, Bridgett <[email protected]>; Sheikh, Asam <[email protected]>; Gerson, Jeremy <[email protected]> Subject: Formal Request for Senior Housing Preservation and CDBG Fund Reallocation

TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Betty [email protected]
[email protected]

SUBJECT: Formal Request for Senior Housing Preservation and CDBG Fund Reallocation

Dear City Treasurer
Aurelio Mattucci,

Mayor Chen, Councilmember Kalani, and Members of the Torrance City Council, I am writing to you today as a senior citizen, a homeowner, and a long-term resident of the Torrance community to formally bring to your attention a severe, systemic gap in our city's local housing safety net.

On July 2, 2026, I received written confirmation from the Housing Supervisor of the Community Development Department regarding the city's current resource allocation. The department explicitly confirmed that the City of Torrance currently allocates zero percent (0%) of its federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME entitlement funds to senior housing preservation or preventing mobile home space displacement.

Furthermore, the department confirmed that the local Section 8 waiting list has been completely frozen since August 2022, leaving a backlog of 5,255 households waiting for assistance with no active timeline for relief.
1 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT -

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
While the Housing Department presented this 0% allocation as an unchangeable reality, federal guidelines for CDBG funds explicitly grant local municipalities massive flexibility.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) fully permits cities to utilize these entitlement funds for owner-occupied home repairs, utility infrastructure updates, emergency structural rehabilitation, and local space stabilization for low-income seniors.

The decision to allocate $0 to senior mobile home preservation is a local policy choice made by the City of Torrance, not a restriction imposed by the federal government.

By completely deflecting these critical needs to third-party regional entities like the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, Torrance is leaving its most vulnerable, long-term senior residents completely unprotected against infrastructure degradation and space displacement.

As our elected leaders and financial custodians, I am formally requesting that the city leadership take the following immediate actions:

1. Agendize a formal review of the city's current CDBG and HOME entitlement fund allocations to discuss establishing a dedicated local emergency repair and preservation fund specifically for low-income senior mobile home owners.

2. Provide a clear accounting of why Torrance chooses to bypass HUD-approved uses for owner-occupied senior structural preservation in favor of outsourcing fair housing obligations entirely.

3. Establish direct, human-to-human accountability on the city's housing authority communication lines so seniors in immediate housing crises are connected to live specialists rather than endless automated telephone loops.

Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your administrative transparency. Our senior community has helped anchor Torrance for decades, and we look forward to your active, written response regarding how the city intends to correct this local funding policy choice.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Cundy
And Deborah Cundy
District #1 David Kartsonis

Torrance, CA
2 Royal Western Mobile Home Park
Mailing address:
17705 Western Ave., space 65, Gardena, CA 90248
P .S. As you know from the detailed correspondence my sister Deborah and I previously sent to all Council members regarding the ongoing crisis at Royal Western, our community is facing severe financial exploitation and space rent gouging. Now that the Housing Department has confirmed they allocate 0% of federal funds to senior housing preservation, it is clear the city is choosing to leave us completely unprotected. We are looking to you to help correct this fiscal neglect.

3 From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2026 3:14 PM
To: Communications <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; info <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Representative Ted Lieu <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Jane Diehl <[email protected]>
Cc: Garth Meyer <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment All Agencies - BCHD's Death Sentence to Evicted Silverado Residents

4 5
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2026 12:42 PM
To: Communications <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk <[email protected]>; info <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell <[email protected]>; Representative Ted Lieu <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment All Agencies - Peer Reviewed Studies of the Health Damages of BCHD's Eviction of Silverado Memory Care

A few words on the true gravity of BCHD's decision to evict Silverado memory care residents. As you can see from this peer reviewed, evidence based report with citations below, this is a grave situation for the residents and their families. As former Redondo Beach Councilmember Horvath reminded BCHD Board President Diehl - the BCHD Board and Executives had planned to allow the facility to remain open if BCHD been able to negotiate with Continental Development. THAT MEANS ANY SEISMIC ISSUE WAS NOT A

SERIOUS AS BCHD NOW CLAIMS WHEN IT WANTS TO DEMO THE BUILDING TO LEASE OUT THE LAND. Sadly, BCHD’s extreme lack of development experience and apparent withholding of key information made a deal with a sophisticated local developer impossible. BCHD’s lack of negotiating ability turned into a death sentence - LITERALLY - for some of the 120 residents. "The situation is grave and as a result, the words used must reflect that sad, sad truth. BCHD clearly valued a real estate deal with a private developer above the lives of the Silverado residents. " MEMORANDUM DATE: July 4, 2026 SUBJECT:

Fatal and Severe Health Impacts of Forced Relocation on Memory Care and Dementia Patients Executive Summary: The Catastrophic Costs of Involuntary Relocation Involuntary relocation from long-term care facilities, particularly for individuals residing in memory care units, constitutes a profound physical and psychological trauma. Academic literature establishes that forcing highly vulnerable, cognitively impaired patients out of familiar, structured environments is not merely disruptive—it is frequently fatal. This memorandum provides an unvarnished analysis of the severe health degradation, psychological shock, and accelerated mortality rates directly associated with the forced displacement of dementia patients. Relocation Stress Syndrome and Acute Psychological Trauma The moving of an elderly individual, particularly against their will or without their cognitive understanding, triggers an acute physiological and psychological response known as 6 Relocation Stress Syndrome (RSS). For individuals with advanced cognitive decline, their surroundings serve as an external framework that compensates for failing internal memory structures. When this framework is abruptly stripped away, patients experience extreme disorientation, intense anxiety, severe depression, and paranoia. The psychological trauma manifests physically through drastically elevated cortisol levels, sleep disturbances, and complete behavioral dysregulation, severely compromising the patient's remaining immune and metabolic defenses. Accelerated Cognitive Decline and Surge in Mortality Rates The shock of forced relocation acts as an accelerant on neurodegenerative pathologies. Following an involuntary move, dementia patients frequently exhibit a rapid, irreversible drop in cognitive functioning, losing language skills, spatial awareness, and basic self-care abilities within weeks. Far more critically, the statistical correlation between forced relocation and early death is stark. The destabilization of a patient's routine and care network causes a profound physiological shock, leading to a massive surge in mortality rates—often referred to as "transfer trauma. " Patients who were otherwise physically stable succumb rapidly to cardiovascular failure, systemic infections, or a generalized failure to thrive, directly induced by the trauma of the move. Conclusion The evidence across clinical gerontology proves that involuntary moves for memory care residents are high-risk events that regularly result in the worst possible medical outcomes. For a population entirely dependent on environmental consistency, forced relocation is a catastrophic intervention that directly compromises both quality of life and survival expectancy. References Holder, J. M., & Jolley, D. (2012). Forced relocation between nursing homes: Residents' health outcomes and potential moderators. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 22(4), 301–319.

Robinson, V . (2002). A Brief Literature Review of the Effects of Relocation on the Elderly.

Hospital Employees' Union. Ryman, F . V . M., Erisman, J. C., Darvey, L. M., Osborne, J., Swartsenburg, E., & Syurina, E. V . (2018). Health effects of the relocation of patients with dementia: A scoping review to inform medical and policy decision-making. The Gerontologist, 59(6), e674–e682. Walker, C., Curry, L. C., & Hogstel, M. O. (2007).

Relocation stress syndrome in older adults transitioning from home to a long-term care facility: Myth or reality? Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 45(1), 38–45.

7 From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 1:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Garth Meyer <[email protected]>; Holly J. Mitchell <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; info <[email protected]>; Letters <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment LA County Board and All Agencies - BCHD Executive Payroll Audit Required - 36% of ALL Employee Costs are EXECUTIVE COMP

BCHD Executives consume 36% of all payroll dollars at BCHD.

BCHD Executives, on average, manage less than $1M each.

BCHD Executives are a 20% overhead of TOTAL BCHD EXPENSES.

I am very concerned about the LA County Board's lack of oversight regarding funding that it has provided to Beach Cities Health District for ALLCOVE.

BCHD has 13 executives that consume 36% of all employee payroll costs for the organization. Further, 20% of every budget dollar at BCHD is consumed by Executive compensation. Those overheads for executives are UNPRECENDENTED in any public agency. BCHD refuses to bench mark its executive overheads. It does compensation surveys where are a false narrative, because there "mix" of employees is so out of balance. Please conduct the level of diligence that any senior agency should exert. Thank you.

8 9
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 1:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Garth Meyer <[email protected]>; Holly J. Mitchell <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; info <[email protected]>; Letters <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: BCHD's CPRA Reply States it has NO STUDIES to justify a 36% Labor Overhead or 20% Total Overhead for EXECUTIVE COMP

See the comprehensive exchange with BCHD where it fails to provide any expert studies or even audits demonstrating that it's EXECUTIVE OVERHEADS need to be 13 Executives to manage a net $12.5M budget and an average of 5 FTEs each.

LALAFCO has failed in its mission and the Cities in the District and funding agencies like the LA County Board must engage as fiduciaries.

10 ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: CPRA - Exec Payroll
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Cc: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

So the short answer is - no documents available. The information that was provided provides no evidence of any studies or standards that demonstrate that a mere 67 FTE organization requires 13 executives at the level of CEO, C-suite, Director and GM. Clearly BCHD is extremely top health and needs to trim its management.

CC: Public Comment to the BCHD Cities for their awareness of the lack of studies and documentation for BCHD's $2.4M in executive pay annually and span-of-control of 5 FTEs and under $1M budget on average.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 2:08 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records request received 7/27/24 that reads:

Provide documents that explicitly address BCHD's 13 executives paid $2.4M per Transparent CA:
1) Provide documents from recognized experts that 13 executives is the correct management structure for BCHDs small workforce of 67 FTEs 2) Provide documents from recognized experts demonstrating that an organization with roughly $15M annual budget should be served by 13 executives 3) Provide documents from recognized experts demonstrating that a span of control of 5 employees on average is reasonable for each of the 13 executives

11 Please see the District annual Budget Report on the website:
https://www.bchd.org/operating-budgets that illustrates the District Executive Leadership, 6 staff including CEO (plus Chief Medical Officer that is an Independent Contractor), and Organizational Chart for each budget year.

FY23-24 Annual Budget Report
On Page 1, you can find the Executive Leadership and further on page 54, you can find the District entity wide organizational chart structured based on business functions and operational program and services offered.

Please note that if records you are seeking do not exist, BCHD has no obligation to create new records, or to obtain records from other sources, unless those sources are considered “prepared, owned, used by, or retained by” by the District.

If you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, please resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.

Please note that the District may not respond to questions or comments included with your request that are not themselves requests for identifiable public records under the California Public Records Act. The lack of response by the District to any such questions or comments, including follow-up questions and comments, is not an indication of the District’s position on any topic or item, and should not be presented as such to any person.

Thank you.

12 From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 2:33 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - Exec Payroll

EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION

Provide documents that explicitly address BCHD's 13 executives paid $2.4M per TransparentCA:

1) Provide documents from recognized experts that 13 executives is the correct management structure for BCHDs small workforce of 67 FTEs 2) Provide documents from recognized experts demonstrating that an organization with roughly $15M annual budget should be served by 13 executives 3) Provide documents from recognized experts demonstrating that a span of control of 5 employees on average is reasonable for each of the 13 executives

THE PRECEDING E-MAIL, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, CONTAINS INFORMATION

THAT MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL, BE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY CLIENT OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES, OR CONSTITUTE NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED ONLY TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED

RECIPIENT OF THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM. USE, DISSEMINATION,

DISTRIBUTION, OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE BY UNINTENDED RECIPIENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. PLEASE NOTE THAT CORRESPONDENCE

WITH THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT, ALONG WITH ALL ATTACHMENTS OR OTHER

ITEMS, MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE

RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CLAIMS, LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE

DISCLOSURE OR USE OF ANY INFORMATION, DATA OR OTHER ITEMS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE.

13 From: D. Dangelo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 7:43 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: SUBJECT: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

Redondo Beach City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

SUBJECT: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

SPOT UPZONING BCHD IS ILLEGAL
BCHD still wants to have its zoning SPOT UPZONED. That's illegal and wrong. Even the lawyers that BCHD hired and TAXPAYERS paid agree that spot upzoning is illegal.

BCHD HAS PRIVATIZED 100% OF THE SITE BUILDINGS
After the Sunrise lease agreement, BCHD will no longer own one square foot of real estate on the Prospect site. 510 and 520 are real estate investor owned, and Sunrise will be mandated in the agreement to demolish the 514 building.

THE LAND IS NO LONGER P-I
BCHD no longer has a P-I claim on the land. The buildings will be 100% privately owned and operated, like any other medical buildings or assisted living. The lot must be rezoned commercial.

WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE DOWN BCHD'S FAR IN ARTICLE 27 14 The BCHD FAR or entire P-I FAR must be available as a separate vote item on the ballot for the Article 27 vote.

UNLESS EVERY P-I SITE WILL BE FAR 1.25, NONE CAN BE
Again, that is the legal opinion of BCHD's law firm, paid for by Taxpayers. BCHD cannot be spot upzoned.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984. Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.

Denise Dangelo
619-9397

15 From: MONIKA OLMOS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 7:54 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: SUBJECT: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

SPOT UPZONING BCHD IS ILLEGAL
BCHD still wants to have its zoning SPOT UPZONED. That's illegal and wrong. Even the lawyers that BCHD hired and TAXPAYERS paid agree that spot upzoning is illegal.

BCHD HAS PRIVATIZED 100% OF THE SITE BUILDINGS After the Sunrise lease agreement, BCHD will no longer own one square foot of real estate on the Prospect site. 510 and 520 are real estate investor owned, and Sunrise will be mandated in the agreement to demolish the 514 building.

WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE DOWN BCHD'S FAR IN ARTICLE 27 The BCHD FAR or entire P-I FAR must be available as a separate vote item on the ballot for the Article 27 vote.

UNLESS EVERY P-I SITE WILL BE FAR 1.25, NONE CAN BE Again, that is the legal opinion of BCHD's law firm, paid for by Taxpayers. BCHD cannot be spot upzoned.

Thank you
Monika Olmos RB Resident and Homeowner

Sent from my iPhone
16 From: Joan Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 8:01 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: We want a vote on the FAR for BCHD!

Dear Councilmembers,

We all need and deserve a vote on the FAR for the BCHD,

Thank you
Joan Davidson

17 From: M. Nava <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 8:06 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Brad Waller <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>; James Light <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

Redondo Beach City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

SPOT UPZONING BCHD IS ILLEGAL
BCHD still wants to have its zoning SPOT UPZONED. That's illegal and wrong. Even the lawyers that BCHD hired and TAXPAYERS paid agree that spot upzoning is illegal.

WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE DOWN BCHD'S FAR IN ARTICLE 27 The BCHD FAR or entire P-I FAR must be available as a separate vote item on the ballot for the Article 27 vote.

18 UNLESS EVERY P-I SITE WILL BE FAR 1.25, NONE CAN BE
Again, that is the legal opinion of BCHD's law firm, paid for by Taxpayers. BCHD cannot be spot upzoned.

Marcio N

19 From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 8:40 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; James Light <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]> Cc: Darryl Boyd <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Garth Meyer <[email protected]>; info <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Representative Ted Lieu <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE CITY: IMPORTANT UPDATE: OPPOSE BCHD 1.25 FAR; REQUIRE BCHD FAR AS A LINE ITEM ON THE ARTICLE 27 BALLOT

(note - if anyone wants to forward this email to the city council and agree with it - feel free! The more the better to get neighborhood environmental justice!)

I agree completely with Darryl. This is a fight worth fighting. Currently BCHD owns ONLY the hospital. The other two buildings, 510 and 520 are investor owned and operated. When Sunrise tears down the hospital, and builds 100% private facilities, then BCHD will be an absentee landlord ONLY on the site. The site should NOT BE Public-Institutional land. It is only a commercial rental space when BCHD vacates it.

Below is my eComment to the Council the website:

The City is better to have NO general plan than to allow BCHD to turn the taxpayer purchased Prospect campus into a 100% PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT with an FAR 1.25. The Sunrise deal will demolish the ONLY BCHD owned building and replace it with 100% PRIVATE, non-dedicated to the District real estate. BCHD will become the most costly landlord of all Health Care district with 13 executives consuming 36% of the total District employee compensation. BCHD will have NO OWNERSHIP on the campus of any operating asset.

OPPOSE ANY DOCUMENT WHERE BCHD IS SPOT ZONED TO FAR 1.25 20 BCHD should not be spot zoned up to FAR 1.25. Further, any Article 27 vote MUST expose BCHD's FAR as a separate ballot measure to REJECT by voters. If that means all of P-I is exposed for rejection, then so be it. The City on January 20 2026 had numerous BCHD only exhibits of FAR for the Council and the public. CLEARLY - BCHD WAS SINGLED OUT FOR SPOT UPZONING. THAT IS ILLEGAL. Even BCHD's taxpayer funded law firm agrees that is spot zoning.

OPPOSE ANY ELECTION WHERE BCHD FAR (AND P-I FAR IF NEEDED) IS NOT

AVAILABLE FOR A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE
Do not bundle BCHD's awful FAR decision with the rest of the general plan changes. We do not seek to reject the entire general plan, but we will unless the City exposes this evil BCHD plan for FAR 1.25 for a campus with NO BCHD on it to a VOTE.

BCHD WILL SOON OWN NO OPERATION SPACE ON THE SITE - P-I ZONING SHOULD BE

RESCINDED
BCHD currently owns about 50% of the operational building area, that is, the 514 building. The 510 and 520 buildings are investor owned and operated. BCHD plans to issue a contract to Sunrise to demolish 514 and its ancillary buildings, leaving the entire campus PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED.

BCHD DOES NOT DESERVE P-I ZONING IN REDONDO BEACH
BCHD is functioning as a commercial real estate company and investor. As a result, the property should be zoned commercial, consist with its actual use.

It's high time for the City Council to listen to the voters of REDONDO BEACH.

We demand to be able to vote to rescind BCHD's P-I zoning and convert is to Commercial (C).

We demand to be able to deny FAR 1.25 to BCHD in the Article 27 vote.

21 From: Rosann Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 9:48 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: SUBJECT: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

To: Redondo Beach City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

I live next door to BCHD. I want the right to vote on BCHD’s FAR.

WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE DOWN BCHD'S FAR IN ARTICLE 27 The BCHD FAR or entire P-I FAR must be available as a separate vote item on the ballot for the Article 27 vote.

Thank you.

Rosann Taylor
Resident on Diamond St.

Aloha!

22 From: sinsheimer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 9:32 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Agenda Item N2

I am a long time resident (since 1986). I would like to voice my concern regarding the possibility of having a citywide 1.25 FAR.

𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 approves 𝗮 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝟭.𝟮𝟱 𝗙𝗔𝗥 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻'𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝟬.𝟳𝟱 𝗙𝗔𝗥, I will 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻.

Please post to the Agenda Item N2

Jeanne Sinsheimer
1915 Spreckels Lane
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
310-625-4408

Sent from my iPad

23 From: Vin Raju <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 11:10 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

Redondo Beach City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

SUBJECT: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

SPOT UPZONING BCHD IS ILLEGAL
BCHD still wants to have its zoning SPOT UPZONED. That's illegal and wrong. Even the lawyers that BCHD hired and TAXPAYERS paid agree that spot upzoning is illegal.

WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE DOWN BCHD'S FAR IN ARTICLE 27 24 The BCHD FAR or entire P-I FAR must be available as a separate vote item on the ballot for the Article 27 vote.

UNLESS EVERY P-I SITE WILL BE FAR 1.25, NONE CAN BE.

Again, that is the legal opinion of BCHD's law firm, paid for by Taxpayers. BCHD cannot be spot upzoned.

Thank you,
Vinay Raju

25 From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 7:48 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Fw: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - Keep the BCHD FAR Vote SEPARATE from the General Plan Ballot Vote
Please see below message.

Mayor, City Council and Officials:

BCHD should NOT get special treatment and an oversized 1.25 FAR. Redondo Beach voters MUST BE ALLOWED to vote on any major increase in BCHD's Floor Area Ratio as a SEPARATE item on the ballot.

26 From: Janis Vogt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 7:52 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Fw: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - Keep the BCHD FAR Vote SEPARATE from the General Plan Ballot Vote
Please see comments below.

Mayor, City Council and Officials:

BCHD should NOT get special treatment and an oversized 1.25 FAR. Redondo Beach voters MUST BE ALLOWED to vote on any major increase in BCHD's Floor Area Ratio as a SEPARATE item on the ballot.

27 From: Darryl Boyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 9:11 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Brad Waller <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>; James Light <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]> Subject: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION Redondo Beach City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

SUBJECT: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

SPOT UPZONING BCHD IS ILLEGAL
BCHD still wants to have its zoning SPOT UPZONED. That's illegal and wrong. Even the lawyers that BCHD hired and TAXPAYERS paid agree that spot upzoning is illegal.

WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE DOWN BCHD'S FAR IN ARTICLE 27 The BCHD FAR or entire P-I FAR must be available as a separate vote item on the ballot for the Article 27 vote.
28 UNLESS EVERY P-I SITE WILL BE FAR 1.25, NONE CAN BE
Again, that is the legal opinion of BCHD's law firm, paid for by Taxpayers. BCHD cannot be spot upzoned.

Darryl Boyd

--
Darryl Boyd - Broker/Owner, MRP , SFR, CPTS
Specialized Court Services:

Expert Witness - Probate & Trust Valuation Disputes
Substitute Administration - Probate Cases
DARRYL B. BOYD, BROKER
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310) 490-0139 Direct cellular
[email protected]
DarrylBoydBroker.com
CA DRE #01178871

29 From: Tom McGarry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 9:15 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: SUBJECT: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

SPOT UPZONING BCHD IS ILLEGAL
BCHD still wants to have its zoning SPOT UPZONED. That's illegal and wrong. Even the lawyers that BCHD hired and TAXPAYERS paid agree that spot upzoning is illegal.

WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE DOWN BCHD'S FAR IN ARTICLE 27 The BCHD FAR or entire P-I FAR must be available as a separate vote item on the ballot for the Article 27 vote.

UNLESS EVERY P-I SITE WILL BE FAR 1.25, NONE CAN BE
Again, that is the legal opinion of BCHD's law firm, paid for by Taxpayers. BCHD cannot be spot upzoned.
30 Tom McGarry
Redondo Beach

31 From: Amy Boyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 9:20 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Brad Waller <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>; James Light <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]> Subject: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

Redondo Beach City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

SUBJECT: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE 0.75; DEMAND BCHD (Public Institutional) FAR BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

SPOT UPZONING BCHD IS ILLEGAL
BCHD still wants to have its zoning SPOT UPZONED. That's illegal and wrong. Even the lawyers that BCHD hired and TAXPAYERS paid agree that spot upzoning is illegal.

WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE DOWN BCHD'S FAR IN ARTICLE 27 32 The BCHD FAR or entire P-I FAR must be available as a separate vote item on the ballot for the Article 27 vote.

UNLESS EVERY P-I SITE WILL BE FAR 1.25, NONE CAN BE
Again, that is the legal opinion of BCHD's law firm, paid for by Taxpayers. BCHD cannot be spot upzoned.

Amy Boyd

33 From: Stephen Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 9:34 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: STOP BCHD

Please, for the sake of the well-being of the community, stop BCHD from its illegality

The neighborhood is sick and tired of BCHD's dishonesty

STOP BCHD

George Stephen Parker
1619 Lomax Lane

34 From: LuJean Levy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 1:37 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: No To BCHD FAR Request without a vote

Dear City Clerk:

I am a concerned resident/homeowner in West Torrance and our property sits across the street from the old South Bay Hospital. I hope Redondo Beach continues to put its residents and neighborhoods first quelling big developers who wish to overbuild and destroy the community.

Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) has struck a deal with Sunrise Senior Living to build a massive independent/assisted-living complex on an 11-acre bluff in Redondo Beach. To make it work, the Council requested that the project get a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.25 — way above the .75 (or lower) cap that residents and the city's own Planning Commission have pushed for. It's even above what the BCHD asked for. That's the difference between a reasonably-scaled project and a structure that towers over a residential neighborhood.

Please, please, please separate the BCHD/Sunrise project out of the General Plan ballot measure and let residents vote on it . Don’t start a dangerous, undemocratic precedent by going behind voters backs and burying this item in the general plan.

Sincerely,

LuJean Levy
Sent from my iPhone

35 From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 2:21 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSE BCHD FAR ABOVE .75

I ASK THAT BCHD WHICH IS A PUBLIC INSTITUTION BE SEPARATED OUT TO VOTE AGAINST ON THE
ARTICLE 27 ELECTION

PLEASE LISTEN TO THE LOCAL RESIDENTS OF REDONDO AND TORRANCE I THANK YOU.

JUDITH BUNCH
DISTRICT 1 REDONDO BEACH

36 From: Ann Wolfson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 3:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 City Council Meeting

Sent to Redondo Beach City Council:

Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to strongly urge you to reject the oversized 1.25 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) proposed for the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) in the updated General Plan. The City Council was elected to act in the best interest of the City of Redondo Beach, not act as a front for another entity who serves multiple cities, and is subsidized annually over $5M (and rising) in property taxes from Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach.

Granting pre-emptive high density for BCHD creates a damaging precedent for the City.

Please consider the following key issues:

A 0.75 FAR is more than sufficient for BCHD.
• There is no current BCHD project submitted. A 0.75 FAR is generous and sufficient for any P/I land. According to BCHD, a proposed project with a private developer and still in works, would be 0.82 FAR, and does not require a 1.25 FAR.

Why would any Council member approve nearly twice the FAR, just in case? If BCHD in future years develops a project that exceeds 0.75 FAR, they should go through the standard procedure, like any other entity —and justify their desire for a variance before the Planning Commission and City Council. • A 1.25 FAR is more than double the size of their current facilities (currently 0.58 FAR) and nearly twice the proposed 0.75 maximum for other public land. Though no cap currently exists for public institutional land, the current average FAR for public land in Redondo Beach is approximately 0.25, drastically lower than even the 0.75 FAR.
• BCHD provides optional services and NONE of the City's 24/7 essential infrastructure or emergency services. There is ZERO equivalency between BCHD and the City or Police and Fire. There is no reason to give special treatment to BCHD. 37 • Allowing a massive 1.25 FAR for 100% private buildings on public land is nonsensical. The project would turn public land over to private development owners for a century.
• BCHD's ELEVATED site exacerbates the environmental damages causing maximum harm. The significant increase in density/intensity high on a 30 ft. bluff that overlooks the City is fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and will negatively impact a large number of residents, near and far.

A Separate Ballot Vote is Required
• Measure DD (Now Article XXVII) was created and passed by Redondo Beach residents for a reason - do not circumvent direct public transparency. Major land-use changes for BCHD should not be bundled into a single ballot vote on the General Plan. Ensure residents are clearly and properly informed and decide for themselves in a separate vote as is mandated.
• Any FAR exception for BCHD must be presented to the voters as a separate ballot measure.

This General Plan is for the residents of the City of Redondo Beach, not BCHD. Please prioritize the voice of the people.

Thank you,
Ann Wolfson

38 From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 5:18 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; James Light <[email protected]> Cc: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose BCHD FAR Above 0.75 — Separate Article 27 Vote Needed

Good afternoon Mayor, Councilmembers, and City staff,
I am writing to request the following:

1. BCHD should not be granted a special FAR increase above what was recommended by the City Planning Commission. Any FAR increase above the Planning Commission’s recommendation raises serious legal, policy, and neighborhood-impact concerns and should not be approved without a clear, legally defensible, and publicly vetted justification.

2. Many Redondo Beach residents expect density and FAR limits that are no greater than what was envisioned during the General Plan process. BCHD should not receive special treatment or a separate development envelope that exceeds what residents reasonably understood was being considered.

3. Granting special upzoning requests for BCHD or RBUSD would establish a precedent that could affect every neighborhood in our already dense, tree-canopy- limited
small city.

4. The FAR is the land-use entitlement and development envelope that determines how much development can be allowed on the site. Once a higher FAR is adopted, a later BCHD
project can be presented as consistent with the approved zoning framework. That is why the BCHD/Public Institutional FAR must be separated on the Article XXVII ballot now.
39 5. If the Mayor and City Council choose NOT to follow the City Planning Commission’s FAR recommendations, then at least, the November ballot should include separate votes so voters can vote separately on the City’s General Plan and any spot upzoning for BCHD or RBUSD. Residents should not be forced to vote on the entire General
Plan package in order to approve or reject a special FAR increase for BCHD or Public Institutional sites.

Lastly, BCHD’s own legal counsel previously raised concerns about inconsistent FAR treatment among Public Institutional properties. Therefore, if the City applies a 1.25 FAR to BCHD, the City must clearly explain how that is legally distinguishable from other similarly situated Public Institutional sites. BCHD should not be spot upzoned.

Thank you.

Marcie Guillermo
Redondo Beach Resident for 20+ Years

40 From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 6:29 PM
To: Communications <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Holly J. Mitchell <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer <[email protected]>; info <[email protected]>; Representative Ted Lieu <[email protected]>
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: LA Times BCHD Article on BCHD choosing $250K/yr MORE in lease revenue from Sunrise over Silverado Residents

Sections

SUBSCRIBEBCHD

Log In
Show Search
California
Nearly 100 dementia patients are being evicted from their Redondo Beach home. Why it’s sparking outrage

Pat Aust, a former Redondo Beach fire chief, pictured with fellow residents at the Silverado Beach Cities Memory Care Community, which is set to close.

By Clara Harter
Staff Writer Follow
Photography by

Christina House
July 9, 2026 5 AM PT
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred 41 Jennifer Aust’s heart is breaking.

Her whole life, she watched her dad, Pat, give back to the South Bay community he was raised in. He joined the Redondo Beach Fire Department in 1970 and held nearly every rank inside the department — including chief — before retiring in 2002.

Then came eight years as a City Council member. Finally, he was on the board of a healthcare district that leases land to a care home for seniors with dementia — a much- loved community resource that has, in a tragic twist of fate, become his own home.

Now that same board is evicting Aust and nearly 100 other patients from the Silverado Beach Cities Memory Care Community.

Families are furious. They say there are not enough facilities in the region that can provide the specialized care their loved ones need, and they worry that the forced move poses serious health threats.
“When I think of how he’s being treated by elected leaders now, I think he would be so mad and disappointed because he had so much passion for this community, ” Jennifer Aust said.

She can only speculate on how her father would feel. Neither he nor most of the other patients who live at the home have the cognitive ability to understand what’s happening to them.

Jennifer Aust dances with her father Pat at Silverado.

On May 27, the Beach Cities Health District board of directors voted to move forward with a redevelopment plan for its 11-acre Redondo Beach campus that will permanently close Silverado. Within the next year, all the residents will need to leave.

Dr. David Presser, an emergency medicine physician, wrote a letter urging the district to spare Silverado. Moving patients with Alzheimer’s disease, he said, is associated with “behavioral destabilization, increased agitation, accelerated functional decline and a higher likelihood of acute care utilization. ”
“Continuity of caregivers, physical environment, and routine are not merely quality-of-life considerations for this population, ” he wrote, “they are clinically meaningful protective factors. ”
Local families are concerned about how far they will have to travel to find appropriate care. 42 “We’ve called around to a lot of the local memory care places and in total there were around two dozen beds available in South Bay, ” said Nicole Purohit, whose mother lives in Silverado. “It’s creating a little bit of a public health crisis. ” Long-planned project but a sudden twist
The health district has been planning to redevelop its healthcare campus for about a decade to replace aging and seismically vulnerable buildings with facilities that will provide a range of community health and wellness services.

The looming project was why Purohit was nervous to move her mother into Silverado last winter. But then came a letter signed by health district Chief Executive Tom Bakaly. “For families who are considering a move into Silverado Memory Care at Beach Cities today, please know that you can do so with confidence, ” the Dec. 23 letter stated. “Residents who move in now will be secure in their care and will continue to have access to a Silverado bed throughout the redevelopment process. ” Purohit’s mother, Annette Rippe, already had to leave two other care homes that couldn’t cater to her behavioral needs. But Purohit took the letter to heart and moved her mom in, watching with relief as she thrived under Silverado’s specialized and attentive care.

Silverado residents Marlene Naraghi, left, and Cathy Stewart dance together during happy hour entertainment.
“I was 100% feeling that this was going to be the last time I had to move my mom — that she was going to be able to live out the rest of her years here, ” she said.

Presser, the emergency medicine physician, said Silverado’s care model of catering solely to dementia patients and having clinical nurses on site 24/7 sets it apart from most other facilities and reduces how often residents need to go to the emergency room. “The gap they fill is not abstract, ” Presser wrote. “It is the difference between appropriate, stable placement and a revolving door of hospitalizations, psychiatric admissions, and failed care transitions. ”

Christian Horvath and daughter Reese Charfen-Horvath, 17, were among those pushing to preserve the memory care facility at a May 27 Beach Cities Health District board of directors meeting.

43 (Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)
‘The hard and, I think, right decision’
Wearing navy blue “Save Silverado” T-shirts and badges bearing the same message, more than two dozen members of the public packed into the Beach Cities Health District board of directors’ May 27 meeting to make a desperate appeal to preserve the beloved facility.

The district had issued a request for proposals from developers interested in leading the campus redevelopment last June. Of the 12 submissions received, the board initially favored working with Continental Development and Mar Ventures on a plan that would keep Silverado on the site.

However, the terms of that proposal “changed significantly” after negotiations began in January, reducing the board’s confidence in the project, according to a district spokesperson. Changes included a longer project timeline, uncertainty over whether the developers could provide community amenities such as a pool and less profitable ground lease terms, according to the district.

Continental Development executive Bob Tarnofsky said the team learned about “previously undisclosed higher decommissioning and demolition costs, a more complicated approval process, and greater environmental risk mitigation” after submitting the proposal.

Nonetheless, he said the team remained confident it could complete the project. “Yes, our proposal had nominal additional costs and may have taken a little more time, ” he said. “But we feel strongly that it was a better solution to significantly upgrade the existing healthcare and memory care services provided to our South Bay community. ” In February, the board pivoted and entered negotiations with Sunrise Senior Living, whose proposal is more profitable, has a faster timeline and provides more space for community amenities, according to the district.

The board determined that the ground lease terms proposed by Sunrise would bring in greater profit throughout the 99-year lease, helping fund the district’s free programs for residents of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach for years to come.

Sunrise, for its part, views Silverado as a competitor and is not interested in partnering on the redevelopment project. The company will instead build its own senior home on the site with a mix of independent living, assisted living and memory care units. “We are confident that Sunrise’s breadth of offerings will serve the needs of this community well, ” said Philip Kroskin, head of real estate and senior vice president of 44 investments at Sunrise. The company is “partnering with BCHD to provide direct support to residents and team members impacted by the upcoming community transition. ” Ultimately, the board determined that the long-term community benefits of the Sunrise project outweighed the short-term pain of displacing Silverado residents. “That was one of the harder meetings I’ve been in, because our friends are there, parents of friends of mine are there, a former board member of the district is in Silverado, ” Bakaly told The Times. “At the end of the day, the board made the hard and, I think, right decision. ”

Christian Horvath, left, kisses father-in-law Alex Charfen goodbye at the Redondo Beach memory care facility.
‘I have to be his voice’
The families relying on the specialized care at Silverado disagree.

Christian Horvath, whose father-in-law lives in Silverado, said as a former Redondo Beach City Council member he understands the challenges of navigating complicated development proposals.

Nonetheless, he believes the board was too quick to jump ship when the initial development proposal — which would have kept Silverado on-site — became more complicated.
“I feel like they are rushing and just want to get it done, ” he said. “But getting it done doesn’t mean it’s getting done well. ”
Although Beach Cities Health District has entered a ground lease agreement with Sunrise, the project still needs to advance through several layers of city approval before it can break ground.

For now, many of the Silverado families are trying to figure out their next steps — and aren’t abandoning hope that something can be done to save the care home. “There needs to be accountability here, ” said Jennifer Wade, whose stepmother lives in Silverado. “We’re talking about people who cannot advocate for themselves, most of them live in a constant state of confusion but have stability where they are. ” Jennifer Aust visits her father as much as she can at Silverado, where he can be found wearing his trademark flannel and a Redondo Beach Fire Department baseball cap. 45 Years before his diagnosis, Pat Aust advocated to install a sprinkler system inside the care home. Now, he is a staple of the facility’s weekly car collector club, which Silverado staff decided to start after learning about his legendary passion for classic cars. “Part of me is fighting this, because I know that’s what my dad would do, ” Jennifer Aust said. “My dad would do what was best for others, and I feel like I have to be his voice at this time. ”
46

Torrance City CouncilJuly 14, 2026

Torrance City Council
July 14, 2026