HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 6.1- Final EIR_Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
Final Environmental Impact Report
EIR No. 20-0001
SCH No. 2021030087
September 22, 2021
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL PROJECT
Letters of Comment and Responses
The following letters of comment were received from agencies, organizations, and individuals
during the Public Review period (April 27, 2021 to June 25, 2021) of the Draft EIR. A copy of each
comment letter along with corresponding staff response is included here. Some of the comments
did not address the adequacy of the environmental document; however, staff has attempted to
provide appropriate responses to all comments as a courtesy to the commenter.
The comments received did not trigger the need for any substantive changes to the Final EIR.
The following revisions to the Final EIR are shown in Track Changes:
• Section 7.2.14 has been revised to clarify the rationale for the rejection of the No
Project/Medical Office Building Alternative.
• Section 7.3.14 has been revised to clarify the rationale for the rejection of the Reduced
Project Alternative.
The Final EIR has not been changed in any way that deprives the public of meaningful opportunity
to comment upon new feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different
from others previously analyzed, or has resulted in the Final EIR to become fundamentally and
basically inadequate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(3) and (4). The Final EIR
contains a thorough evaluation of all impacts. The analysis of the FEIR is supported by numerous
technical reports and expert opinion and were not inadequate or conclusory such that the public
was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Final EIR. Accordingly,
the City of Chula Vista finds that recirculation is not required pursuant to CEQA.
Letter Author Page Number
GLOBAL RESPONSES
Emergency Services RTC-11
Living with Mental Illness RTC-11
Project Location RTC-11
Example of Locations RTC-11
Security Measures RTC-12
Acadia Healthcare RTC-12
Amenities RTC-12
Public Transportation RTC-12
Homeless Patients RTC-13
Elopements RTC-13
Alternative Locations RTC-14
FEDERAL AGENCIES
None
STATE AGENCIES
None
LOCAL AGENCIES
None
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-2
Letter Author Page Number
LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS/COMMUNITY GROUP
1 CVSafe RTC-15
INDIVIDUALS
2 A, Glenda RTC-24
3 A, Taylor RTC-24
4 Abad, Ryan RTC-24
5 Abdo, Denisse RTC-24
6 Abdo, Laila RTC-24
7 Abell, Greg RTC-25
8 Abengoza, Alex RTC-25
9 Abengoza, Jennifer RTC-25
10 Adams, Kristen RTC-26
11 Addieg, Jennifer RTC-26
12 Adolfsson, Arabella RTC-27
13 Ahrenholtz, Joni RTC-27
14 Alarcon, Linda RTC-27
15 Alarcon, Rosemary RTC-28
16 Alfonso, Nick RTC-29
17 Altmann, Cassandra RTC-29
18 Alvarez, Ana RTC-29
19 Alvarez, Analyssa RTC-29
20 Alvarez, Diana RTC-29
21 Alvarez, Imelda RTC-29
22 Alvarez, Marisa RTC-30
23 Andrean, Sibylla RTC-30
24 B, Bibi RTC-30
25 B, Leroy RTC-30
26 B, Lily RTC-31
27 B, Lisa RTC-31
28 B, Michael RTC-32
29 Badea, Beth RTC-32
30 Bakit, Alma RTC-32
31 Bakit, Alma RTC-32
32 Bakit, Bri RTC-32
33 Bakit, Gabe RTC-32
34 Ballard, Brittney RTC-32
35 Ballard, Laura RTC-32
36 Ballard, Ron RTC-33
37 Ballard, Ronnie RTC-33
38 Banaga, Mishelle RTC-33
39 Barragan, Maggie RTC-33
40 Beaudoin, Tania RTC-34
41 Becker, Jennie RTC-34
42 Bennett, Maritza RTC-34
43 Benson, Elizabeth RTC-34
44 Bethel, Brian RTC-34
45 Bethel, Shirlee RTC-35
46 Bernable, Belinda RTC-36
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-3
Letter Author Page Number
47 Blakely, Ianne RTC-36
48 Bliven, Dianne RTC-36
49 Bliven, Jake RTC-36
50 Bliven, Michael RTC-36
51 Borunda, Alfredo RTC-36
52 Boyko, Carrie RTC-36
53 Bristow, Teresa* RTC-37
54 Brokks, Mallory RTC-37
55 Brower, Elise RTC-37
56 Brown, Lisa RTC-37
57 Brua, Francis RTC-37
58 Bryan, Jonathan RTC-37
59 Bryant, James RTC-38
60 Bryant, Linda RTC-38
61 Bulthuis, Heather RTC-38
62 Burgar, Erin RTC-38
63 Burgar, Ian RTC-39
64 Butron, Irma RTC-40
65 Byrne, James RTC-40
66 C, Elizabeth RTC-41
67 C, Nohemi RTC-41
68 Cabrera, Griselda RTC-41
69 Caddell, Kim RTC-41
70 Camhi, Myriam RTC-41
71 Carella, Catherine RTC-42
72 Carrillo, Crystal RTC-42
73 Cash, Carl RTC-42
74 Cash, Tencha RTC-42
75 Cash, Virginia RTC-43
76 Casillas, Eduardo RTC-43
77 Castillo, Flavio RTC-43
78 Castillo, Sarah RTC-43
79 Cazares, Leticia RTC-43
80 Ceballos, Salvador RTC-44
81 Cendana, Amy RTC-44
82 Chambers, Katherine RTC-44
83 Chan, Laura RTC-44
84 Chan, Laura RTC-44
85 Charles, Carmen RTC-44
86 Chavez, Hilda RTC-44
87 Chmiel, Nancy RTC-44
88 Churchill, Laura RTC-45
89 Cohen, Lisa RTC-45
90 Cortez, Jose RTC-45
91 Cortez, Uriel RTC-45
92 Cox, Julia RTC-45
93 Crabtree, David RTC-46
94 Crabtree, Lara RTC-46
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-4
Letter Author Page Number
95 Crespo, Lizbeth RTC-46
96 Cuevas, Sergio RTC-47
97 Cunningham, Rhealyn RTC-47
98 D, Brandy RTC-47
99 D, John RTC-47
100 Dabbah, Giselle RTC-48
101 Dabbah, Jonathan RTC-48
102 Dael, Marvin RTC-48
103 Daplas, Jonathan RTC-48
104 Davalos, Yasmin RTC-49
105 DavidDolosa, Karen RTC-49
106 Davis, Brad RTC-50
107 Davis, Evan RTC-50
108 Davis, Kathryn RTC-51
109 Delcastillo, Maria RTC-52
110 Dejesus, Dustin RTC-52
111 Denison, Jennifer RTC-52
112 Denison, Mike RTC-52
113 Doerr, Janet RTC-52
114 Dowling, Marilisa RTC-52
115 Downing, Barbara RTC-53
116 Dugan, Glenn RTC-53
117 Dunford, Susan RTC-53
118 Eastep, Angela RTC-54
119 Eastep, Craig RTC-54
120 Eastman, Christina RTC-54
121 Edwards, Ralph RTC-55
122 Edwards, Ray RTC-56
123 Edwards, Rebekah RTC-56
124 Eliscu, Felice RTC-57
125 Elliott, Lynda RTC-57
126 Encinas, Marla RTC-57
127 Espindola, Monica RTC-57
128 Faulkner, Yvonne RTC-58
129 Fernando, Sara RTC-58
130 Ferrer, Gary** RTC-59
131 Fieck, Diana RTC-60
132 Fleming, Crawford RTC-60
133 Flores, Lauren RTC-61
134 Flores, Manuel RTC-61
135 Flores, Marylupe RTC-61
136 Fong, Zabrina RTC-61
137 Forster, Erin RTC-62
138a Foster, M RTC-62
138b Franco, Ed RTC-62
139 Friesen, Jamie RTC-64
140 Fuller, Jessica RTC-64
141 Furtado, Yvette RTC-64
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-5
Letter Author Page Number
142 G, Abby RTC-65
143 G, Raquel RTC-65
144 Galarneau, Todd RTC-65
145 Galvan, Norma RTC-65
146 Gammon, Eva RTC-65
147 Gammon, William RTC-65
148 Gandara, Alberto RTC-66
149 Garcia, Edgar RTC-66
150 Garcia, Marcelino RTC-66
151 Garcia, Sally RTC-66
152 Gaskill, James RTC-66
153 George, April RTC-66
154 George, April RTC-67
155 George, Jonathan RTC-67
156 Gomez, Gabriel RTC-67
157 Gomez, Juan RTC-67
158 Gomez, Noel RTC-67
159 Gonzalez, Michele RTC-67
160 Gonzalez, Rosella RTC-67
161 Gonzalez, Sandra RTC-67
162 Greenberg Howard RTC-68
163 Gregory, John RTC-68
164 Guardado, Kristin RTC-68
165 Guerra, Marco RTC-68
166 Guerrero, Eliel RTC-68
167 Guerrero, Marisa Espinosa RTC-69
168 Guilloty, Maia RTC-69
169 Guilloty, Ricardo RTC-69
170 Guilloty, Ruben RTC-69
171 Gurtiza, Michelle RTC-69
172 Guzman, Claudia RTC-70
173 H, Diane (Support) RTC-70
174 H, E RTC-70
175 Hailey, Kristen RTC-71
176 Hall, Kristen RTC-72
177 Hansen, Jasmine RTC-72
178 Harvey, Jerry RTC-72
179 Harvey, Lillian RTC-74
180 Harvey, Lillian RTC-75
181 Hayden, Maria RTC-75
182 Hernandez, Celina RTC-75
183 Hernandez, Francisco RTC-75
184 Hernandez, Raquel RTC-76
185 Hernandez, Tanya RTC-76
186 Hetter, Noemi RTC-76
187 Hightower, Irene RTC-76
188 Howard, Jacob RTC-76
189 Howeth, Elizabeth RTC-76
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-6
Letter Author Page Number
190 Hunt, Elisa RTC-77
191 Ignacio, Janet RTC-77
192 Infante, Laura RTC-77
193 Inocencio, Alli RTC-77
194 Isaac, Rodney RTC-77
195 Jacob, Ivan RTC-78
196 Jakubs, Tonja RTC-78
197 Janzen, Michelle RTC-79
198 Jarina, Aileen RTC-80
199 Jarina, Manuelito RTC-80
200 Jarvis, Gabriela RTC-82
201 Johnson, G RTC-82
202 Johnson, Malik RTC-82
203 Johnson, Susan RTC-82
204 Jones, Beau RTC-82
205 Jones, Cheryl RTC-83
206 Jones, Mayra RTC-83
207 K, Vered RTC-83
208 Kamaji, Esther RTC-84
209 L, Rhea RTC-84
210 Labaria, Adelle RTC-84
211 Lacerna, Jake RTC-84
212 Lasalle, Nora RTC-84
213 Layno, Jeremiah RTC-85
214 Lefebvre, Alyson RTC-85
215 Leon, Hugo RTC-85
216 Liceaga, Raquel RTC-85
217 Lindgren, Kerri RTC-85
218 Lichster, John RTC-85
219 Lipson, David RTC-85
220 Loe, Alma RTC-85
221 Lopez, Isabella RTC-85
222 Lopez, Isabella RTC-86
223 Lopez, Jackeline RTC-86
224 Lopez, Mirna RTC-86
225 Lorenzo, Paul RTC-86
226 Low, Mike RTC-86
227 Lowther, Jim RTC-87
228 Lujan, Roberto RTC-87
229 Luko, Bibi RTC-87
230 Luko, Daniel RTC-88
231 M, Gina RTC-89
232 M, Lilly RTC-89
233 Madlangbayan, Alma** RTC-89
234 Madlangbayan, Brian RTC-90
235 Magill, Jenny RTC-90
236 Maldonado, Nikki RTC-90
237 Manalo, Joce RTC-90
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-7
Letter Author Page Number
238 Manders, Mark RTC-90
239 Manders, William RTC-91
240 Marks, William RTC-91
241 Marmon, Heather RTC-91
242 Marsh, Timothy RTC-91
243 Martinez, Armando RTC-91
244 Martinez, Mayra RTC-92
245 Martinez, Yeojin RTC-92
246 McClintock, Brandon RTC-92
247 McClintock, Julie RTC-93
248 McNown, Sandra RTC-94
249 Meaux, Florence RTC-94
250 Meaux, Katherine RTC-94
251 Meaux, Kyle RTC-95
252 Mellon, Claudia RTC-95
253 Mena, Karen RTC-95
254 Mena, Monica RTC-95
255 Mena, Trisha RTC-95
256 Mendoza, Abigail RTC-95
257 Heyerhuber, Daniel RTC-96
258 Meyerhuber, Ginny RTC-96
259 Michel, Omar RTC-96
260 Mighela, Roberto RTC-96
261 Miles, Crystal RTC-97
262 Milkovich, Patrice RTC-97
263 Miranda, Danielle RTC-98
264 Mitchell, Yolanda RTC-98
265 Molina, Adriana RTC-98
266 Molina, Dafne RTC-98
267 Molina, Daniella RTC-99
268 Molina, Diana RTC-99
269 Monforte, Johanna RTC-99
270 Monneron, Emmanuel** RTC-99
271 Moore, Stacy RTC-99
272 Morales, Alfonso RTC-99
273 Morales, Alfonso RTC-99
274 Morales, Jennifer ** RTC-99
275 Morales, Monica RTC-100
276 Moreno, Lisa RTC-100
277 Moreno, Manuel RTC-100
278 Morsles, Adela RTC-101
279 Moundragon, Peter RTC-101
280 Mulvihill, Jim RTC-101
281 Munoz, Angelica RTC-102
282 N, Melissa RTC-103
283 N, Monica RTC-103
284 Naiman, Kim RTC-103
285 Namoc, Rachelle RTC-104
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-8
Letter Author Page Number
286 Neer, Lyndsay RTC-104
287 Nelson, M RTC-104
288 Nelson, M RTC-105
289 Nguyen, Karen RTC-106
290 Nguyen, Vu RTC-106
291 Nicholas, Catherine RTC-106
292 Nosal, Ana RTC-106
293 Nuno, Alex RTC-106
294 O, Alex RTC-106
295 O, Rina RTC-107
296 Ochoa, Adriana RTC-107
297 Ochoa, Jesse RTC-107
298 Oira, Ramir RTC-107
299 Okhuysen, Monica RTC-107
300 Ontiveros, Alicia RTC-108
301 Ortiz, Phil RTC-108
302 P. Lissette RTC-108
303 Pacuan, Mark RTC-108
304 Pal, Daniela RTC-108
305 Palavicini, Geancarlo RTC-108
306 Palavicini, Miriam RTC-109
307 Pallotto, Peter RTC-110
308 Pangilinan, Christopher RTC-110
309 Parani, Rose RTC-110
310 Parker, Michael RTC-110
311 Parra, Gabriela RTC-111
312 Pascua, Kathleen RTC-111
313 Peraza, Isabel RTC-111
314 Perea, Elizabeth RTC-111
315 Perez, Lisa RTC-112
316 Perry, Diana RTC-112
317 Petka, Shelee RTC-112
318 Petros, Theresa RTC-113
319 Pickens, Darlene RTC-113
320 Pickens, Henry RTC-114
321a Pradel, Jean RTC-114
321b Pradel, Lena RTC-114
322 Pradel, Magdalena RTC-116
323 Priff, Michelle RTC-116
324 Pulido, Abraham RTC-117
325 Quintero, L RTC-117
326 Quintero, Lisa RTC-117
327 Quintero, Mark RTC-117
328 R, Jennifer RTC-117
329 R, Monica RTC-117
330 Radi, Ben RTC-118
331 Ramos, L RTC-118
332 Ramos, Liz RTC-118
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-9
Letter Author Page Number
333 Rattray, Zack RTC-119
334 Real, Michael RTC-119
335 Reimers, K RTC-119
336 Reno, Alex RTC-120
337 Reyes, Cindy RTC-120
338 Rissi, Amy RTC-120
339 Robbin, Tobeka RTC-120
340 Robinson, Haywood RTC-120
341 Roche, Wesley RTC-121
342 Rodriguez, Alex RTC-121
343 Rodriguez, Amy RTC-121
344 Rodriguez, John RTC-121
345 Rodriguez, Juan RTC-121
346 Rodriguez, R RTC-121
347 Rojas, Belinda RTC-121
348 Rosas, Grace RTC-122
349 Rosenberg, Sylvia RTC-122
350 Rummerfield, Andrew RTC-122
351 S, Josh RTC-123
352 S, Latoya RTC-123
353 Sean, C RTC-123
354 Salas, Marisa RTC-123
355 Sampal, MaryBeth RTC-123
356 Santillan, Mr. RTC-123
357 Santos, Paulo RTC-124
358 Schneider, Chad RTC-124
359 Scott, Cindy RTC-125
360 Scott, Robert RTC-125
361 Service, Best RTC-126
362 Shen, Christina RTC-126
363 Sheridan, John RTC-126
364 Shoaf, Mike RTC-126
365 Sinclair, Kristen RTC-126
366 Sinclair, Kristen RTC-126
367 Smalley, Joan RTC-126
368 Smith, Arnold RTC-126
369 Smith, Brandon RTC-127
370 Smith, Christopher RTC-127
371 Smith, Jack RTC-127
372 Smith, Janie RTC-127
373 Smith, Mayra RTC-127
374 Smith, Melody RTC-127
375 Smith, Sally RTC-128
376 Sobotka, April RTC-128
377 Spear, David RTC-128
378 Stellin, Bill RTC-129
379 Stellin, Brigitta RTC-130
380 Stellin, Elizabeth RTC-130
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-10
Letter Author Page Number
381 Stellin, W RTC-131
382 Talania, Dee RTC-131
383 Tan, Jacqueline RTC-131
384 Teevan, John RTC-131
385 Teller, Brenda RTC-133
386 Thomas, Joycelyn RTC-133
387 Torres, Claudia RTC-133
388 Torrrs, Melissa RTC-134
389 Valenzuela, Larisa RTC-135
390 Vasquez, Silvia RTC-135
391 Vazquez, Jose RTC-135
392 Vazquez, Mitzi RTC-135
393 Vera, Elias RTC-135
394 Vergara, C RTC-135
395 Villa, Carla RTC-135
396 Villa, Forest RTC-136
397 Villa, Jennifer RTC-136
398 Villalba, Karina RTC-137
399 Villanueva, Erin RTC-137
400 Vissuet, Amber RTC-138
401 Vissuet, Marco RTC-138
402 Vizcaya, Sharon RTC-138
403 Vogt, Michael RTC-138
404 Volkening, Alicen RTC-139
405 W, Malia RTC-139
406 Walker, Tiffany RTC-139
407 Walkup, Teresa RTC-139
408 Waterman, M RTC-139
409 Waters, Christina RTC-140
410 Weaver, Marcy RTC-140
411 Weber, Ale RTC-140
412 Weihe, Darlene RTC-140
413 Wells, Jason RTC-141
414 Wessigk, Mildred RTC-141
415 Weston, Jack RTC-141
416 Wevodau, Curtis RTC-142
417 Whitesel, Melissa RTC-142
418 Wickelhaus, Amy RTC-142
419 Williamson, Mike RTC-142
420 Wistner, Laura RTC-143
421 Wood, Lydia RTC-143
422 Wyatt, Briana RTC-143
423 Wyatt, Nicholas RTC-144
424 X, Ken RTC-145
425 Yi, Milton RTC-143
426 Young, Elissa RTC-143
427 Zee, John RTC-143
428 Zehder, Krista RTC-143
429 Zehder, Michael RTC-145
430 Zoch, Paul RTC-146
431 Zordell, Catherine RTC-146
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-11
GLOBAL RESPONSES
EMERGENCY SERVICES: Emergency calls from inpatient behavioral health hospitals of this
type, including for police assistance, are uncommon. At all Acadia inpatient hospitals in the U.S.
for the five-year period between January 2016 and December 2020, there were a total of
2,084 calls for service that occurred. During this time, there were 580,951 patient admissions,
meaning that emergency service calls occurred at a rate of about one-third of 1 percent of all
patient admissions. Given these facts, potential emergency service calls, whether to police, fire
or emergency medical services, are not expected to produce any appreciable affect nor “drain”
on these public resources.
The closest police station is 7.5 miles away; however, response time is not dependent on distance
from headquarters because patrol officers respond to calls for service from the field rather than a
fixed station. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.10.4, the project applicant would be required to
pay its fair share of Public Facilities Development Impact Fee supporting the costs of facilities,
staffing, and equipment necessary to accommodate any potential increased demand on police
services.
LIVING WITH MENTAL ILLNESS: Most people with mental illness are not violent and only
3-5 percent of violent acts can be attributed to individuals living with a serious mental illness. In
fact, people with severe mental illnesses are 10 times more likely to be victims of violent crime
than the general population. It is more than likely that we all know someone with a mental health
problem and do not even realize it, because many people with mental health problems are highly
active and productive members of our communities.
PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located within the Eastlake II General Development
Plan (GDP) and Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. Pursuant
to existing plans, the project site is zoned Business Center 4, which allows the proposed use
subject to a Conditional Use and Design Review Permit. Therefore, pursuant to City land use
regulations, the project is proposed within a location allowed to support the proposed use.
EXAMPLE OF LOCATIONS: It is common for behavioral health facilities to be located in close
proximity to homes, schools, houses of worship, and businesses, including Acadia facilities in
other parts of California. In San Diego County, Aurora Behavioral Health in Rancho Bernardo,
Bayview Behavioral Health Hospital in Chula Vista, and Sharp Mesa Vista in Kearny Mesa are
located in commercial areas in close proximity to residences, schools, parks, etc. Hospitals are
best located in areas where they are proximate to the populations served, so locating this facility
in a remote, hard to access area is not in the best interest of patients. Acadia’s two hospitals in
California, Pacific Grove in Riverside and San Jose Behavioral Health in San Jose, are located in
close proximity to homes, childcare facilities, and churches. Pacific Grove Hospital shares an
exterior wall with adjacent single-family homes, and shares a parking lot with a church and child-
care facility. Both of these hospitals enjoy positive relationships with their neighbors.
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-12
SECURITY MEASURES: Security measures are a priority to ensure patient safety. The facility’s
design includes a single public ingress and egress access point at the end of the Showroom Place
cul-de-sac, with no accessibility from either the side or rear area of the property. Secure fencing
will surround the property’s perimeter. All access into and out of the hospital and between units
within the hospital remain locked at all times and can only be opened with authorized key card
access. The exterior and common areas will be monitored by closed circuit security cameras, and
patients are checked on frequently by staff. In response to community input, Scripps and Acadia
have agreed to implement 24-hour security patrols. In addition, hospital policy ensures that
discharge plans include secure transportation for patients to their home or next care site, so
patients will never be in a situation where they do not have transportation upon discharge.
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: No large healthcare or hospital system providing treatment to millions
of patients across hundreds of facilities, whether behavioral health or medical-surgical, will ever
be completely immune from isolated incidents or sporadic undesirable patient experiences. By its
nature, the healthcare industry carries inherent risk as its “customers” – the patients – seek
services because they are sick. The rate of serious incidents at Acadia’s inpatient hospitals is
small. Over the five-year period from January 2016 through December 2020, there were a total
of 4,742 incidents that occurred over nearly 580,951 patient admissions, a rate of about 0.85
percent of all patient admissions. (Serious incidents include major injuries or impairments, patient
death, and allegations or occurrences of abuse, negligence, error, or omission that affects
rendering of professional services). Acadia facilities strictly adhere to all reporting requirements
and maintain strong track records on multiple independently administered, evidence-based
clinical quality performance tracking and measurement programs. These include The Joint
Commission’s HBIPS (Hospital Based Inpatient Psychiatric Services) Core Measures and CMS’
Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Program (IPFQR). In aggregate, Acadia’s
behavioral health facilities meet and often surpass the national and state average in the majority
of measured categories, including those related to patient safety.
AMENITIES: Because patients will be admitted to the Eastlake hospital to receive treatment for
behavioral health conditions not requiring simultaneous medical treatment, it is not necessary for
it to be located adjacent to an acute care medical hospital. Like all licensed hospitals, the Eastlake
hospital’s clinical staff will have the full ability to safely provide for the needs of its behavioral
health patients (including in-house pharmacy and medication dispensing), who in some cases
may also be living with chronic but stable medical conditions such as diabetes, heart disease,
hypertension, and those affecting mobility. Therefore, the lack of co-location with or immediate
proximity to a medical/surgical hospital or related acute care treatment sites will not negatively
impact the hospital’s ability to provide high level, quality care to its patients. Support services such
as daily medical visits by an internist, nutrition support, and physical therapy will be provided at
the hospital.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Hospital policy ensures that discharge plans include secure
transportation for patients to their home or next care site, so access to public transportation will
not affect patient access. The project will be conditioned on the provision of shuttle service to
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-13
public transportation sites and/or other facilities. This condition will be part of the project’s
Conditional Use Permit.
HOMELESS PATIENTS: For patients that are homeless or without a secure housing situation,
state law requires that the hospital provide them with:
• Physical exam/determination of stability for discharge.
• Referral for follow-up care (medical, behavioral health).
• If follow-up with behavioral health is required, patient will receive treatment and/or
information for referral to an appropriate provider, and if applicable, the hospital will make
a good faith effort to contact one of the following: patient's health plan, primary care
provider, or other provider.
• Meal, unless medically contraindicated.
• Weather-appropriate clothing.
• Discharge medications and/or prescriptions if no outpatient pharmacy on-site.
• Infectious disease screening and vaccinations in accordance with current guidelines from
San Diego County Public Health Services.
• Transportation to a post-discharge destination (if not being transferred to another licensed
healthcare facility).
• Screening and/or enrollment in an affordable coverage health plan.
Furthermore, the Eastlake Hospital will follow Acadia’s policy that all patients, whether they are
homeless or not, be provided with arranged transportation to a specific, safe post-treatment care
location upon discharge (home, shelter, transitional housing, residential care facility). The lack of
such a post discharge plan (including the arranged transportation component) will likely comprise
an important determining factor on whether discharge is clinically appropriate.
ELOPEMENTS: Elopements (patients leaving without authorization) at facilities of this type are
rare occurrences. Over the period from January 2016 through December 2020, there were a total
of 1,128 elopements that occurred at all Acadia inpatient hospitals in the U.S. Over this same
period there were 580,951 patient admissions, meaning that elopement occurred at a rate of
about 0.2 percent of all patient admissions. More than 99 percent of these incidents were of a
short duration (less than 24 hours) and did not involve any injuries to patients or staff, criminal
activity, property damage, nor disturbances to any surrounding business or residential
communities. Acadia adheres to strict protocols and policies to limit the number and severity of
elopements. These include detailed assessment and screening for such behaviors at admission,
seen and unseen security features at all facilities (physical barriers, video surveillance of exterior
and common areas, boundary and verbal de-escalation techniques, frequent patient welfare
checks, secured units for involuntary patients, etc.), and immediate response in the uncommon
instances when they do occur. When the infrequent elopements occur, immediate actions are
taken, police are called, and the attending physician and family/next of kin are notified.
Letters of Comment and Responses
RTC-14
ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS: Section 7.1.1 of the EIR evaluated alternative locations consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A). In summary, a number of alternative sites were
considered in an attempt to meet the required criteria, as identified in the project objectives. None
of the alternative sites were located at any closer proximity to major road networks, nor could
accommodate the size of the structure or could be developed without a conditional use permit.
The project site was selected, in addition to meeting the siting criteria, because it provides a flat
graded area which would avoid additional site clearing, excavation, grading and compaction.
RTC-15
Letter
# Commenter Comment Response
1 CVSafe 1-1 City Planning Staff,
Per direction received from City Planning to submit
a formal letter in opposition of this project with
inclusion of all documentation we wanted included
for the Commission and if necessary the City
Council to review in relation the EIR and the
Project. Please consider the below and attached
as our formal response to that direction.
1-1 Comment noted. This comment does not
raise an issue related to the content or
adequacy of the environmental analysis of
the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record and presented to
the City decision makers within the Final
EIR.
1-2 Planning Commission and City Council,
Today we are writing on behalf of CVSafe, a
coalition of engaged and concerned residents in
opposition of EIR 20-0001 the proposed Eastlake
Health Behavioral Hospital operated by Acadia
Healthcare a for profit company. It is critical at the
outset to establish that we are not opposed to
mental healthcare nor do we support the
stigmatization of mental health. In the years and
months leading up to this review we have become
educated about the need and importance of these
services. This has led us to understand just how
important it is that these services be planned and
executed properly and provided by a service
provider that is of the highest caliber and acts to
not just heal those in need of help but protect them
as well. It is in these regards that this proposal
falls woefully short.
In February of 2019 San Diego District Attorney
Summer Stephan released a Blueprint for Mental
Health Reform. A key objective of this blueprint
was to create "Concrete solutions that balance
compassion and dignity with public safety and
accountability". In the evidence outlined below and
1-2 Comment noted. This comment does not
raise an issue related to the content or
adequacy of the environmental analysis of
the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record and presented to
the City decision makers within the Final
EIR.
RTC-16
Letter
# Commenter Comment Response
detailed in the attachments we will demonstrate
that none of those objectives are achieved in this
project.
1-3 Compassion and Dignity: Serious questions have
been raised about the applicant's ability to operate
a facility with compassion and dignity while in
pursuit of profit. This is backed by direct feedback
from former staff and those who have been
through the system. Please formally review the
following:
Letter from a former Acadia employee (a
Registered Nurse, EMT and Chaplin) - attached.
Breaking Code Silence Statement: A statement
from Breaking Code Silence - a social network of
former child / teen residents to provide insight into
their experiences in the for profit system. Attached
and linked below.
About BCS — Breaking Code Silence
Acadia Informational Packet - Section: Danger to
Patients: Please formally review the 18 separate
news articles including by publications by the
Chicago Tribune that bring into question the dignity
and compassion a facility like this would provide to
our vulnerable. Attached.
1-3 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
1-4 Public Safety: Placing a high security inpatient
facility is not aligned with public safety. The
applicant has demonstrated as evidenced in police
logs from actual events and articles from news
sources across the county that risks to residents
are real and it does happen. The for profit industry
1-4 See Global Responses: Elopements,
Example of Locations, Security Measures,
and Emergency Services.
RTC-17
Letter
# Commenter Comment Response
calls them "elopements". Please formally review
the following.
Fayetteville Police Logs: In this attachment there
are police logs from the Fayetteville Police Dept
detailing the escape into a residential
neighborhood and ultimately non-recovery of
several of those patients until weeks later in
neighboring states.
Acadia Information Packet –
Section: Dangerous Neighbor: Please formally
review the 5 seperate news articles highlighting the
real world risk to residents when facilities of this
type are placed near residential neighborhoods.
Attached.
Acadia Information Packet –
Section: Calls for Service: Using the Freedom of
Information Act. CVSafe was able to get the calls
for service for other and most often smaller
behavioral health hospitals operated in Chula Vista
and San Diego by volume and call type. It is
without question that opening of a facility of this
size will result in a dramatic increase in calls for
service as evidenced by the graphs on pages 6
through 9. This will further burden our fantastic
police department that is already struggling to
respond to calls for service in East Chula Vista.
Please formally review. Attached.
1-5 Accountability: The applicant has demonstrated
time and again their lack of accountability to the
residents, governmental oversight and
communities they serve. Please review and
consider the following:
1-5 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
RTC-18
Letter
# Commenter Comment Response
Acadia Information Packet - Section: Cover up.
Please review the 7 separate articles detailing
examples of cover ups and alleged crimes.
Including the largest Medicaid fraud case in West
Virginia history.
Letter from State Senator Ben Hueso - In his letter
Senator Hueso cites several areas of operational
deficiency in existing Acadia facilities in the state of
California. Further he has asked that should the
project move forward that the Department of Public
Health for the State of California Review the
licensing of this facility. Attached
Us Dept of Justice Announcement: United States
Attorney Announces $17 Million Healthcare Fraud
Settlement. Press release attached please review
1-6 Opposition: While cognizant and supportive of the
need for these services the community for which
this project is proposed, overwhelmingly rejects the
poor planning, forethought, and vendor selection.
1-6 See Global Responses: Project Location
and Acadia Healthcare.
1-7 Overwhelming opposition in public comment in the
EIR: The public has reviewed the EIR and is in
overwhelming opposition to the proposed project.
Further those in support are largely (not all) made
up of those who stand to gain financially from the
project but do not live near it. Link:
https://chulavista.granicusideas.com/meetings/813-
eastlake-behavior-health-hospital-project-eir-20-
0001/agenda_items/60870efe244398d28d004207-
public-comment
1-7 All comment letters which raised issues
related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR
have been responded to and included in
the Final EIR.
RTC-19
Letter
# Commenter Comment Response
1-8 HOA Letter: After conducting due diligence the
Rolling Hills Ranch HOA that borders the project
site has formally opposed the project citing many
of the concerns noted above. Please review.
1-8 See responses to Attachment 5, Rolling
Hills Ranch HOA letter dated 10/17/2019
(1-11 through 1-20).
1-9 Petition in Opposition: A petition of residents in
opposition of this project has amassed over 4,900
signatures. Please review the link and document
this opposition: http://chng.it/HfbDH8ghtX
1-9 Opposition to the project is noted. All
comment letters which raised issues
related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR
have been responded to and included in
the Final EIR.
1-10 In conclusion we ask that both the Planning Staff,
Commission and City Council review the above
evidence and voice of its constituents and reject
this project based on it's poor conception, plan,
choice of operator and risk to the community. We
ask that those in our governmental services work
with the county to put forward plan that meets the
Blueprint vision of "compassion and dignity with
public safety and accountability" to deliver much
needed mental health services that protect and
support our most vulnerable while meeting the
safety needs of the community at large. Thank
you.
Respectfully,
CVSafe
1-10 Concluding comments are noted. See
responses to comments 1-1 through 1-9.
Attachment 1: Acadia Offenses See response to comments 1-3 and 1-4.
Attachment 2: Breaking Code Silence See response to comment 1-3.
Attachment 3: A Closer Look: Piney Ridge Treatment
Center (Fayetteville, Ark)
See response to comment 1-3.
Attachment 4: Letter from a former Acadia Employee See response to comment 1-3.
Attachment 5: Rolling Hills Ranch letter dated 10/17/2019 See response to comments 1-11 through 1-20.
Attachment 6: US Attorney Announcement See response to comment 1-5.
Attachment 7: Letter from Senator Hueso See response to comment 1-5.
RTC-20
Letter
# Commenter Comment Response
Attachment 5: Rolling
Hills Ranch 1-11 To whom it may concern:
The Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association
(“Association”) is committed to serving the best
interests of the homeowners within the Rolling Hills
Ranch development. It is in the spirit of this
commitment that the Association voices its
opposition on behalf of the Rolling Hills community
to the proposed Behavioral Health Hospital at
Showroom Place.
As part of its due diligence, the Association has
reviewed available information regarding the
proposed healthcare facility as well as Acadia
Healthcare, the 80% majority owner of the
proposed facility. Based on its investigation, the
Association has concerns which include but are not
limited to the following:
1-11 Introductory comment noted.
1-12 Operator: Scripps Health is partnering with Acadia
Healthcare, a for-profit Tennessee based company
which operates a network of 595 behavioral
healthcare facilities with approximately 18,200
beds in 40 states, the United Kingdom and Puerto
Rico. Acadia provides behavioral health and
addiction services to its patients in a variety of
settings, including inpatient psychiatric hospitals,
specialty treatment facilities, residential treatment
centers and outpatient clinics. The Association’s
research revealed that Acadia has been the
subject of numerous lawsuits, including actions
brought by governmental regulatory agencies,
alleging billing fraud, negligence, wrongful death,
sexual assault, and abuse/neglect of patients.
1-12 This comment is outside the basic scope
and purposes of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq., and California Code of Regulations
Sections 15000, et seq. However, the
following response is provided. While
details on any specific pending litigation
cannot be disclosed, the following is noted.
Lawsuits against Acadia inpatient
behavioral health facilities by patients, their
families, former staff and others are very
rare but, as with all large hospital systems
and operators, they do invariably occur.
Nevertheless, Acadia’s aggregate litigation
claims rate is far lower than the national
average, equating to less than one tenth of
RTC-21
Letter
# Commenter Comment Response
one percent of all admissions between 2016
and 2019. Importantly, many of these
matters were ultimately dismissed due to
lack of merit and/or were resolved for de
minimis, nuisance values far less than the
likely cost of defense.
The mere filing of, and even settlement of, a
lawsuit typically does not constitute any
formal findings of fact or admissions of
liability or even reflect the overall merit of a
case. Nearly all companies (including
Acadia) routinely choose to settle defensible
cases due to the high cost of litigation,
unpredictability of juries, and a desire to
remain focused on their core mission.
See also Global Response: Acadia
Healthcare.
1-13 Potential Decrease in Rolling Hills Home
Values: The proposed location for the healthcare
facility is directly adjacent to the Rolling Hills
development. While the Association is not an
expert in this field, the proximity of the healthcare
facility to the Association could negatively impact
the home values of the community based on data
reports for homes near similar sites. The safety
concerns associated with the healthcare facility,
proximity to nearby schools, and potential for
increased traffic, loitering, and homeless set forth
below may drive away future homebuyers (or
present owners) who otherwise would purchase
homes or reside in the Rolling Hills Ranch
community.
1-13 This comment is outside the basic scope
and purposes of CEQA as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section
21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Sections 15000, et seq. With
respect to safety and proximity to homes,
increased traffic and homelessness, see
responses to comments 1-14 through
1-19.
RTC-22
Letter
# Commenter Comment Response
1-14 Safety Concerns: The Association believes the
proposed healthcare facility will likely pose a public
health and safety risk to those who live, work, play,
go to schools, and are cared for in the community.
There are 10 Eastlake schools near the proposed
healthcare facility in addition to numerous other
children’s activities and facilities. Allowing the
proposed healthcare facility to be so close to a
high concentration of vulnerable people is not only
likely to be unsafe, but likely irresponsible.
1-14 See Global Responses: Security
Measures and Examples of Location.
1-15 Release Concerns: Patients admitted involuntarily
can refuse treatment, leave on their own without a
treatment plan in place, or demand a premature
discharge.
1-15 Pursuant to California regulations, patients
who refuse treatment can be court
ordered to receive involuntary treatment
via a Riese petition. Patients who are
admitted involuntary can only be
discharged by a psychiatrist. Involuntary
patients cannot leave against medical
advice.
1-16 This raises safety concerns for Rolling Hills Ranch
residents as these patients may lack housing,
access to additional medical care, or a
family/support system to assist them.
1-16 See Global Responses: Public
Transportation and Homeless Patients.
1-17 The release and/or elopement of patients from this
facility has the potential to cause increased traffic,
loitering, and homelessness in or around the
common areas and individual homes. In addition,
the Association is concerned that the community
clubhouses and pools will attract individuals
released from the healthcare facility who may have
no alternative living arrangements and who have
no right to be within the community.
1-17 See Global Response: Elopement. See
also response to comment 1-16.
1-18 Limited Emergency Services Available: The
Association is concerned the facility will require
1-18 See Global Responses: Emergency
Services and Elopement.
RTC-23
Letter
# Commenter Comment Response
increased police patrol and enforcement from the
already limited police resources.
Statistics show that similar facilities generate
increases in calls and issues due to release
concerns and elopement risk. Due to the sheer
size of the Chula Vista Police Department’s
response territory, increased public safety
demands, and budget constraints, the police
department’s response times for issues in and
around Eastlake are already less than desirable.
1-19 In addition, in the event of a medical emergency,
the nearest hospital is over 5 miles away, with
limited access to public transportation and only
more quickly accessible via toll road.
1-19 See Global Response: Amenities.
1-20 For at least the reasons set forth above, the
Association is opposed to the currently proposed
Behavioral Health Hospital at Showroom.
Very truly yours,
Board of Directors
Rolling Hills Ranch Community Association
1-20 Concluding comment is noted.
RTC-24
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
2 A, Glenda 2-1 Although I don't oppose of the building itself, I do oppose
of the location chosen. It is not appropriate to place this
type of facility so close to residential areas. It should be
in a more remote location, or better yet, closer to a
hospital.
2-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
3 A, Taylor 3-1 I oppose 3-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
4 Abad, Ryan 4-1 Do not build this building at this location 4-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
5 Abdo, Denisse 5-1 Oppose 5-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers
6 Abdo, Laila 6-1 The location where this facility is being proposed is not
the best either for the hospital or the community.
6-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
6-2 Currently there’s a lack of proper/sufficient public
transportation for the patients when they’re released or
their families (not all the families of patients who will be
admitted have their own transportation, that’s a reality).
6-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
6-3 There’s is no nearby police station to assist to the calls
that this facility will generate.
6-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
6-4 The location is not suitable to sustain the traffic of
ambulance, police cars, employees car and
patients/families.
6-4 Traffic-related impacts are discussed in Draft
EIR Section 5.11. The comment, as presented,
is outside the basic scope and purposes of
CEQA as defined in California Public
Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and
California Code of Regulations Section 15000,
et seq. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3,
transportation-related issues are measured in
terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), as
opposed to the older metric of roadway level of
service. Based on City screening procedures,
RTC-25
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
the project would be below the regional VMT
and transportation impacts would be
considered less than significant.
6-5 The location of this facility is proposed across multiple
businesses that are for cater for families and young
children.
6-5 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
6-6 Plus the trail that is behind the proposed location is used
by many school age children that walk back and forth
between home and school.
6-6 There will be no pedestrian or vehicular access
available between the Eastlake Hospital and
the adjacent neighborhood. Vehicular access
will be available via Showroom Place only. The
hospital will be separated from the adjacent
neighborhood by topography, a perimeter wall,
and extensive landscaping, with no pedestrian
access provided.
7 Abell, Greg
(Support)
7-1 I am an investment shareholder in the Eastlake
community. We cannot ignore the growing need for
mental health treatment centers. This is critical to the
health of our community and this would be a perfect
location.
7-1 Comment in support of the project is noted.
8 Abengoza, Alex 8-1 I oppose this facility being built in our neighborhood.
This is not the location for this type of service.
8-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
8-2 especially with this concerning partnership. 8-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
9 Abengoza, Jennifer 9-1 I am greatly concerned for the safety of my family and
neighbors. I do not believe this is an appropriate site for
this kind of facility. It is in close proximity to residents,
schools, daycare centers, parks.
9-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations, and Security Measures.
9-2 I believe those who will be discharged without a ride
from this hospital will pose a risk to the neighborhood.
9-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
9-3 In addition, Acadia Healthcare has several civil cases
against them by former employees. I cannot place my
faith and trust in a company like that.
9-3 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, the following
response is provided. Lawsuits against Acadia
RTC-26
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
inpatient behavioral health facilities by patients,
their families, former staff and others are very
rare but, as with all large hospital systems and
operators, they do invariably occur.
Nevertheless, Acadia’s aggregate litigation
claims rate is far lower than the national
average, equating to less than one tenth of one
percent of all admissions between 2016 and
2019. Importantly, many of these matters were
ultimately dismissed due to lack of merit and/or
were resolved for de minimis, nuisance values
far less than the likely cost of defense.
The mere filing of, and even settlement of, a
lawsuit typically does not constitute any formal
findings of fact or admissions of liability or even
reflect the overall merit of a case. Nearly all
companies (including Acadia) routinely choose
to settle defensible cases due to the high cost
of litigation, unpredictability of juries and a
desire to remain focused on their core mission.
9-4 This facility will also cause an increase in emergency
call volume which will result in an increase response
time from ambulances, police, and firefighters. Chula
Vista already does not have enough police to patrol the
city.
9-4 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
9-5 I greatly oppose the building of this facility. Please do
not approve this proposal.
9-5 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
10 Adams, Kristen 10-1 This is not the right location for this type of facility. 10-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
11 Addieg, Jennifer 11-1 This is NOT an acceptable place for such a facility. I
have been a part of, and left, the professional field of
mental health. I know how important treatment is; I know
11-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
RTC-27
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
the importance of erasing the stigma placed on mental
health struggles; and, I also know what lengths the
powers-that-be will go to in order to accomplish their
goal of making money. There are hundreds of acres
available that are still very close by, yet outside the
residential areas. There is no reason this facility should
thrown right in the middle of a residential area, with
schools right in its view.
11-2 It especially should not happen when dealing with a
company record such as Acadia’s.
11-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
12 Adolfsson, Arabella
(Support)
12-1 As the parent of a teenager that was diagnosed with
early adolescent onset of Bi -Polar when she was 15,
my family struggled to find her the proper resources
locally. The situation became intolerable, it cost us the
marriage, and enormous hospital bills. We ended having
to have her institutionalized in Utah. For those that
oppose this facility I hope that your family never suffers
from having mental illness or addictions, chances are it
will. With the last year of COVID fears, there are long
lasting effects that we can't even fathom and those most
impacted will be our young. We need additional mental
health resources in our community. Let's not be
medieval about mental health. It can be treated and for
those families that struggle a community resource like
this is of paramount importance. Wish it was here when I
needed it.
12-1 Support for the comment is noted.
13 Ahrenholtz, Joni 13-1 Opposed to the increase in emergency vehicles and 911
responses and disruption to the community
13-1 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
14 Alarcon, Linda 14-1 Oppose 14-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
RTC-28
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
15 Alarcon, Rosemary 15-1 INAPPROPIATE ENVIRONMENT TO HOUSE
PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY. IT WILL IMPACT IN
NEGATIVE MANNER RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY,SMALL BUSINESS
ESTABLISHMENTS,EATERIES,OPEN ENVIRONMENT
FOR MANY PERSONS THAT ENJOY A FEW FEET OF
OPEN AREA TO RELAX AFTER THE LONG WORK
WEEK.
15-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
15-2 WILD ANIMALS ANDOTHER SPECIES SUCH AS THE
HAWK/ROADRUNNER JUST TOO NAME A FEW.
15-2 Potential impacts to biological resources are
discussed in Section 8.2 of the EIR. As stated
therein, the project site is mapped
Developed/Urban Land per the Chula Vista
Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) Subarea Plan and does not include
any habitat conservation areas. As the project
site has been previously graded in an
urbanized environment, it does not include any
mature and/or protected trees, riparian habitat,
wetland habitat, migratory wildlife corridors,
wildlife nursery sites, or any other sensitive
natural community. As the project site does not
include any habitats or wildlife, the project
would result in no impacts to biological
resources.
15-3 FINGERPRINT OF HOMELESSNESS AND MENTALLY
ILL PEOPLE WOULD STIGMATIZE HARD WORKING
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN THAT ATTEND THE
SURROUNDING ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS
LOCATED IN THIS AREA.
15-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers. However, see Global
Response: Living with Mental Illness.
15-4 NOT TO MENTION THE STIGMA OF THIS FOR
PROFIT AGENCY THAT WILL RUN FACILITY HAS
BEEN CHARGEDWITH ABUSE AND ALLEGEDLY
WITH MISMANAGEMENT.
15-4 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
RTC-29
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
15000, et seq. However, see Global Response:
Acadia Healthcare.
16 Alfonso, Nick 16-1 Mental health is good and important. The location is not
just great.
16-1 Support of the project is noted. The project site
is located within the Eastlake II General
Development Plan (GDP) and Business Center
II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan. Pursuant to existing plans, the project
site is zoned Business Center 4, which allows
the proposed use subject to a Conditional Use
and Design Review Permit. Therefore,
pursuant to City land use regulations, the
project is proposed within a location allowed to
support the proposed use.
With respect to the project’s location, see
Global Response: Example of Locations.
17 Altmann, Cassandra 17-1 I oppose. 17-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
18 Alvarez, Ana 18-1 I do not support this location, please do not do this to our
community
18-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
19 Alvarez, Analyssa 19-1 The proposed location for this psychiatric facility is not
acceptable based on the proximity to elementary
schools, neighborhoods, and all around residential life.
This is not a location that would service either the
patience or the existing community in a positive manner.
I firmly oppose this potential location.
19-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
20 Alvarez, Diana 20-1 I oppose the location of this facility. 20-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
21 Alvarez, Imelda 21-1 As much I support care for people with special needs, I
strongly oppose building this facility at the proposed
location. I have lived in this area for 18 years and there
is not enough police presence as it is and response time
is very slow.
21-1 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
RTC-30
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
21-2 With Acadia’s poor management history, I fear for the
safety of our community especially with homes, schools
and child-related businesses so close.
21-2 See Global Responses: Example of Locations
and Security Measures.
With respect to Acadia’s history, this comment
is outside the basic scope and purposes of
CEQA as defined in California Public
Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and
California Code of Regulations Section 15000,
et seq. However, see Global Response:
Acadia Healthcare.
21-3 You know this is a bad idea and you wouldn’t want this
so close YOUR home. Please oppose building at this
location.
21-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
22 Alvarez, Marisa 22-1 Mental health is important but I think this location for an
acute psychiatric facility is poorly placed.
22-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
23 Andrean, Sibylla 23-1 Strongly oppose this facility being built in our
neighborhood. Too many schools in close proximity and
a terrible track record for the company, Acadia, with
building and managing these facilities. We have a quite
family community that do not want a company that
doesn’t care building mental health facility in our
neighborhood!
23-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
This remainder of the comment is outside the
basic scope and purposes of CEQA as defined
in California Public Resources Code Section
21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However,
see Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
24 B, Bibi 24-1 Oppose 24-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
25 B, Leroy 25-1 I oppose the Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital to be
built in the community. We have kids and senior citizens
safety to consider.
25-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
RTC-31
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
26 B, Lily 26-1 I strongly oppose. 26-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
27 B, Lisa (neutral) 27-1 There are many questions that need to be answered
before this project is approved. What does “acute care”
involve? Violent patients? Suicidal? How will this facility
ensure the safety of its patients and the community with
a preschool, elem sch, and middle school only blocks
away?
27-1 Acute care is a designation used in the health
care field to distinguish between durations in
treatment programs. For example, all inpatient
behavioral health hospitals and psychiatric
units in general hospitals serve patients for a
short-term duration. Some other facilities offer
longer-term residential treatment programs,
and others provide outpatient programs.
See Global Response: Security Measures.
27-2 No hospital close by. Is that a problem? We definitely
need more psychiatric care available. But is this the right
location for this type of facility when what the east side
community needs is more outpatient psychiatric and
therapeutic care?
27-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
27-3 This proposed facility is not central, little public transit,
no emergency room close by,
27-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
27-4 residential neighborhood, schools with young children,
27-4 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
27-5 company has a bad reputation. 27-5 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
27-6 It is on the City if it approves this project and all of these
concerns prove to be valid and this facility is not run
properly. It may also drop property values in the
neighboring community, which will impact everyone.
Proceed with caution.
27-6 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
RTC-32
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
28 B, Michael 28-1 Opposed. There are other types of business precluded
in our zoning. This one should too. Thanks.
28-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
29 Badea, Beth 29-1 No supportive services, no police station, no hospital, no
main roads/fast routes to hospitals - this facility should
not be in this area.
29-1 See Global Response: Amenities.
29-2 This is a neighborhood not a place for a facility like this. 29-2 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
30 Bakit, Alma
(Neutral)
30-1 I strongly oppose this project. I am concerned for the
safety of families, surroundings homes, parks and
schools.
30-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations
and Security Measures.
31 Bakit, Alma 31-1 I am re-commenting again because chose by mistake
Neutral. I strongly oppose this project. I am concerned
for the safety of families, surroundings homes, parks
and schools.
31-1 See response to comment letter 30.
32 Bakit, Bri 32-1 This is the wrong location. I am for mental health services,
but having an establishment right behind houses, parks
and neighboring schools is irresponsible.
32-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
32-2 There is so much undeveloped land elsewhere in Chula
Vista, can’t this be re-evaluated?
32-2 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
33 Bakit, Gabe 33-1 I strongly oppose this project. This is a residential
community and building such a project in the middle of a
community with children and park nearby is totally
irresponsible. It’s unsafe and hazardous to the
community. Please consider the safety of this family
friendly community.
Thank you
33-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations, and Security Measures.
34 Ballard, Brittney 34-1 I oppose the location of this psychiatric hospital based
on the proximity to schools and residential
neighborhoods.
34-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
35 Ballard, Laura 35-1 I firmly oppose the building of this psychiatric hospital in
the location that it is planned. This area is a family
community that has no business hosting a psychiatric
hospital. The fact that there are schools and residential
neighborhoods surrounding the area that this is planned
in is absolutely unacceptable.
35-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
RTC-33
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
35-2 Our community also does not support flow of patients
coming and going from this location. There are no trolley
or bus lines that would get these patients back to where
they had originally lived once they are released from the
hospital.
35-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
35-3 Also I am very concerned about the history of the
company that would be in charge of managing this
hospital. Their track record is less than stellar and is not
one that should be in our community.
35-3 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
36 Ballard, Ron 36-1 The proposed location for this psychiatric facility is not
acceptable based on the proximity to elementary
schools, neighborhoods, and all around residential life.
36-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
36-2 This is not a location that would service either the
patience or the existing community in a positive manner.
36-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
36-3 I firmly oppose this potential location. 36-3 Comment noted.
37 Ballard, Ronnie 37-1 This makes no sense to put a psychiatric hospital in the
middle of residential neighborhoods. Completely oppose
this location.
37-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
38 Banaga, Mishelle 38-1 While I understand the need of a facility that helps the
mentally ill and other programs the hospital will bring, its
very clear that the residential area of Eastlake is
absolutely not the best place for this type of facility.
38-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
38-2 There is no 100% guarantee from this company that
they will not have any issues with patients coming in or
leaving.
38-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
38-3 We need to ensure the safety of our children in this area
as well as the residents.
38-3 See Global Response: Security Measures.
38-4 There are other areas like Jamul, San Ysidro, Spring
Valley with space that is away from schools, homes,
malls that would make a facility such as this safer in
their community, Eastlake is not that place.
38-4 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
39 Barragan, Maggie 39-1 I am a resident of Chula Vista and I oppose to the
construction of the psychiatric hospital at 91914. I
consider it serious mistake to have this kind of hospital
in the middle of a community of families with children
39-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations, and Security Measures.
RTC-34
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
who walk to school and I consider that having this kind
of hospital is attentive to the safety of it surroundings.
Those who have the responsibility consider the
consequences that this will bring about.
40 Beaudoin, Tania 40-1 As a mental health clinician working in Chula Vista
(91914), I can say with certainty that we do not have the
additional support of a hospital like this. There are no
agencies or nonprofits in this zip code that would be
providing the wrap around services these patients would
need at discharge. This will result in increased
transportation costs for insurance companies and/or
MediCal to transport them to and after for services for
their continued care. This is not a central location to the
other health collaborators that these patients will NEED.
This is also not central for families members who are
likely to be involved in their care and create additional
barriers to getting these patients stabilized. This would
not serve San Diego County patients who need this type
of care.
40-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Amenities.
Additionally, the Eastlake hospital will work with
insurance providers and the state’s health
system to provide safe and reliable
transportation to those patients that need it.
Scripps and Acadia have strong existing
relationships with these providers and foresee
no transportation issues stemming from the
proposed location.
41 Becker, Jennie 41-1 Pick a better location far from a residential neighborhood
and near schools. Listen to the people who have
invested in this community and live here.
41-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
41-2 Putting a facility like this far away from other services
that will be needed like police and medical is a mistake.
41-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
41-3 Look at the surrounding businesses that are all geared
toward children and families, realize that this will
negatively impact their business. Put your constituents
needs first not your political pocketbook.
41-3 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
42 Bennett, Maritza 42-1 I oppose because this is not the best location for this
facility.
42-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
43 Benson, Elizabeth
(Support)
43-1 We are severely short of mental health hospital beds in
San Diego County! One of the main reasons is lack of
info & stigma, that somehow people will be “dangerous”
to the neighbors, which research does not support. This
makes Chula Vista and San Diego County a better place
to live for everyone. Please open your minds and hearts!
43-1 Comment in support of the project is noted.
44 Bethel, Brian 44-1 Eastlake is already understaffed regarding first
responders. Placing this facility in our neighborhood,
44-1 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
RTC-35
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
near residential areas and schools is a problem waiting
to happen.
44-2 This company is already known for their horrible
healthcare practices.
44-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global Response:
Acadia Healthcare.
44-3 Eastlake has had a drastic increase in crime with the
growing homeless population. We're not able to take
care of the community already and this will further tax
our resources and our community. If our elected officials
care about their constituents and their future reelection
they would reconsider.
44-3 This comment does not raise an issue related
to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no
further response is required. This comment will
be included in the administrative record and
presented to the City decision makers within
the Final EIR. However, see Global Response:
Living with Mental Illness.
45 Bethel, Shirlee 45-1 I strongly oppose having this in our neighborhood that is
already understood by 1st responders.
45-1 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
45-2 Where will they go once they are released? 45-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
46 Bernable, Belinda** 46-1 I strongly OPPOSE as this is a community with young
families with very young children and several elementary
schools nearby. In addition, this is a community in which
people love to enjoy the outdoors by walking and biking
in/around the neighborhood.
46-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
46-2 Having this type of hospital nearby puts the community
at risk as patients from these type of hospitals are at
higher risk to cause crimes either by harm to themselves
and to others nearby. Studies have found that the rise in
violent crime (such as homicides and violent assaults)
committed by individuals with mental illness, which may
entirely be accounted for with a history of alcohol and/or
drug abuse.
46-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global Response:
Living with Mental Illness.
46-3 In addition, neighborhood children and adolescents that
could possibly be exposed to violence are at risk for
poor long-term behavioral and mental health outcomes
regardless of whether they are victims, direct witnesses,
or hear about the crime. Children exposed to violence
may experience behavioral problems, depression,
anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
46-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
RTC-36
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
47 Blakely, Ianne 47-1 Please find another location for this facility, one that is
further from schools and homes.
47-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
48 Bliven, Dianne 48-1 I live directly across the street from the proposed site. I
worked for years in Chula Vista (since 1971) to be able
to afford a quiet, safe residential neighborhood. In 2013
my dream came true to move to Rolling Hills Ranch.
Now these dreams are shattered and frankly I fear that
this hospital will destroy this neighborhood, but makes it
totally unsafe. Please, do not allow this hospital to be
built.
48-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations, and Security Measures.
48-2 Acadia is bad for Chula Vista-a terrible business model.
It will ruin this community.
48-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
49 Bliven, Jake 49-1 Oppose.
49-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
49-2 Terrible business for Chula Vista.
49-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
49-3 Wrong location. 49-3 See Global Response: Project Location.
50 Bliven, Michael 50-1 Totally opposed. Wrong place, not in a quiet residential
community near children’s schools.
50-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
51 Borunda, Alfredo
(Support)
51-1 I am glad that jobs are being created in my
neighborhood. Don't listen to NIMBYs
51-1 Support for the project is noted.
52 Boyko, Carrie 52-1 Strongly Oppose 52-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
RTC-37
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
53 Bristow, Teresa* 53-1 I am adamantly opposed to the location of this Hospital. 53-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
53-2 While I fully support the need for Psychiatric Care in this
country this location is just not appropriate.
53-2 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
53-3 We have had an increase in crime in this part of the city
as well as an increase in the homeless population and
without enough police presence it’s a dangerous
scenario.
53-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
53-4 Too close to neighborhoods and schools and too far
from the hospital and public transportation
53-4 See Global Responses: Example of Locations,
Amenities, and Public Transportation.
54 Brokks, Mallory 54-1 This company is abusive! Please do not build this
facility! For the sake of the children and the surrounding
community do not allow Acadia to develop in your
residential neighborhood
54-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
55 Brower, Elise 55-1 I oppose this project. 55-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
56 Brown, Lisa 56-1 Strongly oppose Eastlake as the placement for this
facility
56-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
57 Brua, Francis 57-1 This is not an ideal place for this type of facility. Mental
Health facilities are essential to our community but it has
to be in an ideal location where its closer to other facilities
that offer services that the patient needs.
57-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Amenities.
58 Bryan, Jonathan 58-1 I OPPOSE THIS FACILITY 58-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
RTC-38
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
59 Bryant, James 59-1 This is not the best location for this type of facility. 59-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
59-2 The public transportation is not suitable, 59-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
59-3 nor is the proximity to business that cater to children and
residences. Perhaps locate this near the trolley line or
near the County’s Health and Human Services office
59-3 See responses to comments 59-1 and 59-2.
60 Bryant, Linda 60-1 Family neighborhood. Children outside. 60-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
60-2 No bus service for patients. Not the area for people
coming and going all hours.
60-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
60-3 You are doing this area and the patients a disservice. 60-3 See Global Response: Amenities. See also
response to comment 60-1.
61 Bulthuis, Heather 61-1 Please do not build this hospital. It will not benefit our
neighborhood in any way.
61-1 Opposition to the project is noted. However,
this comment does not raise an issue related to
the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be
included in the administrative record and
presented to the City decision makers within
the Final EIR.
61-2 It should be located downtown. There is vacant land
downtown by the baseball field that would be a much
better place for this. Please listen to the people you
represent.
61-2 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
61-3 Remember you work for us, not the people who want to
make money off of this hospital. Thank you!
61-3 Comment noted.
62 Burgar, Erin 62-1 I strongly oppose this hospital being built in this location
and by this provider.
62-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
62-2 Acadia has a track record of patient elopement, abuse,
and cutting costs at the expense of patients and the
community.
62-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
RTC-39
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
62-3 Acadia claims to be a good community partner, but
based on the information in this EIR they clearly are not
even aware of who their neighbors will be. They have
listed businesses that no longer exist and have glossed
over the fact that this proposed site backs up to a
residential neighborhood and is close to family-oriented
business and schools.
62-3 The EIR has been revised to reflect the
surrounding businesses.
62-4 This area does not have the infrastructure to support
emergency calls for service. We are already lacking in
CVPD presence and this facility WILL require police to
respond.
62-4 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
62-5 There is not a nearby hospital, mental health support
services or transportation for patients who are released.
62-5 See Global Response: Amenities.
62-6 Patients can refuse treatment and can refuse to follow a
discharge plan and are then free to walk out directly into
the surrounding neighborhood. The developers of this
proposed hospital claim that it is safe, however the only
facility near the east Chula Vista area with a similar level
of security is Donovan state prison. Why would the city
propose to place a facility requiring this level of security
in a residential area?
62-6 See Global Responses: Public Transportation
and Security Measures.
62-7 The City of Chula Vista needs to put the safety of the
local community, families and children first, not tax
revenue and supporting the profits of a company with a
terrible history of patient abuse and neglect.
62-7 This comment does not raise an issue related
to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no
further response is required. This comment will
be included in the administrative record and
presented to the City decision makers within
the Final EIR.
63 Burgar, Ian 63-1 The good people of Eastlake are not anti-mental health.
We are pro-mental health done planned and done
properly. This is critical for the welfare of those needing
support as well as the community. The San Diego
District Attorney has laid out a blueprint for mental
healthcare services in San Diego County.
63-1 Comment noted.
63-2 The proposed project is the only facility that would
violate the vision of that plan. Each behavioral health
63-2 See Global Responses: Amenities and Security
Measures.
RTC-40
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
hospital is co-located with full service hospitals to
provide a continuum of care. The project would sit alone
and deprive those needing it services of that support.
Does Eastlake deserve less care than the other sites?
The facility’s security is consistent with other
inpatient behavioral health hospitals throughout
the U.S. In fact, Bayview Behavioral Health
Hospital, located in western Chula Vista, is a
similar facility with similar security protocols.
63-3 Second this facility is high security and in fact we know
the only facility with higher security needs in Eastern
Chula Vista is the state prison. Only poor planning would
put a high security facility in a residential neighborhood.
63-3 The Eastlake hospital will be an inpatient
behavioral health hospital providing short-term
care for patients in need. See Global
Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Amenities.
63-4 Finally the criticism of Acadia has merit and is easily
validated if one was to take the time. This includes in
depth reporting by the Chicago Tribune and others.
Recently Acadia's Piney Ridge Facility was the site of a
mass escape here is a snip from the Fayetteville police
logs: 19:06p. Juveniles running everywhere and having
issues containing them. Sixteen staff to deal with
approximately 100 subjects at the facility. 19:08p.
Breach of the facility and subjects have fled on foot. This
is just small example of "merits" criticism of Acadia.
Eastlake expects and deserves better. Follow the
Blueprint from the DA
63-4 See Global Response: Elopements.
64 Butron, Irma 64-1 We pay high taxes and many of our children walk to
school or to the park.
64-1 Comment noted.
64-2 It would make our neighborhood unsafe 64-2 See Global Responses: Emergency Services
and Living with Mental Illness.
64-3 and a lot more noisy because of paramedics or police
sirens
64-3 Potential impacts associated with increased
noise is discussed in Section 5.9 of the EIR.
As noted therein, sirens (police, fire, and
ambulance) are exempt from the provisions of
the CVMC which provides the standards noise
limits for on-site activities. All other potential
on-site activity, including the exterior use areas
and the outdoor staff area would be compatible
with the City’s noise standards (see EIR Table
5.9-6).
65 Byrne, James 65-1 The place is a little slice of suburban heaven and the
politicians want to change that for us. This would be a
65-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
RTC-41
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
mistake of epic proportions. For all of the reasons I have
cited at length in all of my previous public comments,
still a no. Build it somewhere appropriate.
66 C, Elizabeth 66-1 This is not an acceptable location, it is not safe to have a
facility of this nature so close to schools and houses. It
will be next door to a pre school? Is this even a serious
thought?
66-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
66-2 Acadia's history is awful! They are constantly in the
news for their fraud and negligence.
66-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global Response:
Acadia Healthcare.
67 C, Nohemi 67-1 Oppose! 67-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
68 Cabrera, Griselda 68-1 Oppose 68-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
69 Caddell, Kim 69-1 Not an appropriate location 69-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
70 Camhi, Myriam 70-1 I have worked in the healthcare field for multiple years
and psychiatric hospitals are completely unsafe to be
built where their is a neighborhood filled with growing
families . We have 3 children ranging in age 13 to 1
and I will not feel safe to let my children outside if the
hospital is built.
70-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations, and Security Measures.
70-2 There is plenty of space around the prison area that is
the perfect location for the psychiatric hospital to be
built. Please don’t ruin our beautiful community.
70-2 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
RTC-42
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
71 Carella, Catherine 71-1 Mentally unhealthy people will bring an atmosphere and
presence to a residential community that will degrade
our mental health and stability in our community. This
mental health facility is needed, but NOT in a residential
environment wherd people choose to live for peace of
mind. This project will negatively affect our peace of
mind. It does NOT belong here.
71-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations
and Living with Mental Illness.
72 Carrillo, Crystal
(Support)
72-1 Please give no credence to the elitist, ignorant bigots
who think our neighbors and our FAMILIES who deal
with mental illness are to be ostracized. While some
may claim their opposition is related to the company's
business practices, their scare tactics (mapping out area
schools and parks, etc) reveal their true intentions. Our
country is in desperate need of mental healthcare, and
our neighborhood and, yes OUR NEIGHBORS AND
PUR FAMILIES, although the ignorant fear mongers
would like to deny it, are also in need.
My 11 year old son went through a time of great difficulty
and need during the pandemic, during which our family
was FORTUNATE for him to be able to attend a
program at, yes, a psychiatric hospital, and his well-
being improved 1000%!!!!! How I wish we'd had a local
option, rather than having to drive 90 MILES A DAY, in
order for him to receive his care by the DEDICATED and
WONDERFUL staff there!!
Be they children or adults, ALL are entitled to receive
the HEALTHCARE they deserve and need!
Denying this care makes our neighborhood and our
FAMILIES LESS safe, not MORE!!!
PLEASE IGNORE THE BIGOTS AND BUILD THE
HOSPITAL!!!!!!
72-1 Support for the project is noted.
73 Cash, Carl 73-1 Not appropriate area. 73-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
74 Cash, Tencha 74-1 There is plenty of space to build the facility in a different
area, away from friendly neighborhoods. You can build
by Otay by the border or where there is more
commercial than residence.
74-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Alternative Locations.
RTC-43
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
75 Cash, Virginia 75-1 I strongly oppose a behavioral facility to reside in the
EastLake area. I own 3 properties in the Rolling Ranch
community and this will affect me and my family greatly.
We’ve already starting to see people living in their cars
or on the street in the area. Bringing the hospital to our
area will only contribute to more people like this setting
up camp in our neighborhoods. This is a family master
planned community and families moved to this area for
it’s beauty and safety among other qualities.
75-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Responses: Public Transportation and
Homeless Patients.
75-2 Please stop this project from coming to the EastLake
area!
Virginia and Eli Cash
75-2 Comment noted.
76 Casillas, Eduardo 76-1 This a threat to the lives of our children and our safety
as a community!!!!
76-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Responses Example of Locations, Living with
Mental Illness, and Security Measures.
77 Castillo, Flavio 77-1 This project may include patients that can be a danger in
our family friendly community. I have two small children,
one that attends a preschool adjacent to the site. I
oppose this project being built in this Eastlake area.
77-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations,
Living with Mental Illness, and Security
Measures.
78 Castillo, Sarah 78-1 Please do not put this near a preschool. Irresponsible!!! 78-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
79 Cazares, Leticia
(Support)
79-1 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As a native of the South Bay with a 24-year career in
community health serving the underserved residents of
Chula Vista, and now Trustee for Southwestern College,
I have seen the increasing need for behavioral health
services over the years. In fact, it has reached a critical
point. For as long as I have been a public health
professional, our region does not come close to meeting
the demand for mental health care. the disparities in
these services is inequitable to say the least. I can't tell
you how many patients we've had to turn away, refer out
to locations that patients could not get to, leaving them
vulnerable to conditions that would otherwise be
treatable. The demand has only grown during the
79-1 Support for the project is noted.
RTC-44
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
pandemic and if anything has elevated the deep racial
and social injustices that have long plagued our
healthcare and behavioral health systems, it's this last
year. As a long time practitioner and now as a trustee
serving a very vulnerable student population, who has
been impacted in seen and unseen ways, I am
extremely concerned that this pandemic has
exacerbated behavioral health issues. We have yet to
see the real impact. Therefore I urge you to support the
Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital. The time is now to
finally address what I call the future epidemic. Our
community is relying on us to provide these overdue
services.
Thank you for your consideration.
Leticia Cazares
80 Ceballos, Salvador 80-1 This does not belong in a family community
80-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
81 Cendana, Amy 81-1 I strongly oppose this location. Way too close to schools
and children’s activities.
81-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
82 Chambers, Katherine 82-1 This is a terrible location for a behavior health treatment
facility, that close to an elementary school. Find another
location that doesn’t endanger children.
82-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
83 Chan, Laura 83-1 Please find a more suitable location for the mental
facility.
83-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
84 Chan, Laura 84-1 It needs to be at a different location to keep our
community safe.
84-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations, and Security Measures.
85 Charles, Carmen 85-1 Please improve our CV police Department- approve a
additional Police Headquarters in Eastern Chula Vista
instead of the continued over development of this area
and lack of concern for the residents in this area.
85-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
86 Chavez, Hilda 86-1 I oppose to have a mental hospital in Eastlake. Most of
the patients released have nowhere to go and will stay
around our parks. This will cause an increase in
homeless and crimes.
86-1 See Global Responses: Living with Mental
Illness, Public Transportation and Homeless
Patients.
87 Chmiel, Nancy 87-1 This is not a good location for this facility. It is too close
to schools, houses, and children's play centers.
87-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
RTC-45
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
87-2 It is also very far from a police station as well as
hospitals in case patients wander off into the community
when they are free to leave on their own. It is an overall
dangerous location.
87-2 See Global Responses: Emergency Services
and Public Transportation.
88 Churchill, Laura 88-1 This does not belong in a neighborhood with children
activities nearby
88-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
89 Cohen, Lisa 89-1 This project is critically needed in our community. The
need for mental health treatment continues to grow and
we simply don’t have the capacity to meet our needs. It
is a public health issue. The draft EIR shows that there
are no unmitigated impacts and the hospital is proposed
on land that is zoned for this use. On behalf of my Chula
Vista Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and
myself, we fully support this project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lisa Cohen
CEO
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and Chula Vista
Resident.
89-1 Support for the project is noted.
90 Cortez, Jose 90-1 I have worked in the mental health field for most of my
working life, including at similar facilities. I have first
hand knowledge with the diagnosis and treatments of
patients. I am a strong advocate for mental health in
traditionally underserved communities and mental health
as a whole. That being said, I oppose this development
because of the location and access. Use your brain, it
just is not a good fit.
90-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
91 Cortez, Uriel 91-1 Hey McCann, no one is approving of this project. Let's
see if you actually represent the people, or your own
interests.
91-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
92 Cox, Julia 92-1 I strongly oppose 92-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
RTC-46
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
93 Crabtree, David 93-1 I am firmly against the location of the proposed
behavioral health hospital. Please consider a different
location for the safety and well-being of everyone
involved.
93-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
94 Crabtree, Lara 94-1 I’m firmly against building a psychiatric hospital in the
middle of a residential area. There are at least 5 child
centered businesses in very close proximity to the
proposed hospital.
94-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
94-2 The hospital will knowingly be releasing psychiatric
patients, who have been put on mandatory holds,
directly into the areas that can’t support them.
94-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
94-3 We don’t have services like halfway houses or other
hospitals nearby.
94-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
94-4 Where do you think these patients are going to go?
They will end up wandering the streets and into the
paths of vulnerable children playing or returning from
school.
94-4 See response to comment 94-2.
94-5 I’d also consider the legal ramifications Acadia would
face should a released patient harm a local resident.
The hospital is fully aware of the dangers these patients
pose to society. It seems logical that Acadia would be
responsible for any harm inflicted onto another person
upon release of the patients due to the lack of proper
aftercare resources available.
94-5 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
94-6 Please consider a different location for this hospital. The
current proposed area is not a proper fit and will greatly
harm the residents of Eastlake as well as your future
patients. You should consider the needs of everyone
involved and build the hospital elsewhere.
94-6 See responses to comments 94-1 through
94-4.
95 Crespo, Lizbeth 95-1 I oppose to this project. This is not an appropriate
location for this type of facility. Not only is in the middle
of a residential neighborhood, is extremely close to
parks, schools and children activity businesses. The
95-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations, and Security Measures.
RTC-47
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
safety of our community and most importantly, our
children is at risk with this project.
96 Cuevas, Sergio 96-1 Given the neighborhood so close to schools and
residential area I strongly believe such a facility puts our
children at risk. I strongly oppose this facility.
96-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations, and Security Measures.
97 Cunningham,
Rhealyn
97-1 I oppose the building of this behavioral hospital so close
to the middle and elementary school!!
97-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations, and Security Measures.
98 D, Brandy 98-1 I have been a resident of Cockatoo Grove located in
East Chula Vista since 1975 which was prior to the
development of Otay Ranch, Eastlake, or the Rolling
Hills Ranch Areas. The Chula Vista City Planning
Commission has made many positive decisions which
have proven to be beneficial to Chula Vista residents
since then.
98-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
98-2 However, this will not be the case with respect to the
proposed Acadia Scripps Behavioral Health Facility. On
the contrary, this facility poses a danger to our local
community. You have already been placed on legal
notice of these dangers via emails, letters, petitions, and
news broadcasts. All of which indicate that the threat is
real.
98-2 See Global Responses: Example of Locations,
and Security Measures.
98-3 Furthermore, peer reviewed research studies likewise
point to the fact that the presence of danger is not one
simply conjured up by hysterical NIMBY middle class
community members. According to Dr. John Monahan,
in reviewing many of these studies: The data that have
recently become available, fairly read, suggest the one
conclusion I did not want to reach: Whether the measure
is the prevalence of violence among the disordered or
the prevalence of disorder among the violent, whether
the sample is people who are selected for treatment as
inmates or patients in institutions or people randomly
chosen from the open community, and no matter how
many social and demographic factors are statistically
taken into account, there appears to be a relationship
between mental disorder and violent behavior.
98-3 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global Response:
Living with Mental Illness.
99 D, John 99-1 Oppose 99-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
RTC-48
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
100 Dabbah, Giselle 100-1 I am strongly opposed to this project. This is not an
appropriate location for this type of facility. Not only is
in the middle of a residential neighborhood, is extremely
close to parks, schools and children activity
businesses.
100-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
100-2 The safety of our community and most importantly, our
children is at risk with this project.
100-2 See Global Response: Security Measures.
100-3 House values would decrease. This is a terrible idea.
Put a stop to it for the safety and well-being of our
beautiful community.
100-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
101 Dabbah, Jonathan 101-1 This is a horrible and dangerous idea. This is a family
area. Please stop this project, this will very bad for the
area for many reasons!!
101-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
102 Dael, Marvin 102-1 I highly oppose this project due to the fact that it is very
close to residential area. This location is not the place
for this business; this is a family friendly neighborhood.
Please build this project somewhere else where far from
residential areas
102-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
103 Daplas, Jonathan 103-1 I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to
allowing Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital Project EIR
20-0001 development.
103-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
RTC-49
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
104 Davalos, Yasmin
(Support)
104-1 I live near Bayview Behavioral Health Hospital in
western Chula Vista. There are no issues for the
community with this hospital. It is located close to
homes, schools, churches, and more, and it isn’t a
source of crime or increased law enforcement calls. The
Eastlake hospital is the same kind of facility, but will be
newer and incorporate the latest in security and safety
measures, for both patients and the community. We
need this hospital to serve our community.
104-1 Support for the project is noted.
105 DavidDolosa, Karen 105-1 Listen to the people who actually have to live with your
decisions. We’re the same people who will vote you out
for repeatedly making choices have total disregard for
the traffic, safety, and wellbeing of the community.
105-1 With respect to traffic, CEQA evaluates impacts
in terms of VMT, which is a measure of the use
and efficiency of the transportation network,
calculated based on individual vehicle trips
generated and their associated trip lengths. As
discussed in Section 5.11 of the EIR, based on
SANDAG screening criteria the project would
result in VMT that is below the regional average.
Therefore, the impact would be considered less
than significant.
With respect to safety, see Global Response:
Security Measures.
The remainder of this comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and
no further response is required.
105-2 We have lived in another state where the same type of
facility was located a drive away from the nearest
neighborhood. To place one in an area literally steps
away from local businesses that cater to families and
young children puts everyone at risk. I support
treatment for mental health, but how beneficial is it to
have one completely barricaded with no open space?
105-2 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
105-3 Perhaps a better solution is to relocate the facility further
out. It would be a win win for residents of this
neighborhood and for the residents of the treatment
center. Hear us out or we will vote you out.
105-3 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
RTC-50
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
106 Davis, Brad 106-1 STRONGLY OPPOSE! Keep our neighborhoods and
children SAFE and find a proper location for this high-
risk and dangerous Psychiatric facility. Over 1,000
people live within a mile of the ambulance drop off, most
of them children. The proposed location is simply too
close to elementary, middle and charter schools as well
as parks and playgrounds.
106-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
106-2 It would be too far away from hospitals, ambulances,
mental health support facilities and police.
106-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
106-3 Crime is already an issue in Eastlake, how will a new
major Psychiatric Hospital help?
106-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
106-4 Locating a dangerous institution on a cul-de-sac is also
a terrible idea and against city traffic code.
106-4 All City departments have reviewed the project
and concur that the road design is consistent
with City standards for these types of uses,
including egress and ingress requirements.
106-5 The risk to the community is too high without safe and
adequate infrastructure. It needs to be next to a hospital,
properly supported.
106-5 See Global Responses: Public Transportation
and Amenities.
106-6 Acadia has a HORRIBLE track record for patient safety.
Time and time again they find themselves in court for
legal misgivings associated with poorly run facilities -
nationwide! Chula Vista deserves better than partnering
with a company better known for being sued by cities
and distraught families than for actually helping people.
106-6 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
106-7 Eastlake needs a greater police presence including a
new east side station.
106-7 See response to comment 106-3.
106-8 A Psychiatric facility will bring crime. Period. Unstable
and transient patients will be released miles away from
city services. Protect the citizens, build the proper
infrastructure, pass on partnering with Acadia and say
NO to building a dangerous facility in the middle of a
neighborhood!
106-8 See response to comment 106-5. See also,
Global Responses: Living with Mental Illness
and Homeless Patients.
107 Davis, Evan 107-1 At first I thought this was a small outpatient clinic - then
I realized it will be a large facility for people who need
serious psychiatric care - one of the biggest in the
county!
107-1 The Eastlake hospital will be an inpatient
behavioral health hospital providing short-term
care for patients in need. It will meet a
demonstrated need for additional inpatient
behavioral health beds and South County and
the San Diego region.
RTC-51
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
107-2 Why would city planners allows such a sensitive facility
to be built in a quiet neighborhood? Within a few
hundred feet is a kid's swim school, a Montessori
school, a children's gym and a park! This location is
TERRIBLE!
107-2 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
107-3 When patients who are brought in against their will and
are released, are they gonna go hang out in the park by
the school bust stop?
107-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
107-4 Will there be a new police substation built next door so
that when crime rises the city is prepared?
107-4 The construction of a new police station is
outside the scope of project; however, See
Global Response: Emergency Services.
107-5 What happens when patients escape? 107-5 See Global Responses: Security Measures and
Elopements.
107-6 How many more ambulances need to be purchased?
Community safety is more important than increased tax
revenue.
107-6 See response to comment 107-4.
107-7 The best location would be next to a large hospital with
proper city support.
107-7 See Global Response: Amenities.
107-8 This location will make the community dangerous for the
residents!
107-8 See responses to comments 107-1 through
107-7.
108 Davis, Kathryn 108-1 I am far from anti-mental health. I have several family
members that suffer from mental illness. I believe in the
need for good mental health care but I completely
oppose the location and partnership of this facility.
108-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
108-2 Acadia is a poorly run company that does not take
excellent care of their patients or employees.
108-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global Response:
Acadia Healthcare.
108-3 Also, the location of this facility is not acceptable. There
is no infrastructure to support it. There is not a hospital
close by for when these patients experience sever
medial issues or attempt suicide. Metal facilities are
typically build near or in conjunction with a hospital for
so many reasons.
108-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
108-4 The Eastlake area already has issues with police
reaction time and support. How are they going to
remedy that situation if this facility is to be built?
108-4 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
RTC-52
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
108-5 I am not say that a mental facility should not be build in
the area I am simply saying this is NOT the location and
Acadia is NOT the partnership that Chula Vista needs.
108-5 See response to comments 108-1 and 108-2.
109 Delcastillo, Maria 109-1 Oppose! 109-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
110 Dejesus, Dustin 110-1 Oppose 110-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
111 Denison, Jennifer 111-1 I absolutely oppose this location choice. A hospital such
as this does not belong in the middle of neighborhoods.
This area is filled with families, young children and
schools. Take it somewhere else.
111-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
112 Denison, Mike 112-1 Oppose 112-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
113 Doerr, Janet 113-1 I strongly oppose building the psychiatric facility in the
proposed location. It's too close too residential
neighborhoods, schools, and businesses that host a lots
of activities geared towards children.
113-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
113-2 As a former EMT, I can say that this facility really needs
to located near a hospital.
113-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
113-3 Our city does not have enough law enforcement to
handle our area as it is. The issues that will arise out of
this facility will only make our community less safe.
113-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
114 Dowling, Marilisa 114-1 While I think we need more mental healthcare services I
am concerned about the company who will be running
114-1 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
RTC-53
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
this proposed facility (Acadia). They don’t have a good
track record and I would need to know they have
changed their ways before putting them in charge of any
more vulnerable people. Therefore I OPPOSE the
proposed Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital.
114-2 I am also concerned by the proximity of the proposed
site to schools for young children.
114-2 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
114-3 I believe the community should have a chance to have
our concerns and questions addressed before this
project can be approved.
114-3 CEQA process provides several opportunities
to comment on the environmental issues
associated with the project. Likewise, a public
hearing will be held when additional comments
relating to the project may be presented to City
staff and the project applicant.
115 Downing, Barbara 115-1 The location in question could not be worse. There are
multiple children friendly businesses a few hundred
yards away. It is located right in the middle of houses
and near parks.
115-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
115-2 I believe the safety of our Eastlake citizens would be in
jeopardy if this hospital were to be built in this Eastlake
location.
115-2 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers. However, see also
Global Response: Living with Mental Illness.
116 Dugan, Glenn 116-1 This project is entirely to close to family residents.it may
be in a industrial district but it is surrounded by single
family homes. This is not a suitable location fir a mental
health facility. This facility puts children and senior
citizens at extreme risk
116-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
117 Dunford, Susan 117-1 I am writing as a homeowner in a neighborhood
adjacent to the proposed site to beseech the city not to
move forward with this project. This site is wholly
unsuitable for such a facility as it is surrounded by
homes, parks, schools, children-oriented businesses,
and other facilities and venues that should not be in
such proximity to a facility such as this.
117-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
RTC-54
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
117-2 Additionally, the ethics and competency of the operating
organization have proven to be inadequate., posing
threats to our community.
117-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global Response:
Acadia Healthcare.
117-3 Please listen to the overwhelming opposition of those in
our neighborhood whom you have been entrusted to
represent and find a more suitable location for this
facility.
117-3 See response to comment 117-1.
118 Eastep, Angela 118-1 I strongly oppose a psych hospital in our Eastlake
neighborhood. It is too close to families with children and
don’t believe it is safe. Thank you.
118-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
119 Eastep, Craig 119-1 I strongly oppose putting a psychiatric hospital in the
Eastlake community. I have significant concerns about
where the patients end up after they’ve been
discharged. If patients refuse transportation they will be
wandering in our housing communities.
119-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
119-2 There are too many schools and parks within a short
distance of the proposed site. A better location for this
type of facility would be near a major hospital or other
medical center. As an example Scripps Mercy Chula
Vista for Sharp Hospital Chula Vista.
119-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
120 Eastman, Christina 120-1 I am opposed to this facility in the proposed location. It
would be near many businesses that cater to children
and families, jeopardizing their safety in cases of
escapes.
120-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
120-2 It would also be adjacent to the backyards of several
homes, producing light and noise pollution and
additional safety concerns.
120-2 Potential impacts related to light and glare are
analyzed in Section 5.2 of the EIR. It is
acknowledged that the project would include
new lighting sources for both construction and
operation. Safety lighting would be oriented
downward with shielding and away from the
project boundary to ensure lighting does not
spill to the north and to the east, toward the
residences located at lower elevations. The
project has been designed primarily of solid
surfaces with windows at the entrance and to
RTC-55
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
allow for natural light to enter patient rooms.
Exterior glass and storefront colors would be
muted grays, blues, and greens to provide low
glare (see EIR Figure 5.2-2) and would be
absorptive of light or made of anti-reflective
materials. Therefore, impacts associated with
light and glare would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 5.9 of the EIR, direct
off-site noise level increases due to the project
would be 1 dB or less, which would be
considered less than significant. On-site noise
levels would not exceed the single family
residential limits (Chula Vista Municipal Code)
and therefore, all impacts related to increased
noise levels above ambient conditions would
be less than significant.
120-3 There are no major hospitals nearby, 120-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
120-4 insufficient public transportation, no nearby highways
that don’t require a toll,
120-4 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
120-5 an understaffed police department already unable to
properly patrol East Chula Vista, and no social or
community services nearby.
120-5 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
120-6 The facility also is far too large for the small, largely
residential community it would be placed in. This is the
worst possible location for this facility to be built, and our
community is being taken advantage of.
120-6 The size, bulk, and scale of the facility is
consistent with that allowed within the zone.
See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
120-7 Finally, the horrible conduct of the proposed majority
operator of the facility should cause everyone reviewing
this proposal to pause and consider the ramifications of
approving this facility as proposed.
120-7 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare. the following
response is provided.
121 Edwards, Ralph 121-1 As a member of Fire service for 33 years I strongly
oppose. These facilities serve a large homeless
clientele. They are brought to the facility and once
released it is out the front door relocating them to
121-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation
and Homeless Patients.
RTC-56
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
Eastlake. We will lose our parks and the peaceful trip to
our stores. Please NO.
122 Edwards, Ray 122-1 Bad location 122-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
122-2 with a bad company. Acadia's track record is appalling. 122-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
122-3 To put a 24 hour lockdown psych facility in the middle of
a residential neighborhood adjacent to schools, parks,
and kid oriented businesses, nowhere near a hospital, is
reckless and negligent.
122-3 See Global Responses: Example of Locations
and Amenities. The Eastlake hospital will be an
inpatient behavioral health hospital.
122-4 Scripps and the land owner, Mike Vogt should be
ashamed of themselves for partnering with such a
horrible company and putting a whole community at risk.
122-4 Comment noted.
123 Edwards, Rebekah 123-1 I’m a paramedic with the city of San Diego and have
been in emergency medical for the last 22 years. I can
tell you firsthand how demanding these facilities can be
on the community. I have words and every district of
San Diego County including 20s which has CMH County
mental health.
123-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
123-2 It needs to be close to hospitals and have additional
resources ambulance police, PERT, rehab, clinics, Fire
Fighters l, paramedic and EMT to run medical AIDS,
overdoses, assaults, psychiatric breaks…like
infrastructure to support the patients.
123-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
123-3 YES THEY BREAK OUT!! 123-3 See Global Response: Elopements.
123-4 Yes they commit suicide.. assault each other and
staff…. I’m sitting in my ambulance and can tell you first
hand how much we need resources next to hospitals.
Working as a paramedic for over 20 years, I can tell you
our call volume is at an all time high, and run out of
ambulances on a daily bases, meaning that there are so
many 911 calls, that every ambulance is used and can’t
respond leaving medical calls unattended for extended
response times. CMH, county mental health, generates
123-4 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
RTC-57
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
calls on a daily bases pulling resources, running patient
to and from the hospital….
123-5 And being so far from the closest hospitals pulls these
ambulances out of service.
123-5 See responses to comments 123-2 and 123-4.
123-6 They need to get it together and plan this a little better
rather then just dropping off and trying to make a
dollar!!! It’s not all about money. But rather what’s best
for the patients and community supporting them.
Move the mental facility closer to a hospital!!!
123-6 See response to comment 123-2.
124 Eliscu, Felice 124-1 No more Child Abuse. 124-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
125 Elliott, Lynda 125-1 This is not the right location for this facility. This
community is mainly families, and that area has many
family friendly businesses.
125-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
125-2 There is no medical facility close by, and it is not on a
major street.
125-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
125-3 There are also concerns about strain on our police units
that need to be available for homes in this community.
125-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
125-4 There are much better locations for this type of hospital
with more resources and better access for the patients
and their families.
125-4 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
126 Encinas, Marla 126-1 I strongly oppose to building this psychiatric facility in a
location where there are many schools and homes
126-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
127 Espindola, Monica 127-1 I strongly opposed the construction of a psychiatric
hospital at the proposed location. It is the in the same
vicinity as many child centered business and schools.
127-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
127-2 This could make things much more complicated in the
event of an escape or related incidents.
127-2 See Global Responses: Security Measures and
Elopements.
127-3 Our emergency response resources are already
stretched. I do not understand how the EIR states that
there is no major impact.
127-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
127-4 There is also serious concerns with the capabilities and
history of misconduct of the company that is requesting
127-4 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
RTC-58
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
to run the facility, Acadia Healthcare. Given their
disappointing track record it would be irresponsible to
proceed with this project.
128 Faulkner, Yvonne 128-1 I am opposed to this facility. This behavior health project
has no business being in an area so close to
neighborhoods and schools.
128-1 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
128-2 Take it to the large area of land by the prison and away
from families that moved to Eastlake to raise their
children in a safe environment.
128-2 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
128-3 I know for Chula Vista all they see is $$$'s !! They want
to advertise a family environment to get families to move
here, but could careless about them. Once again, it's all
about the $$$'s!
128-3 Comment noted.
129 Fernando, Sara 129-1 I am a business owner next to the proposed location and
this facility should not be built in this location.
129-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
129-2 Traffic going into Eastlake is already congested, I see
the traffic cutting thru Bonita and Rolling Hills Ranch to
bypass the 125 toll road.
129-2 Traffic-related impacts are discussed in Draft
EIR Section 5.11. The comment, as presented,
is outside the basic scope and purposes of
CEQA as defined in California Public
Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and
California Code of Regulations Section 15000,
et seq. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3,
transportation related issues are measured in
terms of VMT, as opposed to the older metric
of roadway level of service. Based on City
screening procedure the project would be
below the regional VMT and transportation
impacts would be considered less than
significant.
129-3 Chula Vista PD is understaffed and wasn't able respond
to the illegal marijuana dispensaries and their
trespassing customers. This location is too far from
emergency services.
129-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
129-4 Our complex located west of the site, has many
businesses that cater to children, such as pediatric
speech therapy, martial arts, dance, tutoring and
orthodontist.
129-4 See response to comment 129-1.
129-5 The estimated 10 elopements/ year pose a danger to
the surrounding business community and neighborhood.
129-5 See Global Response: Elopements.
RTC-59
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
129-6 This facility should be built in a different location closer
to major freeways, hospital and CVPD.
129-6 See Global Response: Amenities.
130 Ferrer, Gary** 130-1 Behavioral Health hospitals are necessary in the
treatment of those suffering from mental health
disorders. I will not argue against their existence. What I
oppose is building one dead center of a residential
neighborhood. If you Google Map existing mental health
hospitals, none I see are located in a middle of an
densely populated residential area.
130-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
130-2 Other points worth mentioning: 1. A majority of mental
health patients are transient and/or homeless. 2.
Discharging from the hospital without support means
patients will be released directly into the neighborhood.
130-2 See Global Responses: Homeless Patients
and Public Transportation.
130-3. Patients will have the wherewithal to leave if they don’t
comply with their treatment plan.
130-3 See Global Responses: Security Measures and
Elopements.
130-4 Substance abuse addiction is prevalent with mental
health patients.
130-4 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Living with Mental Illness.
130-5 There is little to no law enforcement presence in the
area.
130-5 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
130-6 Patients will return to the area to seek admittance back
into the hospital.
130-6 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, the following
response is provided.
Scripps and Acadia are aware of no data or
other information to support this comment. Of
the tens of thousands of patients served daily
throughout California and the country, it is
extremely rare for a patient to return back
unexpectedly to the hospital area after leaving.
130-7 Arcadia has a history of mismanaging their faculties. 130-7 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
RTC-60
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare
130-8 Destroying the integrity of our community and the
property value of our neighborhood.
130-8 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
131 Fieck, Diana 131-1 I live in Rolling Hills Ranch. This proposed hospital butts
right up to house in our community. What separates this
plot of land from the neighborhood a strip of grass,
sidewalk and street. That's it! So for all those who think
this hospital is a great idea to have, let me ask you this,
"How would you feel if you had a proposed hospital right
across the street from your house?" Would you feel
comfortable? This hospital needs to be place in an new
undeveloped area close to the freeway.
131-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
132 Fleming, Crawford 132-1 I grew up near a public mental institution, which was
located in a nearby commercial area with plenty of law
enforcement and public transit. Because many people
who are released from care have nowhere to go, for
various reasons, some would take up residence in the
public areas near the hospital.
132-1 See Global Responses: Public Transportation
and Homeless Patients.
132-2 With the lack of transportation and police in the
proposed neighborhood, the issues and crime that result
from their unfortunate circumstances will only be
multiplied in an area like this.
132-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
132-3 If the administration from the developers or city says
they don't know enough about the impact, they have
either not done any research or are lying. You can drive
around the neighbor of any facility like this or just look
on a crime map and see exactly what those impacts are.
I fully believe our city, county, and State need more
mental health care. However, because of the
unfortunate impacts to the surrounding community, our
city needs to be smarter about where those are placed.
The community seems to be definitively opposed to this
132-3 With respect to the location of the project, see
Global Response: Location. The remainder of
this comment does not raise an issue related to
the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be
included in the administrative record and
presented to the City decision makers within
the Final EIR.
RTC-61
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
project. It would certainly raise concerns about who the
officials are really working for if this were approved.
133 Flores, Lauren 133-1 My family and I are in this neighborhood because of the
safety of our surroundings and have worked hard to get
here. Bringing this into this community is going to affect
our ability to feel comfortable in our home and
neighborhood. This is not something that I would like to
have my child grow up so close in proximity to.
133-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
134 Flores, Manuel 134-1 Not safe 134-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations
and Security Measures.
135 Flores, Marylupe 135-1 Hello, I vehemently oppose the location of this
psychiatric hospital, due to its proximity to our homes
and schools.
135-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
135-2 As a licensed mental health clinician, I am an ardent
advocate of behavioral health services and recognize
their dire need. However, this project is poorly planned,
it is no where near all the recommended community
resources.
135-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
135-3 Also, the hospital partner for this endeavor has a horrific
track record with well established criminal and civil
complaints from both their staff as well as consumers.
135-3 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. However, see Global Response:
Acadia Healthcare.
135-4 Scripps already offers medical services in downtown
Chula Vista, so near that site would be a much more
practical and favorable location. It would provide and
integrated approach with primary care. It would also be
closer to the police and several outpatient therapy
programs to provide appropriate after care.
135-4 See response to comment 135-2.
135-5 I resoundingly urge everyone to completely reject this
proposal and redirect it to a more suitable setting. This
does not belong in our residential neighborhood. Thank
you.
135-5 Comment noted.
136 Fong, Zabrina 136-1 We strongly oppose. The location of this facility would
not benefit our community or the patients. In close
proximity there are several businesses that cater to
children and schools nearby.
136-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
RTC-62
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
136-2 There are no hospitals accessible and there are no
major public transportation available other than a bus
stop blocks away.
136-2 See Global Responses: Public Transportation
and Amenities.
136-3 Patients would not get their needs met in this location
like they would close to a hospital in a more non
suburban neighborhood like ours.
136-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
137 Forster, Erin 137-1 There is no infrastructure to support this facility. There is
no public transportation near. Patients will be discharged
outside children’s facilities. We need better services
137-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
138a Foster, M 138a-1 I strongly oppose the plans for Eastlake Behavior Health
Hospital Project EIR 20-0001. This location is not
appropriate for the safety of the families that live here,
not the patients that would be admitted/discharged from
the facility. This is a safe, family community, with
schools, preschools, and pediatricians offices within eye
sight of the location. It’s not appropriate, nor safe, to
have a behavioral health center in this community.
138a-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Example of Locations.
138a-2 When patients are discharged from the behavioral
health hospital, it will be up to them to walk to public
transportation and get themselves “home”, and you
cannot guarantee that those patients, who all have a
history of mental health/behavioral issues, will do so.
138a-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
138a-3 The surrounding neighborhoods, shopping centers,
preschools, elementary schools, community parks,
middle schools, etc. will ultimately become less safe for
our families and children as a result. That’s not fair to
the patients nor the community.
138a-3 See Global Responses: Security Measures and
Living with Mental Illness.
138a-4 The facility should be built in an area where it is within
closer proximity to a hospital, with ample public
transportation immediately adjacent to the facility, and
with adequate distance between neighborhoods/schools
and the facility.
138a-4 See Global Responses: Amenities, Location
and Example of Locations.
138b Franco, Ed 138b-1 To the planning commission:
This is in regards to the proposed 120 Bed Behavioral
health hospital proposed in our commercial district of
Eastlake. in additional this is a residential area and
thriving community.
138b-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.,
and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. Additionally, this comment does
not raise an issue related to the content or
adequacy of the environmental analysis of the
RTC-63
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
I disapprove of such a venture!!!!! .I am outrage a plan is
being considered. I am concern with safety, security,
and protocol. Besides that, the end result would be a
decrease of the value of our properties. There are too
many issues to take a chance in our planned
community. As it is, i moved to this area for a bit of piece and quiet in
the nearby neighborhood. My home is worth over 1
million dollars and with it comes expectations. Down the
street is a senior citizen facility that i did not think much
when it was being built. I thought they did a fantasic job
on the looks of the place. Unfortunately, senior citizens
die more than others and are taken to the hospital all the
time. So, i am no longer blind to what may look like a
nice location. With it, unfortunately, comes issues. 4000-5000 patients per year will also come with issues. I
don't think anyone will dispute that. It is not fair our
community will have to endure another hazard and issue
to our community. I would have never moved here if i knew a Senior
Citizen retirement community and it's daily sirens was
going to be built. I have endured that facility out of the
goodness and goodwill of our senior citizens. I too will
grow old. But now you are asking me to endure a
Behavioral hospital in addition to it. It is a bit too
much!!!!!! I get we all need to do our share but both is a
bit too much for one community. It's not right.
Daily, I hear the sirens of the rushing back and forth to
the facility. It is very frustrating. Now you are asking me
and my family to add a behavioral health hospitial? I am
sure you too would not want both types of facilities near
your home? Each community has to share in that
responsibility but no community should have to do both.
This is not what i expected near my home and business
location: Venture Commerce building. I plan on
protesting this venture and gather as much support as I
can to stop this!!!
Draft EIR, and no further response is required.
This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
RTC-64
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
Please advise why I should have to endure this hospital
a mile away from my home and adjacent to my business
office? Thank you for your time.
Ed Franco
2586 Catamaran Way, Chula Vista, CA 91914
139 Friesen, Jamie 139-1 We don’t know enough information about the impact on
the city and neighborhood.
139-1 The EIR addresses all environmental related
impacts as required under CEQA.
139-2 The lack of public transportation and police staffing is a
real problem for a facility of this type. The lack of
information is problematic.
139-2 See Global Responses: Public Transportation
and Emergency Services.
139-3 I’m not opposed to mental health facilities but this
location isn’t ideal. In the midst of a neighborhood and
restaurants and family establishments is odd.
139-3 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
139-4 It’s not close to any hospitals. 139-4 See Global Response: Amenities.
139-5 Without a lot more information and clear expectations
(and consequences for not following those expectations)
this is a hard no.
139-5 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers.
140 Fuller, Jessica 140-1 I hope those who will have this “facility” in their
neighborhood know how abusive this company is.... I
surely wouldn’t want that as a homeowner.
140-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise
an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR,
and no further response is required. This
comment will be included in the administrative
record within the Final EIR and presented to
the City decision makers. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
141 Furtado, Yvette 141-1 I vehemently oppose the building or development of
Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital Project EIR 20-0001.
It is the wrong location and the impact on the security
and safety of neighboring residential communities,
schools and businesses has not been taken into
account!
141-1 See Global Responses: Project Location,
Example of Locations and Security Measures.
RTC-65
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
142 G, Abby 142-1 Oppose 142-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
143 G, Raquel 143-1 Should be places near a hospital away
from family homes.
143-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
144 Galarneau, Todd
(Support)
144-1 I am commenting in my capacity as the
2021 President of the Chula Vista
Chamber of Commerce Board of
Directors. Chula Vista needs the Eastlake
Behavioral Health Hospital, which will
provide expanded and responsive
behavioral health services to the
community with no significant
environmental impacts, as detailed in the
draft EIR. Mental health facilities are an
important part of our public health system
and for people impacted by mental health
issues, finding and accessing treatment
resources can be a real problem. This
project will also bring economic benefits to
our community in the form of new jobs
and increased property tax revenue. As
the President of the Board of Directors for
the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, I
am in full support of this project.
144-1 Comment in support of the project is noted.
145 Galvan, Norma 145-1 I oppose to the construction of this place
in Chula Vista.
145-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
146 Gammon, Eva 146-1 I strongly oppose this project . We don’t
need a mental hospital near by schools
and homes . Build it somewhere else!
146-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
147 Gammon, William 147-1 I strongly oppose this project . The city
needs to think of the people instead of
profit for once ! My family is considering
moving to a different neighborhood if the
project gets approved and so are a lot of
people I know .
147-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
RTC-66
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
148 Gandara, Alberto 148-1 Who would even think of this? First we
have the bus routes and a homeless
problem that was never seen before. Now
we need to crowd Eastlake more with
extra things that may not be held under
control? The people who support this idea
have "lived" in Eastlake. But no longer live
here.
148-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
149 Garcia, Edgar 149-1 I strongly oppose. A suburb is definitely
not the place for this sort of facility.
149-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
150 Garcia, Marcelino 150-1 This would not make our community safe
for kids , psychiatric hospital would make
a dangerous/ inhabitable place for a kid
friendly neighborhood knowing that most
homes contain a child having lived here
for 5+ years
150-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations, Security
Measures, and Living with Mental Illness.
151 Garcia, Sally 151-1 I oppose this project. We do not need this
hospital in our community.
151-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
152 Gaskill, James 152-1 This proposed area is more residential
than commercial. The number of schools
and child related businesses and parks
should be self evident that a psychiatric
facility would not be a wise installment in
this area. To build this facility in this
location is to ignore the reality of the
situation and I believe would be criminal
political malfeasance not if but when a
resident of this facility escapes and hurts
someone in this bedroom community.
152-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
153 George, April 153-1 Oppose. This does not belong in a
residential neighborhood surrounded by
schools,
153-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
153-2 with the nearest hospital miles away. 153-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
RTC-67
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
154 George, April 154-1 We don't have the appropriate
infrastructure for a hospital of this size and
type. Very bad idea for location.
154-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
155 George, Jonathan 155-1 As someone who is in law enforcement, I
know the dangers of a facility like this
being in close proximity of a huge
residential neighborhood. This is a bad
location for this type of facility.
155-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
156 Gomez, Gabriel 156-1 Strongly opposed to this site due to the
proximity to residences.
156-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
156-2 From all research, Acadia has a terrible
track record. Choose a better location not
so close to schools and homes. And
choose a better partner than Acadia.
156-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
157 Gomez, Juan 157-1 I oppose the location of this facility. 157-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
158 Gomez, Noel 158-1 Very much Oppose. This is an absurd
location for this type of facility!
158-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
159 Gonzalez, Michele 159-1 100% opposed to this 159-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
160 Gonzalez, Rosella 160-1 Eastlake is not the right location for a
Behavioral/mental Heath hospital. Please
find another suitable non-residential
location.
����
160-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
161 Gonzalez, Sandra
(Neutral)
161-1 Safety is a big issue with a facility such as
the one being proposed. My main concern
is that there is an unwillingness to answer
questions in regard to this project and the
safety of the surrounding communities.
Why is there such unwillingness? Where
is the transparency? What is not being
shared and why?
161-1 See Global Response: Security Measures.
RTC-68
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
162 Greenberg Howard
(Support)
162-1 As a long time investor in the Eastlake
area, I fully support the addition of this
much needed mental health facility. This
location as evidenced by the EIR is ideally
located and the partnership of Arcadia
and Scripps is second to none. Any delay
or denial of this project would be a failure
to the people of the neighborhood and
San Diego region. I urge your support for
this fantastic project.
162-1 Support for the project is noted.
163 Gregory, John 163-1 What a horrible idea. It will kill our
property values and be a danger to the
great area
163-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
164 Guardado, Kristin 164-1 Please do not allow this hospital to be
built in this location. It’s not safe for the
neighbors nor the patients.
164-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Security
Measures.
164-2 We do not have the police presence in
this neighborhood to keep everyone safe
and respond to the calls that are likely to
happen.
164-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
164-3 It is also asking for trouble to locate this
hospital near businesses that cater to
children and schools that are within
walking distance. Please look beyond
potential tax profits and do what’s best for
this community.
164-3 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
165 Guerra, Marco 165-1 Not the right location. This is not “central”
stop infiltrating our beautiful neighborhood
with your agenda items.
165-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
166 Guerrero, Eliel 166-1 This will negatively affect the entire
Eastlake area. The psychiatric patients
will be released in our area only steps
away from child associated
retailers/venues. Elementary school less
than half a mile away. We need to have
them relocate somewhere else.
166-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Public Transportation.
RTC-69
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
167 Guerrero, Marisa Espinosa 167-1 Do not support this plan. Our children
have classes right behind where this
facility would be and if would greatly
impact their safety and security to have a
facility like this in our Neighborhood. This
would also impact small business’s that
have been greatly impacted already this
Pat year.
167-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
167-2 Patients that are released from these
facilities or that self release would be free
to roam our community.
167-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
167-3 This is not well thought out or planned.
Strongly Oppose!
167-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
168 Guilloty, Maia 168-1 I strongly oppose the Eastlake Behavior
Health Hospital Project due to serious
safety concerns for both the patients and
neighboring families.
168-1 See Global Response: Security Measures.
169 Guilloty, Ricardo 169-1 This development lacks the infrastructure
planning to be successful. We must
reevaluate either the scope and size of
the facility or expanding local
infrastructure before proceeding with the
project if at all.
169-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
170 Guilloty, Ruben 170-1 This is a risky location for this facility. It is
close to schools and residential areas.
170-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
170-2 There is no mass transportation systems. 170-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
170-3 We oppose this facility in our family
neighborhood.
170-3 See response to comment 170-1.
171 Gurtiza, Michelle 171-1 OPPOSE 171-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
RTC-70
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
172 Guzman, Claudia 172-1 Oppose 1721-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
173 H, Diane (Support) 1731-1 Until you have a child suffering with
issues, you cannot know the
hopelessness and helpless feeling of
trying to find the resources to help your
child. I commend and support this facility
coming into the area to service a need
that is unmet at this time. I drove 45
minutes away to get support. for my child.
173-1 Support for the project is noted.
174 H, E 174-1 I am strongly opposed to the idea of
building a psychiatric facility in the
proposed location. To build such a facility
where there are large neighborhoods
surrounding the area is a poor idea.
174-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
174-2 Planting a psychiatric hospital this far
away from any other services would be a
major disservice to any potential patient in
the facility.
174-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
174-3 Building this hospital will drive down the
value of homes in the area, increase
traffic, and potentially increase crime due
to the nature of what is being proposed.
174-3 With respect to traffic, traffic related impacts are
discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.11. The comment, as
presented, is outside the basic scope and purposes of
CEQA as defined in California Public Resources Code
Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. Pursuant to CEQA
Section 15064.3, transportation related issues are
measured in terms of VMT, as opposed to the older
metric of roadway level of service. Based on City
screening procedure the project would be below the
regional VMT and transportation impacts would be
considered less than significant.
The remainder of the comment is noted. There are no
additional issues raised related to the content or
adequacy of the environmental analysis of the Draft
RTC-71
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
EIR, and no further response is required. This comment
will be included in the administrative record and
presented to the City decision makers within the Final
EIR.
174-4 These types of facilities let the patients
out to be “on their own” with no real follow
up. Eastlake does not realistically have
the appropriate infrastructure to handle
this type of a facility.
174-4 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
174-5 This would increase the potential
homeless population in this area as well.
174-5 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Homeless Patients.
174-6 If you are wanting to add something to this
space, a police substation would be an
incredible idea and a much better use of
the property. A police substation is
needed so desperately out here. We do
not need, nor do we want a psychiatric
hospital in our neighborhood. We don’t
care how much money the company is
willing to pay the city board members to
line their pockets. The city officials need to
realistically think if they would like to live
next door to a facility like this. If they
would want to raise their children around
the corner from this. If the honest answer
is no, then that should be your answer on
moving forward on this project. We
strongly oppose the psychiatric facility and
don’t want it here near our homes.
174-6 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
175 Hailey, Kristen 175-1 I am vehemently opposed to the proposed
location of this facility for several reasons.
The horrific history of the company,
175-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia’s Record
175-2 the proximity to residential housing -
including schools and bus stops,
175-2 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
175-3 the distance from an emergency
room/hospital,
175-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
175-4 the lack of police presence in this area, 175-4 See Global Response: Police.
RTC-72
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
175-5 and lack of infrastructure to accommodate
increased traffic make this proposal
absolutely untenable.
175-5 Traffic-related impacts are discussed in Draft EIR
Section 5.11. The comment, as presented, is outside
the basic scope and purposes of CEQA as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq., and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3,
transportation related issues are measured in terms of
VMT, as opposed to the older metric of roadway level of
service. Based on City screening procedure the project
would be below the regional VMT and transportation
impacts would be considered less than significant.
176 Hall, Kristen 176-1 I am strongly opposed to the proposed
location of this facility. A huge draw to this
area for homeowners is the suburban
climate, the safety for our children,
including schools and facilities that offer
family focused activities. The idea of
bringing in a psychiatric hospital,
surrounded by quiet neighborhoods
prominently housing young families is a
careless and irresponsible proposal.
176-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
176-2 The potential for patients either escaping
or being released with no transportation or
destination is a great concern.
176-2 See Global Response: Elopements.
177 Hansen, Jasmine 177-1 I strongly oppose. I am 100% for mental
health awareness/aid, however, there is
absolutely no reason to have this
psychiatric ward near so many residential
areas and preschools.
177-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
178 Harvey, Jerry 178-1 Strongly Opposed.
Here is an excerpt of one of many articles
on Acadia Healthcare.
178-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare
RTC-73
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
http://www.mavalue.org/research/acadia-
healthcare/
“We are short Acadia Healthcare
(NASDAQ: ACHC) because the company
has concealed widespread patient abuse
and neglect that results from pervasive
understaffing at its facilities. At Acadia,
cutting staffing costs to the bone is the
“secret sauce” used by management to
inflate short term profits. Acadia’s
existence makes the world a worse place
because its business model depends on
acquiring new facilities and then
degrading care, a losing proposition that
victimizes patients. We believe the
fundamental problem for investors is that
Acadia’s slash and burn approach to
behavioral healthcare is inherently
unsustainable and increasingly at risk of
unraveling.
CEO Joey Jacobs and his management
team first used this recipe at Psychiatric
Solutions (PSI) a decade ago, where
investors sued for fraud alleging that
Jacobs had “downplayed the alarming
incidents of abuse, neglect, and even
death” at company facilities, ultimately
winning a $65 million settlement. After
selling PSI to competitor UHS in 2010
amidst regulatory investigations, Jacobs
reassembled his PSI executive team at
Acadia to replicate this approach. Once
again, we believe Jacobs has
misrepresented the true nature of his
company to investors…….”
RTC-74
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
I ask you, is this what we want for our
community, our city and our future? To
partner with an unconscionable greedy
corporation.
179 Harvey, Lillian 179-1 Placing this facility in this location is NOT
GOOD for the prospective
residents/patients of the facility.
There are NO services (e.g.: medical,
food, shelters, transportation) located any
where near the proposed site. Where will
people who are released end up then? In
the local neighborhoods.
This type of release is NOT GOOD for the
residents of local neighborhoods.
179-1 See Global Response: Amenities.
179-2 This facility is too close to child-centered
places of business and schools. The kids
and families of east Chula Vista should
not be required to shoulder the burden of
this hospital for the rest of the county.
179-2 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
179-3 East Chula Vista is already experiencing a
negative change. The homeless
population is increasing and violent crime
is increasing. We have NOT been
afforded the EQUITY in city resources to
deal with either. Adding another variable
to this equation by approving the location
of a mental health facility without
holistically considering what the patients
and neighborhood needs is tantamount to
a malpractice of your duty as an elected
official.
179-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
179-4 This is not a case of NIMBY. It is simply a
fact: Placing a mental health facility
(intending to house individuals from all
over the county) at the end of a cul-de-
sac, completely isolated from ANY other
resources they may need is NOT GOOD
179-4 See response to comment 179-2.
Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
RTC-75
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
for anyone involved - except for whoever
is being paid to place it there.
Please, in this time of voices needing to
be heard - LISTEN to the VOICES OF
THE RESIDENTS. DO NOT PLACE THIS
FACILITY IN PROPOSED LOCATION.
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
180 Harvey, Lillian 180-1 This is not the appropriate location for this
facility. It will not benefit the patients nor
the community. Please find a location
closer to the other services the patients
may need (ie medical care, transportation,
housing, food). Thank you!
180-1 See Global Response: Amenities.
181 Hayden, Maria 181-1 With the amount of children living in and
Rolling Hills area, this is a significant risk
for our neighborhood.
181-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
182 Hernandez, Celina 182-1 Strongly oppose. This is less than a mile
from my home. Acadia is a disreputable
company with a litany of lawsuits and a
history of escapes/poor care/abuse. NO.
182-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Responses: Acadia Healthcare and Elopements.
183 Hernandez, Francisco 183-1 Given the location so close to residential
sites, I wish to share my strong opposition
to adding this facility at the noted location.
183-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
183-2 There are nearby areas closer to Otay
Ranch Mall that would be better suited for
this facility given
183-2 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
183-3 closeness of public transportation and 183-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
183-4 adequate parking without compromising
public safety.
183-4 As detailed in EIR Section 3.7, pursuant to the
Eastlake II Specific Plan (which governs development
standards), a hospital is required to provide 1.5 parking
spaces per bed. Therefore, the project is required to
provide a total of 180 parking spaces. The project
proposes to construct a total of 186 parking spaces,
with 20 of these designated as accessible spaces.
Therefore, there would be adequate on-site parking.
183-5 Thank you for your consideration of my
concern as a local resident since 2002.
183-5 Concluding comment is noted.
RTC-76
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
184 Hernandez, Raquel 184-1 Oppose use of facility so near daycare
centers and preschools. In that area there
are at least 3-4 preschool centers which
are vulnerable.
184-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
184-2 No public transportation means foot traffic
around that area by potentially mentally ill
people.
184-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
185 Hernandez, Tanya 185-1 This site location is a bad location for a
psychiatric hospital. This location literally
sits on top of several residential
neighborhoods here in Rolling Hills part of
Chula Vista. Any issues with this hospital
will be exposed in these neighborhoods
where families live and children play and
walk to school. I am opposed to this
particular location and strongly discourage
the city to approve it. Find a new
appropriate location, not so close to these
families.
185-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
186 Hetter, Noemi 186-1 I oppose having a behavioral hospital in
the area
186-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
187 Hightower, Irene 187-1 I strongly oppose the placement of this
behavioral health hospital at the location
selected. It is extremely misleading that it
is in a "Business Area" - I implore council
members to visit the site and go a few
yards North or East. Even just map it on
an app. This hospital is within yards and
certain less than a mile of homes with
young children and families as well as two
elementary schools and a middle school.
There will be incidents that can never be
erased from a child's mind for the rest of
their lives. Those with mental illnesses as
well as our children in the neighborhood
deserve better.
187-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Security Measures.
188 Howard, Jacob 188-1 I don’t want this in my neighborhood 188-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
189 Howeth, Elizabeth 189-1 Not a good location. 189-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
189-2 No public transportation. 189-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
RTC-77
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
189-3 Close to children’s facilities. Safety
concerns
189-3 See Global Responses: Example of Locations and
Security Measures.
190 Hunt, Elisa 190-1 Oppose 190-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
191 Ignacio, Janet 191-1 Not safe! 191-1 See Global Response: Security Measures.
192 Infante, Laura 192-1 I oppose this project, this is a terrible
location for such a facility.
192-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
192-2 This will add a bigger strain on our
police department.
192-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
192-3 I am co Ceres about traffic and safety. 192-3 Traffic hazards are discussed in EIR Section 5.11. As
stated therein, the project does not include any features
that would substantially increase hazards. No off-site
improvements are proposed that would change the
design or alignment of existing area roadways.
Changes to the existing circulation system would be
limited to the project commitment of funds for the
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Harold Place/Fenton Street. This improvement would
not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
or incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
With respect to safety, see Global Response: Security
Measures.
193 Inocencio, Alli 193-1 This facility should not be located so
close to family homes, schools, and
multiple child-centered businesses.
193-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
193-2 The location is not near a hospital or 193-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
193-3 public transportation which also makes it
a poor location for the patients.
193-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
194 Isaac, Rodney 194-1 I oppose the building of this facility due
to added traffic,
194-1 Traffic-related impacts are discussed in Draft EIR
Section 5.11. The comment, as presented, is outside
the basic scope and purposes of CEQA as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq., and California Code of Regulations Section
RTC-78
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
15000, et seq. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3,
transportation related issues are measured in terms of
VMT, as opposed to the older metric of roadway level of
service. Based on City screening procedure the project
would be below the regional VMT and transportation
impacts would be considered less than significant.
194-2 noise pollution 194-2 See Global Response: Noise.
194-3 and unaccompanied individuals
discharged from facility who most of the
time are not given adequate housing
and mental health resources.
194-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
194-4 It is suggested that it will have a
negative effect on property values based
on issues mentioned above. A more
appropriate and accessible location
should be near Sharp Chula Vista or
Scripps Chula Vista. In fact back in the
80’s and 90’s there was behavioral
health facility near location of Sharp
Chula Vista. The community cares about
what happens to our fellow citizens who
suffer from a mental illness but feel that
this location is not appropriate for
reasons mentioned.
194-4 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
195 Jacob, Ivan 195-1 Oppose 195-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
196 Jakubs, Tonja
(Support)
196-1 We need more facilities to help, we need
to be more open to our children about
mental health. We need to stop the
stigma on mental health, as it does NOT
discriminate. Rich or poor
neighborhoods, we are all effected.
Opening more facilities opens more
doors to help & make a difference.
196-1 Support for the project is noted.
RTC-79
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
20.6% of U.S. adults experienced
mental illness in 2019 This represents 1
in 5 adults. 5.2% of U.S. As suicide,
opioid use disorder, and other mental
health issues were playing out, the
country’s capacity to help wasn’t up to
the task. When people became ill
enough to need hospitalization, there
was only one psychiatric bed for every
3,000 Americans. That’s one-tenth of
what we had in the 1950s. For people
with severe mental illness, it was hard to
find inpatient treatment and, for those
who did, they were often forced into
shorter stays than needed.
About 3 in 4 young teens seeking
information online about depression said
they were looking for personal
anecdotes from people who had
suffered in the past. Rather than
pressing that you want to keep your
community a fake Pleasantville, maybe
think about how many life’s can be
helped.
More than half of people with mental
illness don't receive help for their
disorders. Often, people avoid or delay
seeking treatment due to concerns
about being treated differently or fears of
losing their jobs and livelihood. That's
because stigma, prejudice and
discrimination against people with
mental illness is still very much a
problem.
197 Janzen, Michelle 197-1 I live in the Eastlake area of Chula Vista
and I strongly oppose a behavioral
hospital in this area.
197-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
RTC-80
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
198 Jarina, Aileen 198-1 I strongly oppose this hospital. This is
not the right location. The reasons are
too obvious and too many to even say.
To the city officials, I plead to you all to
do your job. My neighbors who have
started this CVSAFE page have worked
tirelessly doing research to take care of
our community. Pls also do your own
research and dont just take what
information ACADIA is giving you. I am
still puzzled why this is still an issue
now. This hospital is important but this is
not the right location for it.
198-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
199 Jarina, Manuelito 199-1 I strongly oppose this psychiatric
hospital to be built in our
community/neighborhood.
My primary concern is relating to the
safety of our kids. This facility will be in
close proximity to elementary schools,
middle school & High school.
Looking up the distance from schools:
• Thurgood Marshall Elementary - 4 mins -
1.3 miles
• Salt creek Elementary- 3 mins - .9 miles
• Arroyo Vista Charter school - 5 mins - 1.5
miles
• Eastlake Middle School- 5 min 1.4 miles
• Eastlake High School - 6 mins - 1.6 miles
Kids from these schools walk to & from
school to their homes & relating to this
kind of facility’s release/discharge
policies, I don’t think it will be a safe
environment for the kids.
199-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
RTC-81
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
In addition to the accessibility and
proximity issues, the currently proposed
site on is surrounded by children's
activities, schools and single family
residences.
199-2 This Facility will not only change the
character of the neighborhood
199-2 Potential impacts to community character is discussed
in EIR Section 5.2. As stated therein, construction of
the project could impact the surrounding visual
character by changing the landscape of the project site
in a way that could block views. However, the project
would comply with all relevant General Plan objectives
which establish policies focused on the requirement for
design review to ensure new development is
compatible with the surrounding visual character and
quality. Additionally, the project’s setbacks and
landscape plan have been designed to provide
additional buffering along the project’s residential
interface consistent with the Eastlake II GDP/Business
Center II Supplemental SPA Plan. Overall, the project
would comply with applicable regulations governing
scenic quality and would be designed to fit the visual
character of the site and its surroundings. Application of
these policies to the project’s design would ensure the
project’s consistency with the existing community
character of the area, and ensure surrounding views of
local hillsides would not be impaired. Impacts related to
visual quality would be less than significant.
199-3 but it also poses a danger to this
community.
199-3 See Global Responses: Security Measures and Living
with Mental Illness.
199-4 Relating to this concern, increase in
traffic,
199-4 Traffic-related impacts are discussed in Draft EIR
Section 5.11. The comment, as presented, is outside
the basic scope and purposes of CEQA as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq., and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3,
transportation related issues are measured in terms of
VMT, as opposed to the older metric of roadway level of
service. Based on City screening procedure the project
RTC-82
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
would be below the regional VMT and transportation
impacts would be considered less than significant.
199-5 loitering, and homelessness create
safety concerns for the many schools,
parks, and day care centers that are in
the neighborhoods immediately
adjacent.
199-5 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Homeless Patients.
199-6 The facility will be directly located in our
neighborhood and we are all concerned
regarding the safety of our kids & the
community’s safety.
199-6 See responses to comments 199-1 and 199-3.
200 Jarvis, Gabriela 200-1 Oppose 200-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
201 Johnson, G 201-1 Terrible provider, with various lawsuits. 201-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
201-2 Find another location. We need mental
health but not this one.
201-2 See Global Response: Project Location.
202 Johnson, Malik 202-1 We do not have the infrastructure to
support this, build near hospital.
202-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
202-2 This company is terrible, look at their
lawsuits and understaffing complaints!
202-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
203 Johnson, Susan
(Support)
203-1 PLEASE go ahead with the facility.
Clearly we need it!
203-1 Support for the project is noted.
204 Jones, Beau 204-1 Strongly oppose this project as this facility
requires several institutions to be in place
204-1 See Global Response: Amenities.
RTC-83
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
well in advance, which Eastlake currently
does not have. A well equipped hospital
with a trauma facility, an established
police station with proper staffing and the
appropriate supplemental services that
this project requires are the grim reality of
the mental health world.
204-2 A suburban neighborhood is not the
proper location for this facility as it
severely impacts the quality of life and
safety of the residents.
204-2 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
204-3 Approving this project without the
necessary services in place is a recipe for
disaster.
204-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
205 Jones, Cheryl 205-1 This is not the neighborhood for this
facility. It is located to close to homes,
schools, and businesses. Many of these
businesses cater to children.
205-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
205-2 The community is not equipped to handle
this facility. We do not have a good public
transportation system,
205-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
205-3 hospitals, 205-3 See Global Response Amenities.
205-4 police stations, etc. 205-4 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
205-5 I am originally from Fayetteville, AR where
Acadia has another facility. I know the
incompetence of Acadia. Please do not
bring a company with a history of
mismanagement into our neighborhood.
205-5 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
206 Jones, Mayra 206-1 I oppose the placement of this facility near
children. This type of facility needs to be
near a hospital.
206-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Amenities.
207 K, Vered 207-1 I OPPOSE the Eastlake Behavior Health
Hospital Project EIR 20-0001
development. Eastlake is the WRONG
choice. The location of the facility is better
suited in a more remote location and NOT
207-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
RTC-84
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
in a highly residential area close to
homes, schools & businesses.
208 Kamaji, Esther 208-1 I totally oppose this is not an area for that
kind of hospital this is a family friendly
neighborhood.
208-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
208-2 I don’t think if would benefit no one just
the people earning money from this.
208-2 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
209 L, Rhea 209-1 STRONGLY OPPOSE. This facility would
be too close to multiple schools and adds
potential risk to our community.
209-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
210 Labaria, Adelle 210-1 There is definitely a need for more mental
health facility in our region. Having said
that though, this proposed site does not
meet the minimum safety requirements for
such a facility. It is in close proximity to
people's backyard and children places.
210-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Security Measures.
210-2 There's a lack of resources as it is for
police and emergency services that will be
further stretched if this facility pushes
through.
210-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
210-3 In addition, the entities that are tasked to
run this facility have major deficiencies in
the way they do business in the past.
210-3 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
211 Lacerna, Jake 211-1 Move this facility somewhere else. Keep
our neighborhood safe for our kids.
211-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
212 Lasalle, Nora 212-1 I am against of having a psychiatric facility
in our family oriented neighborhood.
212-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
212-2 It would be more suitable next to a medical
complex, already existing, to provide
diverse services to the patients.
212-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
212-3 The location is near children’s and family
oriented businesses. I am totally against
having the hospital here.
212-3 See response to comment 212-1.
RTC-85
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
213 Layno, Jeremiah 213-1 I oppose the development of this in our
neighborhood. Resident of Eastlake 1
since 1987.
213-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
214 Lefebvre, Alyson 214-1 Oppose! This type of facility should not be
close to homes and schools.
214-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
215 Leon, Hugo 215-1 Worst idea ever to propose this facility in
residential area with
215-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
215-2 major lack of public transportation 215-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation
216 Liceaga, Raquel 216-1 My daughter's elementary school (Salt
Creek) is basically next door, from this
planned facility.
216-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
216-2 With Acadia's poor safety record. I am
afraid this facility will impose great risk,
towards the safety of almost a thousand
kids, who attend this school.
216-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Responses: Acadia Healthcare and Security
Measures
216-3 Move the facility elsewhere! There is vast
land available, in Otay.
216-3 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
217 Lindgren, Kerri 217-1 I vehemently oppose this project due to its
location. The fight is not against mental
health, it is against keeping our children
and community safe.
217-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Security
Measures.
218 Lichster, John 218-1 This location is not appropriate for the
institution. 100% OPPOSE!
218-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
219 Lipson, David 219-1 Not an appropriate location 219-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
220 Loe, Alma 220-1 It is your responsibility to institute
measures that will keep our community
safe. Placing this hospital in Eastlake puts
our children and community at risk. This
facility does not belong In a residential
area. Plenty of space in Otay Mesa near
the border or in San Diego.
220-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
221 Lopez, Isabella 221-1 Oppose use of facility so near daycare
centers and preschools. In that area there
are at least 3-4 preschool centers which
are vulnerable.
221-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
RTC-86
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
221-2 No public transportation means foot traffic
around that area by potentially mentally ill
people.
221-2 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Living with Mental Illness.
222 Lopez, Isabella 222-1 I oppose the decision to locate the
behavioral hospital near such a residential
area. I think the hospital in itself is a great
addition to San Diego. However, I believe
that the hospital should not be located
near such a residential area near many
schools, day cares, and homes.
222-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
223 Lopez, Jackeline 223-1 I strongly oppose to this, there will be a
facility too close to our schools, and
recreational areas. This will create an
unsafe place for too many young kids and
teenagers if the unexpected were to
happen too close to a community. I
understand the need for a facility but it’s
too close to our schools, school bus stops,
playgrounds.
223-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Security Measures.
223-2 This company Acadia as well has a very
irresponsible track record and are not for
safety or well-being of all.
223-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia HealthCare.
223-3 Find a different location one not close to
the communities.
223-3 See response to comment 223-1.
224 Lopez, Mirna 224-1 My opposition is because I have kids and
I'm worried about what type of the people
with mental illness come around our
neighborhood and can be close our kids ,
our kids need be safe and we are
homeowners and we pay more money for
our families can stay on safe and good
neighborhood.
224-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Living with Mental Illness.
225 Lorenzo, Paul 225-1 Not the right location 225-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
226 Low, Mike 226-1 I am a physician and live in This
community. I deal with psychiatric patients
daily. Suicidal, homicidal. Drug addicts. If
something were to happen to a
226-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
RTC-87
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
child/neighbor or community member, the
developers and hospital should be sued
for everything they are worth
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
227 Lowther, Jim
(Support)
227-1 As a health insurance broker in the City of
Chula Vista, I support the proposed
Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital.
Many of my clients that live in East Chula
Vista neighborhoods come to me looking
for mental health providers and most of
the time they have to travel great
distances for their care (outside of Chula
Vista). Our city should be a leader when it
comes to providing this level of care. The
facilities are safe and the area is properly
zoned for a hospital of this kind. Chula
Vista needs this facility for its residents.
227-1 Support for the project is noted.
228 Lujan, Roberto 228-1 I oppose. 228-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
229 Luko, Bibi 229-1 The CUP should not be granted on the
basis that this facility is not congruent with
the existing businesses.
229-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
229-2 Acadia's proposal requires significant
security in an attempt to limit potential
dangerous situations with patients and
residents. The security elements are:
security doors in the lockdown ward that
will house individuals that are a danger to
themselves or others, various layers of
security fencing, and a 24/7 guard. Is
building this facility 400ft from a preschool
and children's activities in the best interest
for all?
229-2 See Global Responses: Security Measures,
Elopements, and Example of Locations.
229-3 It's important to be realistic about the
type of security requirements that are
needed, why they are needed, what
229-3 The Eastlake Hospital is not a residential facility. It is a
hospital providing acute short-term inpatient care and is
not subject to Jessica's Law.
RTC-88
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
scenarios could arise and who they
would impact. In Rocklin, CA, a similar
proposal got denied based on an
investigation concluding that neighboring
schools would be unable to lockdown in
a timely manner as well as Jessica's
Law. (Article here: https://bit.ly/3gTcIiZ)
229-4 This is not a question about whether or
not this facility should be built or if mental
health care is necessary because it is. It's
a question about finding a location,
(because although I would never entrust a
family member to this company, changing
operators is not on the table) that meets
safety criteria for all. Eastlake and South
Bay have plenty of available land. If the
operator is truly committed to this area
they will still partner with the city but do so
in a more appropriate location.
229-4 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
230 Luko, Daniel 230-1 The intent of Jessica’s Law maintains that
2,000 feet or more between sex offenders
and sensitive area’s such as schools and
parks is a good barometer. This is
applicable to the proposed site as it is
400ft from a preschool and children’s
activities. Rocklin, CA already set the
precedent for denying a facility such as
this next to a school.
230-1 The Eastlake Hospital is not a residential facility. It is a
hospital providing acute short-term inpatient care and
is not subject to Jessica's Law.
230-2 Additionally, a facility that requires a CUP
in order to operate and requires an
extraordinary amount of security
measures is NOT suitable for this location.
This is the city’s legal notice that you are
putting Eastlake residents, school children
and patients at risk should you choose to
approve this project.
230-2 See Global Response: Project Location.
230-3 Additionally, please review the headlines
about Acadia and do not take their word
for their track record because they have
230-3 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
RTC-89
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
been documented as deceiving investors
and committing fraud on a large scale.
That will not happen in Chula Vista if you
do not let it.
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
230-4 Finally it would be unethical to count on
future tax revenue to respond to the uptick
in calls for service or for other CV
projects. Please put our safety over profit
and ask the applicant to relocate this
project site. Lastly, There has been
another ethics complaint received by the
city regarding the council member in
district 1 based on the la prensa article
alleging pay for play. Those allegations
should be investigated before this project
moves any further through the process.
Please review:
https://tinyurl.com/AcadiaNews
230-4 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
231 M, Gina 231-1 Not the appropriate location 231-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
232 M, Lilly 232-1 I strongly oppose 232-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
233 Madlangbayan, Alma** 233-1 I am a resident of the Rolling Hills
neighborhood in Eastlake. The proposed
location of the hospital would be nested in
the middle of a residential neighborhood
and would be literally seconds away from
an elementary school bus stop.
233-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
233-2 I believe there are other locations better
equipped for this facility in regards to
infrastructure - closer proximity to
hospitals and freeway access.
233-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
233-3 My biggest concern is for the safety of our
children, of which there is a high
percentage in this neighborhood. After a
233-3 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Living with Mental Illness.
RTC-90
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
5150 hold, a patient is free to roam and
likely to come in contact with children.
233-4 Our community acknowledges the
importance of mental health facilities but
Acadia has a long, and graphic, history of
negligence and abuse regarding their
patients. Acadia cannot be trusted to care
for their patients while they are held in
their facilities, let alone ensure their safety
after release.
233-4 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response Acadia Healthcare.
234 Madlangbayan, Brian 234-1 I vehemently oppose the location of this
facility. The proposed site is near homes,
schools and parks.
234-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
234-2 Instead, it should be adjacent to a hospital
and other support services.
234-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
235 Magill, Jenny 235-1 Absolutely oppose. The company has a
horrendous track record and it would be a
bad addition to the neighborhood
regardless.
235-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia’s Record.
236 Maldonado, Nikki 236-1 Not interested. 236-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
237 Manalo, Joce 237-1 There is no reason that Eastlake is
suitable for a hospital like this. It is no
where central for the county.
237-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
237-2 There are no hospitals close by. 237-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
237-3 For patients who are released we don't
have close public transportation.
237-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
238 Manders, Mark 238-1 Strongly Oppose. 238-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
RTC-91
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
239 Manders, William 239-1 This is not the area to build this type of
facility. The infrastructure is not suited to
accommodate a mental health facility and
the location chosen places it too close to
schools, homes, businesses, and
recreational venues.
239-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Public Transportation.
239-2 We are already beginning to experience a
growing homeless population and crime
rates are on the rise, both of which have
mandated increased police presence.
Adding this facility will only exacerbate the
problems that are manifesting themselves
now.
239-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Living with Mental Illness.
240 Marks, William 240-1 Terrible location, 240-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
240-2 terrible company. 240-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
241 Marmon, Heather 241-1 Not the appropriate placement for this
type of facility being so close to our
schools and other family friendly
businesses with definite risks posed for
young children within close proximity.
241-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
241-2 We have very limited public transportation
around here so it is a major concern as to
what will happen when these people get
released and have no means for
transportation as many needing these
types of services are transients.
241-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
242 Marsh, Timothy 242-1 The operating company has numerous
violations indicating that they will not care
to keep our community safe. This needs
to go away from neighborhoods, if at all, in
Chula Vista.
242-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
243 Martinez, Armando 243-1 In favor of mental health but not right
place
243-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
RTC-92
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
244 Martinez, Mayra 244-1 Too close to homes, children activities,
parks.
244-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
245 Martinez, Yeojin 245-1 I dont believe this, really??whose idea is
this????
245-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
246 McClintock, Brandon 246-1 Our family owns a home within feet of this
proposed facility. We have major
concerns about this project:
We oppose the location of the project. My
wife and I are both educators and
understand the importance and value of
health related services in schools and
communities but we question if this is the
best place for them.
246-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
246-2 No matter what anyone says a facility like
this is not 100% safe and when an
emergency does occur should the children
living in the surrounding homes and
attending the nearby schools suffer stress
and trauma of someone who has
escaped? It’s not a matter of if but when.
Placing a facility so close to schools and
homes increases the likelihood of events
such as lockdowns, secure campuses,
trespassing, home invasions, and crime
overall. Students, parents, and teachers
shouldn’t have to live in fear. No matter
what anyone says a facility like this is not
100% safe and when an emergency does
occur should the children living in the
surrounding homes and attending the
nearby schools suffer stress and trauma
of someone who has escaped? It’s not a
matter of if but when. Placing a facility so
close to schools and homes increases the
246-2 See Global Response: Elopements.
RTC-93
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
likelihood of events such as lockdowns,
secure campuses, trespassing, home
invasions, and crime overall. Students,
parents, and teachers shouldn’t have to
live in fear.
246-3 The location in eastern Chula Vista is
underrepresented and underserved by
Chula Vista Police Department compared
with other areas of the city. When an
incident does occur how long until there is
a police presence in the area?
246-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
246-4 There are also no medical hospitals within
miles when a major incident occurs. Many
of these mental care facilities are placed
on or near major health care facilities that
can aid and assist in the variety of needs
of the housed patients.
246-4 See Global Response: Amenities.
246-5 There is also lack of major public
transportation in accessing the facility.
246-5 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
246-6 There are better options out there for the
location of this facility.
246-6 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
247 McClintock, Julie 247-1 We have major concerns about this
project continued:
We oppose the facility because of the
track record of the company. We have
read numerous articles that have put into
question the safety of the company.
247-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
247-2 It’s a sad day when parents don’t feel safe
letting their children walk to a neighbor’s
house, to play outside, or to check the
mail on their own street. Our family,
neighbors, residents, and community will
no longer feel safe living here if the facility
is built in the proposed location. We can
do better for the people of Chula Vista and
for those individuals that desperately need
mental health services. Let’s find a real
solution that works for everyone!
247-2 See Global Responses: Security Measures and Living
with Mental Illness.
RTC-94
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
248 McNown, Sandra 248-1 In October 2018, Acadia announced it
was closing all 10 of its Ascent Children’s
Health Services in Arkansas after these
came under scrutiny in 2017 when a 5-
year-old boy died after being left in 140
degree heat in a van outside its West
Memphis facility. Criminal charges were
filed against workers at the site and
Ascent was placed under review by Office
of Medicaid Inspector General. [8]
Acadia’s executives previously owned
another chain of psychiatric hospitals,
Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. (PSI) that was
sued in 2009 over allegations that patients
“suffered from systematic quality of care
and patient safety problems.”[9] UHS
bought PSI in 2010 and settled the suit for
$65 million in 2015.
248-1 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
249 Meaux, Florence 249-1 A behavioral hospital should be built
closer to Scripps CV Hospital which is
closer To trolley and other mass Transit.
Also closer to an acute care hospital.
249-1 See Global Response: Amenities.
250 Meaux, Katherine 250-1 This is a terrible location not only for the
residents and children of this community,
but also for your patients of this
establishment.
250-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
250-2 The nearest hospital and police station is
across town.
250-2 See Global Responses Amenities and Emergency
Services.
250-3 You are putting the safety of the city and
your patients at risk by putting in this
hospital in this location.
250-3 See response to comment 250-1 and Global Response:
Security Measures.
250-4 This company does not care about the
patients if they did, they would be located
next to a hospital.
250-4 See response to comment 250-2.
250-5 This is irresponsible and gross
negligence. This attempt shows what
anyone will do to save a buck or try to get
re-elected.
250-5 Comment noted.
RTC-95
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
251 Meaux, Kyle 251-1 My family and I STRONGLY oppose this
behavior center. It is proposed in a family
oriented neighborhood
251-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
251-2 that is lacking in public transportation 251-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
251-3 and adequate Police patrols as it is. 251-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
251-4 There are far better locations for this
facility than right in the middle of a family
friendly neighborhood.
251-4 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
252 Mellon, Claudia 252-1 Enough!
Build a police station instead!
252-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
253 Mena, Karen 253-1 This project does not belong anywhere
close to schools, churches, parks, etc.
Opposed !!
253-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
254 Mena, Monica 254-1 I am concerned over the location of the
behavioral health hospital, it’s location
lacks proper transportation for it patients
and it is far from hospitals.
254-1 See Global Response: Amenities.
254-2 The behavioral health hospital will also be
in a highly residential are where the
majority are residents with children, and
this makes me feel unsafe and
uncomfortable.
254-2 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
254-3 This is a community where people are
generally free from the ever growing
homeless problem that California is
facing, and I feel this health hospital could
bring problems to the community.
254-3 See Global Response: Homeless Patients.
255 Mena, Trisha 255-1 Oppose. 255-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
256 Mendoza, Abigail 256-1 I don’t believe that this area is a good
place to build this hospital.
256-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
RTC-96
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
257 Heyerhuber, Daniel 257-1 Mental health services are in extreme
demand, but this is not outpatient facility.
This is an inpatient treatment facility which
requires a full time security presence next
to a children's school and business
district. Why not consider locating in an
area that is more isolated so that if there
is a threat that our childrens lives won’t be
in immediate danger?
257-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
258 Meyerhuber, Ginny 258-1 I oppose the proposed location of this
hospital. Given the reputation of Acadia,
and the location of this hospital (close
proximity to schools like Eastlake Middle)
and children's centers (Kidventures, Play
City, Ninja Factory), it is not in the city's
interest to have this hospital on our side of
town.
258-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
258-2 Additionally, we are already short with first
responders and policemen (look up how
many cops patrol this side of town), so the
likelihood of having additional support is
small.
258-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
258-3 Please reevaluate the location and do not
chose our neighborhood.
258-3 See response to comment 258-1.
258-4 As a healthcare provider and mother, I do
not think this is a good idea.
258-4 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
259 Michel, Omar
(Support)
259-1 I strongly support this project. I'm a former
resident of City of Chula Vista - a home
for much of my family, friends, and clients.
I believe this project will help employment,
property values, as it provides essential
community services.
259-1 Support for the project is noted.
260 Mighela, Roberto 260-1 I strongly oppose such facility close to our
neighborhood. It’s close to schools, and
next door to a Family Entertainment
260-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
RTC-97
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
“Center” that houses indoor playgrounds,
a kindergarten, a swim school, a dance
schools, and art school.
260-2 This is outrageous! Profit is being out
above children’s rights to live in a safe
neighborhood.
260-2 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
261 Miles, Crystal 261-1 I strongly oppose. This is not an
acceptable location for those who use the
facility and the surrounding area.
261-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
261-2 This type of facility should be close to
resources. You can’t provide help and
expect patients upon discharge to find
resources over 20 miles away.
261-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
262 Milkovich, Patrice 262-1 While the need for mental health is critical
sin our country, there are serious
considerations that must be fully assessed
prior to looking at locating, management
and operating a facility. A decision should
go beyond profit and a city government’s
accepting proposals from organizations
and businesses that have a financial
means to do so. The area proposed
directly imposes upon residential and
youth-oriented properties and services.
262-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
262-2 There is no immediate access to public
transportation.
263-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
262-3 There is a genuine concern of the public
safety presence for this area of Chula
Vista.
262-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
262-4 Traffic counts and trip data is excessive
making safe vehicular navigation
impossible throughout the day and night.
262-4 Traffic-related impacts are discussed in Draft EIR
Section 5.11. The comment, as presented, is outside
the basic scope and purposes of CEQA as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq., and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3,
transportation related issues are measured in terms of
RTC-98
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
VMT, as opposed to the older metric of roadway level of
service. Based on City screening procedure the project
would be below the regional VMT and transportation
impacts would be considered less than significant.
262-5 The proposed business has public safety
records in other locations it operates that
have resulted in significant uptick in police
and emergency responses.
262-5 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
262-6 I would hope that this City listens and
actually supports the wishes of residents
and businesses who are/will be directly
impacted by a supporting decision. I am in
opposition of the location of this prolapsed
facility and operator.
262-6 Comment noted.
263 Miranda, Danielle 263-1 Absolutely oppose. This is not an
appropriate place for this facility.
263-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
263-2 and the company has a horrible history of
inefficiency and negligence.
263-2 This comment is outside the basic scope and purposes
of CEQA as defined in California Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et seq., and California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seq. However, see
Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
264 Mitchell, Yolanda 264-1 Neighborhood already impacted in many
ways. A hospital, specifically mental
facility, in this area is not a good idea for a
community.
264-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
265 Molina, Adriana 265-1 Strongly oppose!
This type of institution does not belong in
a family oriented neighborhood so close to
schools.
265-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
266 Molina, Dafne 266-1 DO NOT SUPPORT THE INSTITUTION
OF VIOLENT DRUG ADDICTS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
266-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers. However, see
Global Response: Living with Mental Illness.
RTC-99
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
267 Molina, Daniella 267-1 This location would be located directly
across from a location that has kid
activities and preschools. It is also close
to residential neighborhood. Have you
considered otay.
267-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
268 Molina, Diana 268-1 I oppose this decision. 268-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
269 Monforte, Johanna 269-1 I don’t want this type of center close to my
home, I want to feel safe when taking my
kids out for walks.
269-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations and
Security Measures.
270 Monneron, Emmanuel** 270-1 As a mental health professional and
physician, I don't think this private
company should be allowed to build this
hospital. Allegations of child abuse in
residential treatment centers owned by
this company exist. Children, adults and
teenagers who are struggling with mental
health issues should be able to get proper
care and treatments instead of expensive
non evidence based programs that are
profiting from vulnerable people.
270-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
271 Moore, Stacy 271-1 This is not the right location for this
hospital
271-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
272 Morales, Alfonso 272-1 I Absolutely OPPOSE to this being built in
my neighborhood!
272-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
273 Morales, Alfonso 273-1 This is outrageous!!! We CANNOT have
this built here with our children playing
outside!!
273-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
274 Morales, Jennifer ** 274-1 There are hundreds of children daily in
those businesses with Swim classes,
martial arts, the kid ventures, all of these
274-1 The EIR has been revised to reflect the surrounding
businesses.
RTC-100
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
they failed to mention in the description of
the location of this place.
274-2 Being a healthcare employee, I know first
hand when patients are discharged, often
being sent there against their wish, they
will not have proper transportation, or
places to stay, or money, and all that
together will lead to increased crime in out
fully compacted residential
neighborhoods. Thousands of children
playing outside should not have to worry
about these "weird" people roaming their
neighborhoods.
274-2 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Living with Mental Illness.
274-3 A place like this should be set up near a
hospital setting, resources to help them
immediately after discharge all within
reach. I completely, extremely OPPOSE
to this being built in my backyard!
274-3 See Global Responses: Amenities.
275 Morales, Monica 275-1 This is a family neighborhood. Many
children live here and play and ride their
bikes to school. We pay a high price
which we have chosen so our families
have a safer quieter life.
275-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
See Global Response: Example of Locations.
276 Moreno, Lisa 276-1 I oppose this project. We do not need this
hospital in our community. How about we
focus on community needs such as more
schools for all the new housing.
276-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
277 Moreno, Manuel 277-1 I vehemently oppose this to come to our
neighborhood. We are already suffering
from enough crime and lack of resources
and to build a facility like this is not
sustainable for the community. No benefit
at all for this facility to open up in this
community quite the contrary in fact. I
277-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
RTC-101
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
believe that this should be not started in a
residential area but instead opened near
correctional facility.
278 Morsles, Adela 278-1 I oppose the location 278-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
279 Moundragon, Peter 279-1 I oppose location...wrong. 279-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
280 Mulvihill, Jim
(Support)
280-1 Ladies & Gentlemen - I am a property
owner in the Eastlake community with a
site located immediately adjacent to the
subject (south side commercial property
leased to Amazon) and I want to share my
support for the Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital. The proposed property is being
developed by extremely capable and
concientous venture of Scripps/Acadia,
both who are good corporate citizens in
our community. We believe that the
subject location is ideally suited for the
proposed development of a mental
treatment hospital, a service that is
critically needed in our community, and
one that can support families with love
ones in need of appropriate assistance.
The property is already zoned for a
hospital use, tucked in the cul-de-sac of a
commercial neighborhood, and located
with services nearby, including hotel
accommodations for out of area visitors.
We believe that the owners and their
proposed use will be excellent neighbors
who will add to the value of the
neighborhood, and could potentially be
the catalyst for further economic benefits,
including supporting services and
employment.
In closing, I am in Favor of the proposed
development. It provides essential
community services, and will be a catalyst
for increased employment in the
280-1 Support for the project is noted.
RTC-102
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
community. This is good for the
community of Eastlake and it is good for
the City of Chula Vista. Please vote in
favor of this proposed development.
Thank you
281 Munoz, Angelica 281-1 I don’t want a psychiatric hospital in our
area. This is not the city to have one.
281-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
RTC-103
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
282 N, Melissa 282-1 I am against this being so close to schools. 282-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
283 N, Monica 283-1 Again another packaged proposal full of false
truths to pull the wool over your
eyes. Anyone who says this is a NIMBY
issue is uninformed on the process and the
legalities of this project.
283-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
283-2 Putting emotions aside and looking at just the
facts, there is no reason this project should
even be considered the way it is currently
being proposed. According to the general
plan, that area was allocated for medical
research not a 24/7 medical facility, which
does not fit within the 200+ business' in the
area none of which have more than 40
employees and none of which operate 24/7.
283-2 See Global Response: Project Location.
283-3 Figure 4-1 on the EIR fails to label the
residential area to the east of the proposed
facility.
283-3 Figure 4-1 of the EIR has been updated to label the
residential areas adjacent to the project site.
283-4 The environmental analysis is also flawed!
The use of the Chula Vista monitoring station
7.2 miles from the proposed facility and
about 2.5 miles to the ocean does not
provide an accurate representation of the
environmental factors found in eastlake
(which is an inland area with higher
temperatures and more stagnant air flow than
that of coastal Chula Vista - which is what it's
measured by this facility. A more accurate
comparison would be to also include
readings from the Donovan monitoring
station, which is approximately 9 miles south
and provides a better representation of
environmental factors for inland areas in the
south bay.
283-4 The project’s air quality analysis uses the Chula Vista
monitoring station located at 80 East J Street,
approximately 6 miles west of the project site, is the
nearest station to the project site. This monitoring
station best reflects the ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5
levels associated with the project site.
284 Naiman, Kim 284-1 I oppose!!!!! 284-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
RTC-104
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
285 Namoc, Rachelle 285-1 … 285-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
286 Neer, Lyndsay 286-1 Oppose 286-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
287 Nelson, M 287-1 Putting emotions aside and looking at just the
facts, there is no reason this project should
even be considered the way it is currently
being proposed. The location was never
zoned for a 24/7 hospital. That is why the
corporations involved need to obtained a
CUP approval from the city.
287-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
287-2 According to the CEQA, the builders/owners
are not required to ensure Chula Vista
residents are safe - the safety of Chula Vista
residents rests solely on the city of Chula
Vista and it's governing board.
287-2 Safety of residents is discussed throughout the EIR.
Locational and operational characteristics of the
project is detailed in EIR Section 3.12. Specifically, the
project includes discharge protocols, and on-site
safety measures. See Global Response: Security
Measures.
Additionally, police protection services are discussed
in EIR Section 5.10. As stated therein, the project
would contribute to increased demand for emergency
response services. The project would promote the
policies and goals of the General Plan. Consistent
with City regulations, the project would be required to
pay Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF)
and would thereby be required to contribute its fair
share of the cost of facilities, staffing, and equipment
necessary to accommodate increased demand for
RTC-105
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
emergency response services. See Global Response:
Emergency Services.
287-3 We can prove that the facility will result in an
increase in calls for service that will not only
negatively impact the community, but also,
cause further delays for service when our
response times are already subpar.
287-3 See response to comment 287-3.
287-4 The facility is being proposed less than 2000
feet from Eastlake middle school and other
schools within the district itself. That is a
violation of Jessica's law. Contrary to the
belief, the distance is to be calculated as a
crow flies (by a straight line) and not through
driving distance via Google maps (which has
been upheld through many appellate court
rulings).
287-4 The Eastlake Hospital is not a residential facility. It is a
hospital providing acute short-term inpatient care and
is not subject to Jessica's Law.
287-5 The lawyer for this project (Madaffer), is
associated with the company that developed
Chula Vista city's smart plan and, therefore,
there is a conflict of interest and she should
be recused from the project. This process is
not fair/equitable as the EIR is 250 pages
and residents only have 1500 characters to
respond.
287-5 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers. With respect to
the comment process, individual comments may be
sent directly to the City are not limited to the website
comment portal.
288 Nelson, M 288-1 The people that support this facility do not
understand the impact the lock down
component of this plan. As someone who has
dealt with individuals with mental illness, I
along with the other medical professionals
that oppose this facility know how this will
impact our community and our safety. We are
not talking about an outpatient facility for
people with depression or PTSD nor are we
taking about a 40 bed facility that would more
closely match the size of the other
businesses in the area servicing Chula Vista
residents (if we were this would be a
288-1 The size, bulk, and scale of the facility is consistent
with that allowed within the zone. See Global
Responses: Project Location, Example of Locations,
and Security Measures.
RTC-106
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
completely different discussion). The facility
proposed as is bad for the city and its
residents.
289 Nguyen, Karen 289-1 Strongly opposed. This is too close to homes,
schools, and businesses. This is not the
proper area to build here.
289-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
290 Nguyen, Vu 290-1 Acadia is not a good company - there are too
many lawsuits against them.
290-1 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
290-2 It's also not the best location to build this
hospital.
290-2 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
290-3 There are no hospitals nearby 290-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
290-4 or quick access to public transportations. 290-4 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
290-5 It is also too close to homes, schools, and
businesses.
290-5 See response to comment 290-2.
291 Nicholas, Catherine
(Support)
291-1 Behavioral Health Hospitals help to create
healthy, strong, and safe communities.
291-1 Support for the project is noted.
292 Nosal, Ana 292-1 I strongly oppose the location of this hospital.
It is too close to residential areas, schools
and a shopping center that has several
activities for kids. I believe that west Chula
Vista, but the hospital, would be a better
location.
292-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
293 Nuno, Alex 293-1 I Oppose. 293-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
294 O, Alex 294-1 Poor judgment on the proposed location for
this type of facility. Eastlake is a quiet
residential neighborhood with no
homelessness problems. Building the facility
near churches, schools and businesses will
bring safety and other problems to a very
quiet peaceful kid friendly community. Better
planning is needed.
294-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
RTC-107
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
294-2 I think a space near downtown Chula Vista or
the South Bay would be more adequate than
this one.
294-2 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
295 O, Rina 295-1 It’s amazing how the community keeps
saying no to this project yet it continues to
press forward. We are not in support of this
project!
295-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
296 Ochoa, Adriana 296-1 Bad provider (Acacia).
296-1 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
296-2 Bad location for this facility. 296-2 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
296-3 Traffic impacts
296-3 Traffic-related impacts are discussed in Draft EIR
Section 5.11. The comment, as presented, is outside
the basic scope and purposes of CEQA as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq., and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3,
transportation related issues are measured in terms of
VMT, as opposed to the older metric of roadway level
of service. Based on City screening procedure the
project would be below the regional VMT and
transportation impacts would be considered less than
significant.
296-4 and bad access to public transport. 296-4 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
297 Ochoa, Jesse 297-1 Oppose 297-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
298 Oira, Ramir 298-1 Totally against this! Too close to homes,
schools and businesses!
298-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
299 Okhuysen, Monica 299-1 The location is not adequate, there is not
public transportation available in the area.
299-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
299-2 The location is right next to a residential area. 299-2 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
299-3 The location is right next to a residential area. 299-3 See response to comment 299-1.
RTC-108
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
300 Ontiveros, Alicia
(Support)
300-1 I strongly support the Eastlake Behavioral
Health Hospital. It is important that medical
facilities like this are located within the
communities they serve, not in remote and
hard to reach locations. The proposed
location meets this need
300-1 Support for the project is noted.
301 Ortiz, Phil 301-1 I’m supportive of the idea of a mental health
facility. Project Applicant: Eastlake Behavior
Health, LLC; I would like to know more about
the project applicant
301-1 Support for the project is noted.
302 P. Lissette 302-1 Although I support mental health, this is the
wrong location for this type of facility.
302-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
302-2 We do not have enough police presence in
Eastlake to support a high security facility
such as this.
302-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
303 Pacuan, Mark 303-1 Too close to homes, parks, schools and
businesses.
303-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
303-2 This is not the area to build this type of
hospital, please choose another location that
are near other surrounding hospitals.
303-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
304 Pal, Daniela 304-1 How much is McCann getting from the
developers to overlook the safety of our
community?
304-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
305 Palavicini, Geancarlo 305-1 Here are some of the concerns and problems
with the location for this facility:
There is only one entrance/exit in and out of
this cul-de sac location, which is inconsistent
with Chula Vista Municipal Code that states
all hospitals must be located on collector
streets or thoroughfares, as well as
recommended best practices of having two or
more entrances in the event that one street is
in some way impassable.
305-1 All City departments have reviewed the project and
concur that the road design is consistent with City
standards for these types of uses, including egress
and ingress requirements.
RTC-109
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
305-2 In the event of medical emergency, and for
the safety of patients the closest hospital is
over 5 miles from this location.
305-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
305-3 Also similar facilities generate a number of
calls for service for escapes, missing
persons, as well as violence-related offenses.
East Chula Vista does not have adequate
police presence as is, due to the lack of a
police substation. Police response times are
already less than desirable in East Chula
Vista, this will only add more burden to that.
In addition to that having incoming and
outgoing emergency response vehicles will
impact and disrupt the reasonable
expectation of noise and activity levels for a
residential neighborhood.
305-3 See Global Responses: Elopements and Emergency
Services.
305-4 Patients that are admitted involuntarily can
refuse further treatment and may demand a
premature discharge. Also, for profit driven
operators, such as Acadia, have been known
to release patients when their insurance runs
out. There is a concern regarding where the
patients will go and what danger or damage
will be caused to the area as a result.
305-4 Pursuant to California regulations, patients who refuse
treatment can be court ordered to receive involuntary
treatment via a Riese petition. Patients who are
admitted involuntary can only be discharged by a
psychiatrist. Involuntary patients cannot leave against
medical advice.
An Acadia-treated patient is only discharged when the
attending psychiatrist along with the care team fell the
patient is ready to discharge. Insurance or payment
are never factored on when a patient should be
discharged.
306 Palavicini, Miriam 306-1 This is a high security psychiatric hospital. It
is high security because it is specifically for
inpatient, dangerous and violent patients,
who are involuntarily committed to be there.
Myself and our community members wish
there was more awareness and help
surrounding mental health for anxiety,
depression, ptsd, etc - but this isn’t the type
of facility that is for this type of thing that you
would take your child to.
306-1 The Eastlake facility is a hospital providing acute
short-term inpatient care. Acute care is a designation
used in the health care field to distinguish between
durations in treatment programs. The Eastlake
hospital will be an inpatient behavioral health hospital
providing short-term care for patients in need. It will
meet a demonstrated need for additional inpatient
behavioral health beds and South County and the San
Diego region.
RTC-110
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
306-2 This facility is high security because if a
patient escapes they would be a danger to
themselves and those around them. And in
this location an escaped violent and
dangerous patient would be right up a small
hill from people’s backyards and houses,
three neighborhood schools, two parks with
playgrounds, and right next about a dozen
business for families (such as a trampoline
park, kid ventures, ninja factory, a Montessori
school, a church, and lots of restaurants).
This is a huge safety hazard for all
immediately around this facility.
306-2 See Global Response: Elopements.
306-3 My husband and I strongly oppose this
project. This is not the right location for this
facility.
306-3 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
306-4 It does not have proper infrastructure or
police presence to support it.
306-4 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
306-5 Acadia has a horrible track record of patient
abuse, neglect and security negligence.
Please don't put money ahead of our safety.
306-5 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
306-6 Please put our safety first! Please reject a
project that needs and 8ft and 12ft security
fencing in a residential area!!
306-6 The safety fencing is part of the project’s locational
and operational components. See also Global
Response: Security Measures.
307 Pallotto, Peter
(Support)
307-1 Mental health is as if not more important than
physical health! We should do what we can
to support this project!
307-1 Support for the project is noted.
308 Pangilinan, Christopher 308-1 I strongly oppose the location of this
proposed psychiatric hospital on the east
side of Chula Vista, it will just bring more
problems into our community. It must
relocated away from schools, and
neighborhoods.
308-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
309 Parani, Rose 309-1 Please find a better location for this facility! 309-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
310 Parker, Michael 310-1 This is the most despicable place for
Psychiatric Hospital. Close to schools and in
310-1 With respect to the project’s locations, see Global
Responses: Project Location and Example of
RTC-111
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
a neighborhood that is full of children. This
will be putting our children at risk. The
company profiteers don’t take in to
consideration how this will impact our
livelihoods and dwellings or the children in
danger. We pay significantly high property
taxes in our communities and this will destroy
our property values as well. Please relocate
this asylum for the children.
Locations. The remainder of the comment does not
raise an issue related to the content or adequacy of
the environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no
further response is required. This comment will be
included in the administrative record and presented to
the City decision makers within the Final EIR.
311 Parra, Gabriela 311-1 Definitely the wrong neighborhood for that
type of practice/facility. We are so far from
any hospital in case a patient needs to be
admitted and there is not enough public
transportation for patients without a car.
311-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations, Amenities, and Public Transportation.
312 Pascua, Kathleen 312-1 I strongly oppose. 312-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
313 Peraza, Isabel 313-1 Completely irresponsible decision for the
safety of our kids, and for the healthy grow of
our communities. Before giving us this
headache again, give us all your plans to
respond to all the many problems than our
city will be facing with your insensible
decision. Also, I will like to know why in the
world you do not find another site more
appropriate for the needs of this hospital, why
do you expose our kids, our security and our
life’s without any remorse.
313-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
314 Perea, Elizabeth 314-1 Absolutely no. I do not support building this
facility anywhere in Eastlake.
314-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers. However, with
respect to the project’s location, see Global
Response: Project Location.
RTC-112
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
315 Perez, Lisa 315-1 This is not a proper location for this type of
facility.
315-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
315-2 This is not a city area with public
transportation and services for those in need.
315-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
315-3 The closest full service hospital is miles west,
by the 805.
315-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
315-4 I understand a psych hospital is needed but
the city should look at a more convenient
location to those who will be going there, as
well as what it means to the city. If you put
the psych hospital there, how will that impact
other businesses that are currently investing
in the that location and providing other
needed services to our community. Do you
think they will stay if it affects their business?
No. And if we lose those businesses, surely
residents will leave as well. Not what I
assume you want for a growing community.
315-4 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
316 Perry, Diana 316-1 I do not want this high security mental
hospital steps away from my children, my
home, and their school.
316-1 The Eastlake hospital will be an inpatient behavioral
health hospital providing short-term care for patients in
need. It will meet a demonstrated need for additional
inpatient behavioral health beds and South County
and the San Diego region. Additionally, see Global
Responses: Project Location and Example of
Locations.
316-2 This location is not close enough to a hospital
and
316-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
316-3 there is no guarantee that people who are
released are taken anywhere.
316-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
317 Petka, Shelee
(Neutral)
317-1 As I am not opposed to a behavioral hospital
in our community- I have concerns. I live in
this area and want to know there is a clear
plan in place for patients who are leaving the
facility. If they are over 18 and have nowhere
to go will they walk to our neighborhood
parks/ benches. I have a daughter who
suffers greatly with mental health- But she
has us, her family to pick her up/ care for her
when she ends up in these facilities. It
317-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
RTC-113
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
happens, she is a great human- it happens to
many good and non threatening people. But
what about the people who may have scarier
mental health issues that cause behaviors
that may be violent or erratic, or jf they don’t
have someone picking them up? Is there
adequate transportation or a plan in place for
those who need further assistance?
317-2 The location of this is also a concern. This
area is basically a kid zone. Everything
surrounding it is geared towards young
children. 10 years ago it was more of a
business center, I can see it working better in
that sort of location- I have too many
concerns and questions right now to be on
board fully.
317-2 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
318 Petros, Theresa 318-1 It would be 90 feet from my house and I am
not the nearest house! This is insane! It's too
close to suburban homes. It's too close to
homes and schools, and churches and parks
and long term care facilities.
318-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
318-2 It's not close enough to an acute care
hospital. We have a lovely, quiet, diverse
neighborhood and the CV politicians want to
change that for us.
318-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
318-3 For all the reasons I have stated for the two
years we've been fighting this menace, no.
318-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
319 Pickens, Darlene 319-1 The proposed facility is too close to
residential areas and is not appropriate for
Eastlake. It will negatively affect the
community in numerous ways.
319-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
319-2 I will most likely move to a better area. I
strongly oppose because it is irresponsible
and will lead to many lawsuits.
319-2 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
RTC-114
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
320 Pickens, Henry 320-1 Dear Mayor and Council members, I would
like to submit that I strongly oppose the
proposition for location of construction for this
type of facility. The previous city
administrators have contributed greatly to the
development and expansion of the residential
areas in the city which has lead to multiple
consecutive awards and recognition.
320-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
320-2 I am convinced that this facility will have
significant negative impact on the large
number of nearby and surrounding residents
who would be in too close in proximity to this
facility.
320-2 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
320-3 I believe this will introduce an element of fear
and risk in the family unit
320-3 See Global Responses: Security Measures and Living
with Mental Illness.
320-4 as well as the possible potential threat of
reduced property values. Our families are too
important than to have to worry about
something that can cause that level of
concern which will be practically in our
backyard. I am requesting that you would
consider relocation to a more appropriate
area. Thank you
320-4 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
321a Pradel, Jean 321a-1 The proposed location is not suited is too
close to residential communities and schools.
321a-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
321a-2 Not enough infrastructure (hospital and
more…) exist in proposed area to address
and support the needs of a mental health
facility.
321a-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
321a-3 Inability for discharged patients to secure
transportation due to lack of transit system in
the area.
321a-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
321b Pradel, Lena 321b-1 Hi, my name is Magdalena Pradel. I am a
homeowner and resident of Eastlake. I would
like to know what the current status of the
321b-1 An EIR has been prepared to address the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project. The
EIR was circulated for public review and comments.
Responses to comments were prepared and included
RTC-115
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
proposed mental health facility off of show
room place is?
in the Final EIR which will be presented to City
decision-makers as part of the project permit process.
321b-2 As a citizen, parent, and healthcare worker I
am concerned about this construction. Is
there going to be an opportunity for public
comments.
As this will directly affect our community it
seems only reasonable that the people who
actually live in the area would have an
opportunity to voice their thoughts.
321b-2 See response to comment 321b-1. An additional
opportunity to present comments will be during the
public hearings.
321b-3 This would be an inpatient facility that would
replace the one in hillcrest at mercy SD.
321b-3 The Eastlake hospital will be an inpatient behavioral
health hospital providing short-term care for patients in
need. It will meet a demonstrated need for additional
inpatient behavioral health beds for South County and
the San Diego region.
321b-4 This location isn’t near any hospitals in the
area- which means they are going to come in
through a hospital’s emergency department
and then get sent to Eastlake- I think this is a
problem because have you ever tried
transporting a combative patient? And you
want that in an ambulance? I don’t think
that’s safe for patients or the crew in the rig.
321b-4 See Global Response: Amenities.
321b-5 This is a COUNTY wide facility and anyone
who’s tried to get south at rush hour can tell
you we ARE NOT CENTRAL- doesn’t make
sense to put it here!
321b-5 Traffic-related impacts are discussed in Draft EIR
Section 5.11. The comment, as presented, is outside
the basic scope and purposes of CEQA as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq., and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3,
transportation related issues are measured in terms of
VMT, as opposed to the older metric of roadway level
of service. Based on City screening procedure the
project would be below the regional VMT and
transportation impacts would be considered less than
significant.
RTC-116
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
321b-6 We don’t have a lot of public transportation
so what happens when these patients are
discharged? Where do they go? How do they
get home? Or are they just gonna stay?
321b-6 See Global Responses: Public Transportation.
321b-7 EASTLAKE IS NOT THE RIGHT LOCATION
for this type of facility because it’s not good
for the patients!
321b-7 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
321b-8 Also the for profit company trying to take it
over from Scripps…does not have a good
track record.
321b-8 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
321b-9 I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks so
much!
Sent from my iPhone
321b-9 Comment noted.
322 Pradel, Magdalena 322-1 This is the wrong location for this type of
facility.
322-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
322-2 While psych hospitals are a necessity, this
one is not near any hospital facilities-
322-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
322-3 there is minimal public transit, and it’s not set
up for this type of facility.
322-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
322-4 What happens when someone is done with
their 5150? They meander Eastlake because
there isn’t any transportation?
322-4 See response to comment 322-3.
322-5 Scripps wants to offload their psych hospital
so they can close it and build a new tower-
well not here- this area doesn’t have the
infrastructure to support the patient
population.
322-5 This comment is outside the basic scope and
purposes of CEQA as defined in California Public
Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and
California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.
This comment will be included in the administrative
record and presented to the City decision makers
within the Final EIR.
322-6 Does this mean we are going to get all of San
Diego’s psych admits? Hillcrest is in the
center of the city- Chula Vista is NOT!
322-6 The project will meet a demonstrated need for
additional inpatient behavioral health beds for South
County and the San Diego region.
322-7 A psych hospital that has access to a
hospital- CLOSE- and options after
discharge- yes- but not in Eastlake! We aren’t
able to support this population!
322-7 See responses to comments 322-2 and 322-3.
323 Priff, Michelle 323-1 Our community is already suffering from
overgrowth of homes, homeless moving in,
323-1 See Global Responses: Emergency Services and
Living with Mental Illness.
RTC-117
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
crime going up, & lack of police presence due
to lack of politicians doing anything. I oppose
one more thing that will only add to all of the
above & another thing higher ups can forget
about & let the community handle the
aftermath.
324 Pulido, Abraham
(Support)
324-1 Have a heart you guys. No need to
disenfranchise any people at all. Let's give a
helping hand to those who need it. I live in
Chula Vista and I fully support this project.
People need to stop worrying about their
property values everything is going to be fine.
324-1 Support for the project is noted.
325 Quintero, L 325-1 Strongly oppose. Irresponsible of the City to
consider the proposal for this residential area
where schools, parks, and pools have been
established for the children of this planned
development. Do the right thing and shut this
proposal down, City of Chula Vista! Your
voters are watching.
325-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
326 Quintero, Lisa 326-1 Strongly oppose - the City’s consideration of
the facility in this location is irresponsible.
The children and families in this community
deserve better.
326-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
327 Quintero, Mark 327-1 Wrong location. Bad idea. 327-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
328 R, Jennifer 328-1 Acadia has a long history of major violations
and issues.
328-1 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
328-2 While I support a mental health facility in the
South Bay, a residential area is not an
appropriate location. There are many schools
less than 400 feet from the facility.
328-2 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
328-3 We would need a police substation in the
area to provide support when security
measures are insufficient.
328-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
329 R, Monica
(Support)
329-1 I am few that support this facility. I hope
having a resource in our backyard will get
many the help they need and remove stigma
from mental illness. It is naive to think it will
all be beneficial as a community we need to
329-1 Support for the project is noted.
RTC-118
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
compromise and have equal resources. If
there are ten gyms for wellness what is
wrong with one medical facility to help those
struggling. I welcome this facility.
330 Radi, Ben 330-1 As a healthcare provider who has experience
serving a similar population at an acute
psych hospital, I strongly oppose the
proposed location of this facility.
330-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
330-2 Patients from all around South Bay San
Diego are going to be admitted to this facility
(contrary to what some people say that is for
the local community only) and such a remote
place as Eastlake is going to be an undue
hardship for the patients and their families to
commute.
330-2 The Eastlake hospital will be an inpatient behavioral
health hospital providing short-term care for patients in
need. It will meet a demonstrated need for additional
inpatient behavioral health beds for South County and
the San Diego region.
330-3 Lack of public transportation in the area will
lead to the discharged patients being stuck in
the area increasing the homelessness and
public safety issues in the neighborhood.
330-3 See Global Responses: Public Transportation,
Homeless Patients, and Emergency Services.
330-4 Also, proximity of the facility to the schools
and children makes this hospital unsafe for
the public.
330-4 See response to comment 330-1.
330-5 San Diego definitely needs more of such
facilities to help our communities struggling
with mental health issues but such facilities
need to be located in more central and
readily accessible areas such as downtown
Chula Vista or national city were public
transportation make them more accessible.
330-5 See Global Responses: Amenities and Public
Transportation.
331 Ramos, L 331-1 This is not the place for this facility, or this
company. Take care of your lawsuits, hire &
train qualified staff and find a more central
location!
331-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
332 Ramos, Liz 332-1 This is not the place for a psychiatric hospital. 332-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
332-2 There are far better locations throughout San
Diego, than the middle of our neighborhood.
332-2 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
RTC-119
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
332-3 The addition of the trolley and expansion of
streets and over crowded neighborhoods
have brought forth enough issues.
332-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
333 Rattray, Zack 333-1 Strongly opposed to this site due to the
proximity to residences and numerous
schools.
333-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
333-2 From all research, Acadia has a terrible track
record and has countless violations with
either staff or business practices with
patients.
333-2 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
333-3 Choose a better location not so close to
schools and homes. And choose a better
partner than Acadia. Do not let Acadia into
our community
333-3 See response to comments 333-1 and 333-2.
334 Real, Michael
(Support)
334-1 As a property owners and educators we
support this project. We frequent the area's
recreational and medical business. Also, our
children go to school nearby. Yet we are not
afraid of having the facility located there.
Especially when involving a high caliber
partner like Scripps Health. This kind of
facility is clearly a hot point however the
community needs to make rational not
emotional decisions. These services are
needed, now more than ever. Not having
these specialized services leads to a much
worse result for our, and all other
communities.
334-1 Support for the project is noted.
335 Reimers, K 335-1 Oppose - too close to residential
neighborhoods, elementary & middle
schools,
335-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
335-2 poor reviews/reports on the company running
the facility,
335-2 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
335-3 inadequate transit options nearby, 335-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
RTC-120
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
335-4 and a seemingly money focused political
push for approval without consideration for
the people who reside and work in the area.
335-4 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
335-5 Not opposed to these facilities in general as
they are obviously needed, but there are
better location alternatives.
335-5 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
336 Reno, Alex 336-1 I strongly oppose this development. This
project will introduce huge lifestyle changes
for this community and these are not positive
changes.
336-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
336-2 In addition, according to the report an
environmental impact report (EIR) still needs
to be done, and that has not been done yet.
336-2 The EIR was available for public comment through the
City’s website. It remains available for review.
337 Reyes, Cindy 337-1 I am writing this letter to express my strong
opposition to allowing Eastlake Behavior
Health Hospital Project EIR 20-0001
development.
337-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
338 Rissi, Amy 338-1 While I am not opposed to a mental health
facility in the South Bay, I am opposed to
where this particular facility will be built. It's
proximity to schools and homes is concerning
and not appropriate.
338-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
339 Robbin, Tobeka 339-1 I oppose this plan. This is not the right
location for a psychiatric hospital.
It will destroy our beautiful neighborhood.
339-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
340 Robinson, Haywood 340-1 Oppose 340-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
RTC-121
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
341 Roche, Wesley 341-1 Strongly oppose. This may have safety
measures for people within the premises. But
like we've seen with the county mental health
in old town, these places create a haven for
people to be hanging around outside the
premises. No thank you.
341-1 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Homeless Patients.
342 Rodriguez, Alex 342-1 Oppose the location 342-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
343 Rodriguez, Amy 343-1 This proposed location is less than a half mile
away from Thurgood Marshall Elementary,
Eastlake Middle School, preschools,
community parks, kids-oriented businesses,
and STEPS from the school bus stop.
343-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
343-2 Showroom Place is not easily accessible to
traffic or public transportation.
343-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
343-3 It is six miles away from the 805 freeway, 14
miles from Scripps Mercy Hillcrest, and 8
miles from Scripps Mercy Chula Vista.
343-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
343-4 There are other sites much more conducive
to accommodate a psychiatric facility without
putting children and families in harm’s way.
343-4 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
343-5 Most importantly, the proposed location is
steps away from a residential neighborhood.
343-6 See response to comment 343-1.
344 Rodriguez, John 344-1 This proposed location is within yards of a
residential area, schools and other children’s
activity centers.
344-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
345 Rodriguez, Juan 345-1 Oppose!!! Select another location away from
a residential area and schools where children
are present.
345-1 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
346 Rodriguez, R 346-1 Oppose 346-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
347 Rojas, Belinda 347-1 I think this is not the right location for this kind
of facility , for the safe of our families , kids
and the people that will attend this facility.
347-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations and
Security Measures.
RTC-122
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
348 Rosas, Grace 348-1 Absolutely oppose this is not a neighborhood
where this will work. Near schools and
homes.
348-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
349 Rosenberg, Sylvia 349-1 Totally oppose to the construction of this
Acadia Behavioral Facility (Psychiatric
facility) in our neighborhood which is a family
oriented residential area in which we have
several children’s facilities, i.e. daycares,
schools and believe would be at risk should
this Acadia project be built.
349-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
349-2 Any individual that is released after treatment
and does not have private transportation to
get to their homes and without any resources
will be wondering our neighborhood, our
parks, our parking lots asking for money for
transportation when indeed we do not have it
in Eastlake.
349-2 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Homeless Patients.
349-3 Furthermore, the property values of our
homes will decrease should this Acadia
facility be built in our beloved and lovely
neighborhood! Totally against it.
349-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
349-4 City of CV is only stating the retail
businesses around this community in which
you erroneously include Furniture store(s)
which have not been doing business for at
least 5 years, they no longer exists. Also, it is
not mentioned that we have several child
care businesses and we are surrounded by
Elementary schools as well.
349-4 The EIR has been revised to reflect the surrounding
businesses.
349-5 This behavioral facility can be built in another
city area away from residential communities.
349-5 See response to comment 349-1.
350 Rummerfield, Andrew 350-1 Oppose 350-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
RTC-123
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
351 S, Josh 351-1 Acadia facilities harm the lives of vulnerable
youth. Strongly oppose!
351-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
352 S, Latoya 352-1 Completely oppose. This facility does not
belong in this community.
352-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
352-2 The company and their reputation of not
keeping both their clients and the members
of the community safe is what I mostly worry
about.
352-2 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
352-3 In a community that has a shortage of police
officers it would put great strain on the ones
we have and is a disaster waiting to happen.
352-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
353 Sean, C 353-1 Strongly oppose.
Unsafe for our neighborhood and families.
353-1 See Global Response: Security Measures.
354 Salas, Marisa 354-1 I strongly oppose this. This is not the
appropriate area for this type of facility.
354-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
354-2 This is an area that closely surrounds
residential neighborhoods, schools, parks.
354-2 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
354-3 I am concerned for the safety of our children
& residents. Please stop this project.
354-3 See Global Response: Security Measures.
355 Sampal, MaryBeth 355-1 Oppose 355-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
356 Santillan, Mr. 356-1 Oppose. If this gets through get ready for
lawsuits for putting the community in danger.
356-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
RTC-124
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
356-2 There’s no enough police officers out there
as it is.
356-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
356-3 There’s a huge number of those with mental
illness and they can be violent!!!
356-3 See Global Response: Living with Mental Illness.
356-4 Move this away!! There’s not enough money
in the world for you to convince us this is
worth it.
356-4 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
357 Santos, Paulo 357-1 I strongly oppose this project, the risk
outweighs the benefits if this this proposal
moves forward.
357-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
358 Schneider, Chad 358-1 Voicing the Strongest opposition possible to
the continuation of this project now or ever.
This project is misplaced in the community
and the city must comply with the
communities will to cancel this project.
358-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
359 Scott, Cindy 359-1 I strongly oppose the placement of this
facility.
359-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
359-2 In the EIR, it states there is a hill between the
residences and the proposed medical facility.
There’s no hill there, it’s a slight knoll at best,
thus not providing or protecting any
residence privacy.
359-2 EIR Section 3.1 describes the location of the
residential neighborhood at downslope approximately
60 feet. This is also depicted in Figure 3-4. The EIR
further explains that the existing manufactured slope
would not be altered by the project (see EIR Section
3.5.2).
359-3 On the other side of the site is a school. Why
in the world would you build a mental facility
next to a school that houses young children
and potentially, putting them in harms way if
there are emergencies at the mental facility?
359-3 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
359-4 The east side of Chula Vista, is missing
proper protection from severely understaffed
first responders, specifically, the police
department. The police already have trouble
359-4 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
RTC-125
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
responding to calls here. Even as more high
density housing is being built, there is no
proper plan to adequately staff our first
responders. There certainly won’t be enough
to respond to medical emergencies that will
occur at the mental facility.
359-5 I’m also strongly opposed to allowing Acadia
Health to practice in our city. A simple
Google search on them will show pages of
law suits brought against them by patients,
employees, families of patients. Acadia has
had their facilities shut down in other states.
One questions how they’re still licensed to be
a health care company. It makes no sense
for Chula Vista to be put at risk from such an
irresponsible company.
359-5 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
359-6 There’s no question that we need mental
health facilities, but the placement of this one
along with allowing Acadia to practice here, is
NOT the answer.
359-6 See responses to comments 359-1, 359-3, and 359-5.
360 Scott, Robert 360-1 We are long time property owners, investors,
& residents in the Eastlake, Chula Vista, &
Bonita neighborhoods. We are also long time
participants & volunteers in Scripps
Healthcare Services. We believe the mental
healthcare needs of South Bay residents will
be better served having this facility located
locally. We understand that adjacent
neighbors have legitimate concerns about
this project. If these objections are justly
considered and addressed as they seem to
be in the EIR, and if impacts to the
neighborhood are properly mitigated This
facility should be allowed to proceed.
360-1 Support for the project is noted.
361 Service, Best 361-1 This blog article was extremely helpful. I
really appreciate your kindness in sharing
this with me and everyone else! Thank you
so much. <a
href="https://obligasi.com/">Obligasi.com</a>
361-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
RTC-126
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
362 Shen, Christina 362-1 My family and I strongly oppose this project.
The location is absurd and inappropriate. It
needs to be close to an acute hospital and
away from places with schools and
residential neighborhoods.
362-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Amenities.
363 Sheridan, John
(Support)
363-1 Sirs , we wish to register our support for the
Arcadia project in conjunction with Scripps.
This will bring top notch, much needed
mental health services to our community,
backed by 2 highly respected organizations,
Scripps and Arcadia. We support this project.
Thank you , John and Barbara Sheridan.
363-1 Support for the project is noted.
364 Shoaf, Mike 364-1 Find a more central location with better
transportation access. Acadia has zero plan
for “after” discharge.
364-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
365 Sinclair, Kristen 365-1 We strongly oppose this facility in the
proposed location.
365-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
365-2 This should be located in a more urban
setting, with easy access to emergency
services and transportation.
365-2 See Global Responses: Amenities and Public
Transportation.
366 Sinclair, Kristen 366-1 We strongly oppose the building of this
hospital is the proposed area in Eastlake.
This is a residential area, comprised mostly
of families.
366-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
366-2 Access to public transportation or any
emergency services is limited in our area
366-2 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Emergency Services.
366-3 and many child-centered businesses, as well
as schools are located steps from the
proposed site.
366-3 See response to comment 366-1.
366-4 Surely there are far better locations for this
hospital in the San Diego area.
366-4 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
367 Smalley, Joan 367-1 Project not appropriate for residential
neighborhood
367-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
368 Smith, Arnold 368-1 Unbelievable we need to stop it 368-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
RTC-127
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
369 Smith, Brandon
(Support)
369-1 As a long time resident in the Eastlake
community, I want to say that I give my full
support for the Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital project and positively see the
important need for future behavioral health
facilities to serve the community and its
growing population. Our community is in
desperate need of such facilities that address
behavioral health illnesses and provide
beneficial treatment or necessary care, as it's
a very real social and medical problem that
should not be ignored. Lastly, I would say
that the proposed hospital is in an ideal
location, appropriately zoned for hospital use,
and is near the community it will serve, and
would not negatively impact the
neighborhood or environment.
369-1 Support for the project is noted.
370 Smith, Christopher 370-1 This is not the right location.
370-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
370-2 These institutions should be closer to well
equipped hospitals and
370-2 See Global Response: Amenities.
370-3 MUST have a discharge plan. 370-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
370-4 Acadia has lawsuits and 370-4 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
370-5 no after-care plan. 370-5 See response to comment 370-3.
371 Smith, Jack
(Support)
371-1 Mental health care is severely lacking in San
Diego. More hospitals need to be built to look
after our citizens.
371-1 Support for the project is noted.
372 Smith, Janie 372-1 Find another location in CV to build this. We
need more police, more law enforcement.
372-1 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
373 Smith, Mayra 373-1 Take this facility and company elsewhere.
Find a hospital to place it near. Very much
OPPOSE this absurd location & company!
373-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Amenities.
374 Smith, Melody 374-1 I OPPOSE the Eastlake Behavior Health
Hospital Project EIR 20-0001 development
374-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
RTC-128
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
because of the location and access to
densely populated residential communities as
well as large schools. There are other
location options- Eastlake is the WRONG
choice. The location of the facility is better
suited in a more remote location, perhaps
close to the Richard J. Donovan Correctional
Facility.
375 Smith, Sally 375-1 DISGRACEFUL company trying to make
profit out of mentally ill patients. OPPOSE!
375-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
376 Sobotka, April 376-1 This hospital has no place right next door to
a neighborhood! Absolutely NO!
376-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
377 Spear, David 377-1 You've got to be 5150 to even consider such
a lunatic idea of a mental facility that is not
co-located directly with a hospital in Eastlake.
377-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and
Amenities.
377-2 Moreover, if this crazy plan goes forth, they
better be paying for at least 10% of the
CVPD budget from the calls for service that
will surely arise from this.
377-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
377-3 I'm sure you could also find some
endangered species on the proposed site as
well if you looked hard enough including a
few people with common sense which is
sorely lacking in this State and at present
seem to be critically endangered.
377-3 With respect to biological resources, potential impacts
to biological resources are discussed in Section 8.2 of
the EIR. As stated therein, the project site is mapped
Developed/Urban Land per the Chula Vista Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan
and does not include any habitat conservation areas.
As the project site has been previously graded in an
urbanized environment, it does not include any mature
and/or protected trees, riparian habitat, wetland
habitat, migratory wildlife corridors, wildlife nursery
sites, or any other sensitive natural community. As the
project site does not include any habitat or wildlife, the
project would result in no impacts to biological
resources.
The remaining comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the
RTC-129
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record and presented to the City
decision makers within the Final EIR.
378 Stellin, Bill 378-1 The building of this facility should be opposed
on many levels. We do not have the
infrastructure to support the increase in
police calls needed to support this center, as
evidenced by other similar facilities.
378-1 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
378-2 The area it's being built at is a family oriented
center for our community, with most buildings
being family and child oriented facilities.
378-2 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
378-3 Acadia has a proven track record of
negligence and understaffing with 100's of
complaints, patient escapes, and a record of
patient abuse and negligence. They talk the
talk, but don't walk the walk. Their track
record alone should keep this facility from
being built in the middle of a family oriented
subdivision.
378-3 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare. See also
response to comment 378-2.
378-4 Ask yourself why there will be walls, security,
and a back up ambulance drop off (so
patients can't escape). It's dangerous...
That's why. This is a reckless and dangerous
proposal which will negatively impact the well
being of the businesses and families that live
near it.
378-4 See Global Response: Elopements.
378-5 The increase traffic, noise, etc. is also an
impact that will be detrimental to nearby
homes.
378-5 Traffic-related impacts are discussed in Draft EIR
Section 5.11. The comment, as presented, is outside
the basic scope and purposes of CEQA as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq., and California Code of Regulations Section
15000, et seq. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3,
transportation related issues are measured in terms of
VMT, as opposed to the older metric of roadway level
of service. Based on City screening procedure the
project would be below the regional VMT and
transportation impacts would be considered less than
significant.
RTC-130
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
As discussed in Section 5.9 of the EIR, direct off-site
noise level increases due to the project would be 1 dB
or less, which would be considered less than
significant. On-site noise levels would not exceed the
single-family residential limits (Chula Vista Municipal
Code) and, therefore, all impacts related to increased
noise levels above ambient conditions would be less
than significant.
378-6 We can't build this and realize later that we
were right about this facility and this
company. We need to stop it now. Our
children, businesses, and neighborhoods
depend on it.
378-6 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
378-7 This is not some small, facility where sad
moms will go. It will bring acute and violent
patients, many of which are homeless, and
they can be released into our community
freely after treatment. It will become a
beacon for the mentally ill and homeless.
378-7 See Global Responses: Public Transportation,
Homeless Patients, and Living with Mental Illness.
379 Stellin, Brigitta 379-1 As a former nurse in a Psychiatric hospital, I
can wholeheartedly tell you that this is a poor
location. Not only is not aligned with the
neighborhood culture, it has no existing
medical facilities nearby. The infrastructure
doesn't exist to support this hospital.
379-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations and
Amenities.
379-2 Plus the company has already deliberately
lied or was too incompetent to accurately fill
out the EIR regarding the local businesses,
schools, and churches in the area.
Considering their track record, this should
just be another red flag as how they operate.
379-2 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
380 Stellin, Elizabeth 380-1 This facility would be right in the middle of a
residential neighborhood and close to
schools as well as child activity centers.
380-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
RTC-131
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
380-2 We also already have a problem with the
response time of the CVPD. This would just
add more stress to a police department that
doesn’t have a local station to quickly and
safely respond to issues that will come with
the construction of such a facility.
380-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
381 Stellin, W 381-1 I commented once before, but considering
the news reports regarding John McCann
and his "pay to play" involvement with local
land developers, this entire project should be
placed on hiatus until a thorough and
complete investigation into his alleged
political corruption can be reviewed. I'd also
like to suggest that the city council look in to
IRE Developments to see how it's owner is
manipulating rules in favor of his business.
This entire project reeks of corruption, and
the community is VEHEMENTLY opposed to
it. If this facility is built, I think a full
investigation of all members involved should
be initiated as it is clear the community
doesn't want it here.
381-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
382 Talania, Dee 382-1 Strongly oppose this idea! Are you kidding
me! This will make our neighborhood
undesirable and unsafe for our children! BIG
NO NO!!!!
382-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations and
Security Measures.
383 Tan, Jacqueline 383-1 Oppose in so many level. Adjacent business
where kids of all ages play indoor , nearby
school, church, shopping center, eatery ,
parks, recreation center . Ppl with mental
illness should be cared for and get
treatments. Chula Vista is not the right
location for this facility .
383-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
384 Teevan, John 384-1 I strongly oppose this project for several
reasons, including:
1) The facility operator (Acadia HC) will be
80% majority owner. On 5/6/19 Acadia, 11
days before they filed an application with the
384-1 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
RTC-132
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
City, agreed to a $17 million healthcare fraud
settlement as a result of a scheme to defraud
Medicaid and have been named in lawsuits
claiming sexual abuse of its patients, failure
to adhere to professional standards of care
and for terminating employees for reporting
criminal activity.
384-2 2) There are limited emergency services
available, with CVPD-maintained statistics
showing similar facilities generate numerous
calls for service for missing persons
(elopements) as well as violence-related
offenses. There is no police substation in
eastern CV and as result response times are
suboptimal. In the event of medical
emergency, the closest hospital is far (6+
miles) away which is why such facilities for
the safety of its patients are located on or
near an established medical campus.
384-2 See Global Responses: Elopements and Emergency
Services.
384-3 3) Patients admitted involuntarily can refuse
further treatment, leave on their own without
a treatment plan in place or demand a
premature discharge. Profit driven operators
have been known to release patents when
their insurance runs out.
384-3 Pursuant to California regulations, patients who refuse
treatment can be court ordered to receive involuntary
treatment via a Riese petition. Patients who are
admitted involuntary can only be discharged by a
psychiatrist. Involuntary patients cannot leave against
medical advice.
An Acadia patient is only discharged when the
attending psychiatrist along with the care team fell the
patient is ready to discharge. Insurance or payment
are never factored on when a patient should be
discharged.
384-4 Given the proposed location where will they
go?
384-4 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
384-5 4) The proposed location is on the same
street as many family-friendly businesses,
near a school bus stop, directly next to
residential homes, and a short walking
384-5 See Global Responses: Example of Locations and
Elopements.
RTC-133
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
distance to 2 schools where elopements may
trigger lockdowns.
385 Teller, Brenda 385-1 Although mental health care is important,
location, demographics and the impact it will
have on our community will be detrimental.
We have no resources to assist with release,
escape, discharge,
385-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Elopement.
385-2 nor do we have police manpower available
once this population is released and wander
into our neighborhoods. Most will not be able
to resonate logically & mentally that we are
common people. We are not seeking to harm
them but we just don’t want them loitering IN
our neighborhoods, not to mention for our
own well being & safety reasons.
385-2 See Global Responses: Emergency Services and
Public Transportation.
386 Thomas, Joycelyn 386-1 Surprised the city is still considering this
facility! Acadia is not accountable for any of
their facilities. I am a senior citizen on a fixed
income who lives alone.
386-1 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
386-2 I do not need a person with mental health
issues wandering through my
neighborhood... with police response
sometimes HOURS away.
386-2 See Global Responses: Emergency Services and
Elopement.
386-3 And today Scripps had their computers
HACKED... neither Scripps NOR Acadia has
MY BEST INTEREST on their agenda!
386-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
387 Torres, Claudia 387-1 The city can’t keep up with the proper
infrastructure for us, citizens, I don’t see how
will they make this company to comply.
387-1 See Global Responses: Emergency Services and
Public Transportation.
387-2 Also, if Councilmember McCain received any
kind of compensation from Acadia to approve
this, everything should be suspended.
387-2 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
RTC-134
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
388 Torrrs, Melissa 388-1 Oppose! 388-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an
issue related to the content or adequacy of the
environmental analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further
response is required. This comment will be included in
the administrative record within the Final EIR and
presented to the City decision makers.
RTC-135
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
389 Valenzuela, Larisa 389-1 Oppose psychiatric hospital 389-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
390 Vasquez, Silvia 390-1 Oppose to this in our community 390-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
391 Vazquez, Jose 391-1 Not safe 391-1 See Global Response: Security Measures.
392 Vazquez, Mitzi 392-1 Way too close to schools, daycares and
family businesses.
392-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
393 Vera, Elias 393-1 Opposed 393-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
394 Vergara, C 394-1 I strongly oppose. 394-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
395 Villa, Carla 395-1 I strong oppose the location and this
hospital. I am a homeowner that SHARES
my backyard with this future location. it is
a LIE that one cannot cross across.
395-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
395-2 If I could do it what makes one think that
when patients are released or worse
"escape" they will not do the same.
395-2 See Global Response: Elopements.
395-3 the hospital will have no mandate and our
police presence in this area if minimal. we
can't even control the rise in crime or drag
raising every night.
395-3 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
395-4 I do not oppose mental health services I
embrace it but not this LOCATION or this
company.
395-4 See response to comment 395-1.
RTC-136
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
395-5 LOOK AT THEIR HISTORY and
NUMEROUS lawsuits they have. when we
had the so called "meet and greet" it was
more of propaganda ton how this hospital
would enrich our community.
395-5 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
395-6 When questions were asked as to their
plan when people are released all they
could say was that they would be released
to the community. NO PLAN so what
happens when they cross the boundaries
and come to our neighborhood?!?!? call
police? wait and see?
395-6 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
395-7 NO COUNCIL PERSON has been
available to answer our questions. as
someone who shares my backyard with
this location NO ONE HAS COME TO
OUR NIEGHBOORHOOD TO MAKE US
AWARE OF THIS!! SHAMEFUL!
395-7 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
396 Villa, Forest 396-1 To consider putting a mental hospital that
houses a arrange of individuals with
special needs in the middle of a family
friendly neighborhood doesn’t match
needs of a community. Patients being “
shipped” into a neighborhood like this isn’t
any different than putting predators across
the street from a school. Your setting our
community up for failure.
396-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
396-2 After an individual is released or checks
out they have no resources at will.
396-2 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Homeless Patients.
396-3 Please make a better decision on the
location to help these individuals. With the
amount of empty lots that are located
through out Chula Vista in non residential
areas you can make a wiser decision.
396-3 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
397 Villa, Jennifer 397-1 I strongly oppose the location of this
facility.
397-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
397-2 Acadia has a poor reputation for running a
business.
397-2 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
RTC-137
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
397-3 A facility like this should not be placed in a
family friendly industrial building location
near family neighborhoods and
community parks/schools. I strongly
oppose this plan.
397-3 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
398 Villalba, Karina 398-1 A residential area is not the right location
for a place like this.
398-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
399 Villanueva, Erin 399-1 This facility is NOT near an emergency
room, there is limited public transportation
in this community to support life after
discharge, and there are no discharge
facilities clearly labeled in this community.
399-1 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Amenities.
399-2 There is also terrible traffic getting to the
location within the community. Wouldn’t
this require sedating a patient at transport
for a longer ride?
399-2 With respect to traffic, CEQA evaluates impacts in terms
of VMT, which is a measure of the use and efficiency of
the transportation network, calculated based on
individual vehicle trips generated and their associated
trip lengths. As discussed in Section 5.11 of the EIR,
based on SANDAG screening criteria the project would
result in VMT that is below the regional average.
Therefore, the impact would be considered less than
significant.
The remainder of this comment is outside the basic
scope and purposes of CEQA as defined in California
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and
California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.
and no further response is required. This comment will
be included in the administrative record and presented
to the City decision makers within the Final EIR.
399-3 Also, there are a number of children’s and
family functions. Why placing a hospital
for those having a psychiatric crisis near
minors makes no sense. Facilities are
needed but this location is wreckless and
does not put patients first. I am a medical
provider and a community member. I
cannot understand why this is THE
location.
399-3 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
RTC-138
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
400 Vissuet, Amber 400-1 I strongly oppose. This is not the right
location for a behavioral health facility. It is
too close to an elementary school,
children’s facilities, neighborhoods and
families with children. It is not safe for our
community.
400-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, and Security Measures.
401 Vissuet, Marco 401-1 It would be a danger to our community
and too close to schools and families with
children. I strongly oppose!
401-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations, and Security Measures.
402 Vizcaya, Sharon 402-1 Oppose! 402-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
403 Vogt, Michael
(Support)
403-1 Everyone knows someone who is or has
at one time suffered from depression,
anxiety, OCD, PTSD, addiction or one of
many other mental health issues. These
people are our family members, friends,
neighbors, business associates, clients
etc. We need to address these treatable
conditions for our community. The quality
of life and the health of our community
depends on providing the treatment
programs offered by the proposed facility.
The EIR has clearly demonstrated that
this is the right location that will not have
any negative impacts on the surrounding
neighborhoods. As an Eastlake resident,
business owner and investor of the
adjacent properties I am deeply vested in
doing the right thing for our hometown. I
also trust that Scripps decision to
collaborate with Acadia on this facility
clearly demonstrates that this will be
operated as a first class health care
center. Scripps reputation as one of the
best health care providers in San Diego
403-1 Support for the project is noted.
RTC-139
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
county speaks volumes of their decision to
partner with Acadia. The organizers of the
opponents have nothing real to offer but
misinformation and unfounded fears that
they have spread without merit. They are
simply wrong to oppose a sorely needed
treatment center in our community.
404 Volkening, Alicen 404-1 This is not in the best interest of the
community. Safety is already a concern
with just 2-3 officers assigned east of 805.
In addition low law enforcement staffing in
the city which demand for service will go
up. Perhaps further south in SDPD
jurisdiction.
404-1 See Global Responses: Security Measures and
Emergency Services.
405 W, Malia 405-1 This center needs to be near a major
hospital and transit station and not in a
residential area adjacent to daycares.
405-1 See Global Responses: Project Location, Example of
Locations, Amenities, and Public Transportation.
406 Walker, Tiffany 406-1 I oppose this hospital in this location.
There is no public transportation nearby
which will result in some patients h having
no way to leave the area
406-1 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
407 Walkup, Teresa 407-1 I strongly oppose the location of this
hospital. This location is surrounded by
homes, schools and businesses geared
towards children and families. This is an
inappropriate place for a hospital near
where my children and I walk, ride our
bikes and conduct activities in the
community. I strongly oppose this
hospital.
407-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
408 Waterman, M 408-1 100% oppose. These facilities are needed
but not in residential neighborhoods or
close to children.
408-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
408-2 Most have a 72-hour hold, which means,
they hold people for that time and then
they are released, with or without
transportation. Meaning, the patients that
need help, many whom may be
408-2 See Global Responses: Public Transportation and
Homeless Patients.
RTC-140
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
dangerous are now wandering around our
neighborhoods.
408-3 I really just don’t understand how this is
even being considered or who is getting
paid what to put this in this area!
408-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
409 Waters, Christina 409-1 I oppose this for-profit hospital in our
neighborhood. It will not benefit our
community.
409-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
410 Weaver, Marcy
(Support)
410-1 I live near the proposed project and I am
fully in support of its approval. I don’t
believe that the hospital will have a
negative impact on the neighborhood and
the draft EIR confirms that. It is a secure
facility and fear about the patients that
some neighbors have expressed only
serves to perpetuate the stigma
associated with mental health. Our
community needs this facility.
410-1 Support for the project is noted.
411 Weber, Ale 411-1 I oppose having a behavior health hospital
in this area. This is not the right location
for an institution like this. It would be right
in the middle of a family community
geared towards children and families.
411-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
412 Weihe, Darlene 412-1 I strongly oppose the placement of this
hospital right next to a residential
neighborhood and so close to several
schools, churches, day care, and kids play
areas.
412-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
412-2 Our area is already understaffed with city
services. This only adds to that.
412-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
412-3 Placing this type of a facility in the middle
of a neighborhood is just not what is in the
best interest of this area. There are still a
lot of all commercial sites in the city that
better suit this type of hospital with the
412-3 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
RTC-141
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
infrastructure to support it. Your
irresponsibility in this matter is not going
to go unnoticed.
413 Wells, Jason
(Support)
413-1 As a business leader and resident of the
area, I want to share my support for the
Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital.
Every day in our south bay streets we see
the need for greater behavioral health
care! We can't ignore the growing need
for mental health treatment centers any
longer. The increasing need for behavioral
health services is reaching a critical point.
Our region does not come close to
meeting the demand for mental health
care, and this demand has only grown
during the pandemic.
The proposed hospital location is zoned
for hospital use, and it is near the
community it will serve, but also located in
a commercial area with minimal impact to
the surrounding neighborhood. This
hospital will be not only be a blessing to
families in need of mental health
treatment, it will also be a benefit to our
community, providing jobs, economic
stimulus, and increased tax revenue."
Of great import, too, is the fact that
environmental studies (extremely stringent
in California) concluded no unmitigated
environmental impacts will result from the
project.
413-1 Support for the project is noted.
414 Wessigk, Mildred
(Neutral)
414-1 Is a place near a lake or beachfront an
option ? It will be more helpful for patients
and eventually for the community as well.
414-1 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
415 Weston, Jack 415-1 While mental illness needs a strong
revamp in this country, the proposed
415-1 See Global Response: Amenities.
RTC-142
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
location leaves a lot to be desired. First
and foremost a facility of this magnitude
should be near a hospital.
415-2 Second, the various legal implications
Arcadia has gotten themselves into should
be accounted for.
415-2 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
415-3 This is a family neighborhood not just a
spot of prime land for you to grow your
wealth.
415-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
416 Wevodau, Curtis 416-1 Strongly oppose psychiatric care facility
amongst family friendly businesses and
neighborhoods.
416-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
416-2 As an emergency healthcare worker i
understand the need for psychiatric care,
but with the track record or this company
and many psychiatric facilities the follow
up and discharge practices are not
adequate to keep our neighborhoods safe.
416-2 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
416-3 Safety of our children, homes,
neighborhoods and schools will be at
stake if you allow a psychiatric facility to
be built in the heart of our community.
This will slowly destroy our
neighborhoods, economy and property
values.
416-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
417 Whitesel, Melissa 417-1 I oppose 417-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
418 Wickelhaus, Amy 418-1 Safety issue to surrounds schools and
organizations for children!
418-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations and
Security Measures.
419 Williamson, Mike 419-1 Terrible idea and disaster waiting to
happen with this company.
419-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
RTC-143
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
Between the lawsuits & understaffing how
can anyone truly support this?
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers. However, see Global
Response: Acadia Healthcare.
420 Wistner, Laura 420-1 Eastlake Business Center, is not the
correct location for a mental institution, the
majority of the businesses there are there
cater towards family after school activities.
EBC is in the middle of a family
neighborhood, walking distance to
elementary school district and parks. The
community strongly opposes this location.
420-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
420-2 Acadia has a bad reputation managing
their other facilities, how can we trust
them?
420-2 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
421 Wood, Lydia 421-1 This is not the proper location for this type
of medical facility
421-1 See Global Response: Project Location.
422 Wyatt, Briana 422-1 For those you have not yet visited this
parcel, I highly recommend you do! It is
beautiful, breathtaking, a true gem!
Whoever is permitted to use this land
should be equally amazing and deserving!
We have ALL worked so hard to make
Chula Vista a place of pride, safety, and
respect. With this parcel, Chula Vista has
the opportunity to add more value to
Chula Vista, not to taint it, not to sell out to
the first bidder, a fraud ridden, corrupt
company like Acadia. Please don't take a
shortcut and sacrifice this rare opportunity
to improve Chula Vista for all of us.
Please, visit this land, and take a few
moments to imagine ALL OF THE
BEAUTIFUL POSSIBILITIES!
Chula Vista deserves to be developed in a
way that respects all of the efforts we
have made thus far and is in alignment
with a brighter future.
422-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
RTC-144
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
422-2 This development will cause unnecessary
added strain on our police and ambulatory
resources.
422-2 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
422-3 Acadia is the wrong partner for this
project. Mental health is all of our
responsibility, but it would be irresponsible
to let Acadia, a company publicly and
legally cited for sexual abuse, fraud, and
neglect to lead this endeavor.
422-3 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
422-4 I am a business professor, entrepreneur,
military spouse and mother. I support
mental heaIth care, but I oppose this
specific project and am hopeful to see
other project options for this beautiful
parcel in the heart of our community.
422-4 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
423 Wyatt, Nicholas 423-1 I strongly oppose the chosen location of
this hospital. This is immediately adjacent
to parks, schools, family gyms, and would
practically be inside our neighborhood.
This is a very clean, quiet, friendly and
family oriented community.
423-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
423-2 I am concerned for the safety of my wife
and two small children, as well as all of
the other families residing only a few
hundred feet away from the proposed
location, some even closer.
423-2 See Global Response: Security Measures.
423-3 Being an active duty combat veteran with
17 years of naval service, I have seen first
hand how important and necessary
mental health hospitals are. However,
knowing the wide variety of conditions
these hospitals treat, it would be
irresponsible for Acadia to introduce that
type of environment directly inside a
residential community. The proximity to
our neighborhood is even shown on their
website, with the location backed against
a street of family homes.
423-3 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
RTC-145
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
423-4 In my opinion and after reviewing in detail
Acadia’s well known controversial
business ethics and practices, they are
not concerned with our safety nor the well
being of our community. Allowing them to
build on this location would bring great
discredit to the city of Chula Vista.
423-4 With respect to Acadia Healthcare’s business model,
see Global Response: Acadia Healthcare. The
remainder of this comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record and presented to the City decision
makers within the Final EIR.
424 X, Ken 424-1 This area of Eastlake may be zoned
commercial, but the businesses here cater
to children. Young children and families
abound. This is the wrong place for a
behavioral health facility.
424-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
425 Yi, Milton 425-1 Oppose and think it should be located to a
central San Diego location like Mission
Valley.
425-1 See Global Response: Alternative Locations.
426 Young, Elissa 426-1 Oppose 426-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
427 Zee, John 427-1 No no no 427-1 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue
related to the content or adequacy of the environmental
analysis of the Draft EIR, and no further response is
required. This comment will be included in the
administrative record within the Final EIR and presented
to the City decision makers.
428 Zehder, Krista 428-1 I fear for the safety of our children who go
to school at Salt Creek. This is way too
close to many schools.
428-1 See Global Responses: Example of Locations and
Security Measures.
429 Zehder, Michael 429-1 The location of the proposed center would
be too close to residential communities
and schools.
429-1 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
429-2 In addition, there is no good transportation 429-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
429-3 or hospital facilities close enough to
support the patients.
429-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
RTC-146
Letter # Commenter Comment Response
430 Zoch, Paul 430-1 This is the wrong place to locate a mental
hospital Way too close to residential
communities.
430-1 See Global Responses: Project Location and Example
of Locations.
430-2 I do not doubt they will have adequate
security for the patients in care.
430-2 See Global Response: Security Measures.
430-3 I have serious reservations about the
patients that are released from the facility
and will be free to roam the community.
430-3 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
430-4 I also have serious reservations about the
integrity of the operator after reading
several online stories about medical fraud
billing.
430-4 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
431 Zordell, Catherine 431-1 I strongly oppose the location of this
proposed hospital for several reasons.
First, the 80% owner and operator,
Acadia, has a horrible track record in
facilities across the US and in other
countries. This includes death of patients
as well as physical and mental abuse.
431-1 See Global Response: Acadia Healthcare.
431-2 Second, this location does not have the
infrastructure to support this type of
facility.
431-2 See Global Response: Public Transportation.
431-3 Lack of hospital support, most importantly
access to emergency services,
431-3 See Global Response: Amenities.
431-4 lack of public transportation 431-4 See response to comment 431-2.
431-5 and inadequate police officers. 431-5 See Global Response: Emergency Services.
431-6 Third, this location is near to businesses
that cater to children and families, to
multiple schools, elementary, middle and
high school and directly next to
neighborhoods and parks.
431-6 See Global Response: Example of Locations.
Table of Contents
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Response to Comments .......................................................... RTC-1
Acronyms ......................................................................................... v
1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................. 1-1
1.1 Project Synopsis ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Location and Setting ................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Description ................................................................................. 1-1
1.4 Areas of Controversy .............................................................................. 1-2
1.5 Issues to be Resolved by the City Council ............................................. 1-3
1.6 Project Alternatives ................................................................................. 1-3
1.7 Summary Table ...................................................................................... 1-4
2.0 Introduction .......................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report ........................................ 2-1
2.2 Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report .................................... 2-2
2.3 Agency Review Procedures ................................................................... 2-5
3.0 Project Description .............................................................. 3-1
3.1 Project Location and Setting ................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Project Background ................................................................................ 3-1
3.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................... 3-6
3.4 Discretionary Actions .............................................................................. 3-6
3.5 Project Overview .................................................................................... 3-7
3.6 Circulation and Access ......................................................................... 3-15
3.7 Parking ................................................................................................. 3-15
3.8 Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 3-15
3.9 Utilities and Services ............................................................................ 3-18
3.10 Off-site Improvements .......................................................................... 3-19
3.11 Environmental Design Consideration ................................................... 3-19
3.12 Locational and Operational Characteristics .......................................... 3-20
4.0 Environmental Setting ......................................................... 4-1
4.1 Project Location and Regional Setting ................................................... 4-1
4.2 Physical On-Site Characteristics ............................................................ 4-1
4.3 Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................................... 4-1
4.4 Planning Context .................................................................................... 4-2
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis .......................................... 5-1
5.1 Land Use ............................................................................................. 5.1-1
5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics ............................................................ 5.2-1
Table of Contents
ii
5.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................ 5.3-1
5.4 Energy ................................................................................................. 5.4-1
5.5 Geology and Soils ............................................................................... 5.5-1
5.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................ 5.6-1
5.7 Hazards ............................................................................................... 5.7-1
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... 5.8-1
5.9 Noise ................................................................................................... 5.9-1
5.10 Public Services and Recreation ......................................................... 5.10-1
5.11 Transportation ................................................................................... 5.11-1
5.12 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................ 5.12-1
5.13 Wildfire ............................................................................................... 5.13-1
6.0 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. 6-1
6.1 Plans Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................. 6-1
6.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... 6-2
7.0 Project Alternatives ............................................................. 7-1
7.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected .................................................... 7-3
7.2 No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative ....................................... 7-3
7.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative ............................................................... 7-11
7.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................... 7-17
8.0 Issues Found Not to be Significant ................................... 8-1
8.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ..................................................... 8-1
8.2 Biological Resources .............................................................................. 8-2
8.3 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ................................ 8-2
8.4 Mineral Resources .................................................................................. 8-2
8.5 Population and Housing ......................................................................... 8-3
9.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/ Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .............. 9-1
9.1 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the
Project is Implemented ........................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Result if the
Project is Implemented ........................................................................... 9-1
10.0 Growth Inducement ........................................................... 10-1
10.1 Population and Growth Projections ...................................................... 10-1
10.2 Public Services and Infrastructure ........................................................ 10-1
11.0 References Cited ................................................................ 11-1
12.0 Environmental Impact Report Preparation ...................... 12-1
Table of Contents
iii
FIGURES
3-1: Regional Location............................................................................................ 3-2
3-2: Project Location on USGS Map ...................................................................... 3-3
3-3: Project Topography ......................................................................................... 3-4
3-4: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ............................................................ 3-5
3-5: Site Plan .......................................................................................................... 3-8
3-6a: Landscape Plan ............................................................................................ 3-10
3-6b: Planting Legend ............................................................................................ 3-11
3-7: Wall and Fence Plan ..................................................................................... 3-12
3-8: Lighting Plan ................................................................................................. 3-13
3-9: Grading Plan ................................................................................................. 3-14
3-10: Internal Circulation Plan ................................................................................ 3-16
3-11: Best Management Practices (BMP) Map ...................................................... 3-17
4-1: Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................... 4-3
5.2-1: Project Views ............................................................................................... 5.2-2
5.2-2: Project Materials and Colors ........................................................................ 5.2-9
5.2-3: Project Renderings ..................................................................................... 5.2-10
5.2-4: Project Site in Proximity to Scenic Highways ............................................. 5.2-11
5.2-5: Site Sections .............................................................................................. 5.2-13
5.8-1: FEMA Flood Areas ....................................................................................... 5.8-3
5.9-1: Noise Measurement Locations ..................................................................... 5.9-2
5.9-2: Construction Noise Contours ....................................................................... 5.9-8
5.9-3: Vehicle Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................... 5.9-10
5.9-4a: On-Site Generated Noise Contours with Emergency Generator ................ 5.9-14
5.9-4b: On-Site Generated Noise Contours without Emergency Generator ........... 5.9-15
5.11-1: SANDAG VMT Screen-Line Map for Project Site ....................................... 5.11-9
5.13-1: Wildfire Hazards Map ................................................................................. 5.13-2
7-1: No Project/Medical Office Alternative Conceptual Site Plan ........................... 7-5
7-2: No Project/Medical Office Alternative Site Sections ........................................ 7-7
7-3: Reduced Intensity Alternative Conceptual Site Plan ..................................... 7-12
TABLES
1-1: Summary of Significant Environmental Effects ............................................... 1-5
5.1-1: Land Use Policy Consistency Analysis – General Plan ............................... 5.1-7
5.2-1: Property Development Standards ................................................................ 5.2-7
5.3-1: Summary of Air Quality Measurements Recorded at the
Chula Vista Air Quality Monitoring Station ............................................... 5.3-5
5.3-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................................... 5.3-7
5.3-3: Summary of Worst-Case Construction Emissions ..................................... 5.3-15
5.3-4: Summary of Project Operational Emissions .............................................. 5.3-16
5.4-1: SDG&E 2018 Power Mix .............................................................................. 5.4-1
5.4-2: Construction Vehicle Trips – Fuel Consumption .......................................... 5.4-8
5.4-3: On-site Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption .................................... 5.4-8
5.4-4: Vehicle Fuel/Electricity Consumption ........................................................... 5.4-9
5.4-5: Operational Electricity and Natural Gas Use .............................................. 5.4-11
5.5-1: Principal Active Faults .................................................................................. 5.5-3
5.5-2: Historical Earthquakes that Affected the Project Site ................................... 5.5-4
5.6-1: California GHG Emissions by Sector in 1990, 2005, and 2017 .................... 5.6-2
5.6-2: City of Chula Vista Community GHG Emissions .......................................... 5.6-3
5.6-3: San Diego Gas & Electric Intensity Factors ............................................... 5.6-12
5.6-4: Summary of GHG Emission Calculation Methodology ............................... 5.6-14
Table of Contents
iv
TABLES (cont.)
5.6-5: Project GHG Emissions .............................................................................. 5.6-14
5.6-6: Climate Action Plan Consistency Analysis ................................................. 5.6-15
5.8-1: Peak Flow at Detention Basins .................................................................. 5.8-12
5.9-1: Exterior Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines ....................................... 5.9-3
5.9-2: City of Chula Vista Exterior Noise Limits ...................................................... 5.9-5
5.9-3: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................. 5.9-6
5.9-4: Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................ 5.9-7
5.9-5: Traffic Parameters ........................................................................................ 5.9-9
5.9-6: Future Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................ 5.9-11
5.9-7: Future Vehicle Traffic Parameters .............................................................. 5.9-12
5.9-8: Traffic Noise Level With and Without Project and Ambient Noise
Increases .................................................................................................... 5.9-12
5.9-9: Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Noise Levels at Adjacent
Properties ............................................................................................... 5.9-13
5.10-1: Average Police Response Times (Fiscal Year 2020) ................................. 5.10-2
5.11-1: Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 5.11-2
5.11-2: Project VMT Findings ............................................................................... 5.11-10
7-1: Comparison of Project and Alternatives Impacts Summary ............................ 7-2
7-2: Project Trip Generation Summary: Medical Office Building ............................ 7-8
APPENDICES (bound separately)
A: NOP and Comments
B: Air Quality Analysis
C: Energy Calculations
D: Geotechnical Evaluation
E: Stormwater Quality Management Plan
F: Greenhouse Gas Report
G: Drainage Study
H: Noise Analysis
I: Transportation Impact Analysis
J: Sewer Study
Acronyms
v
ACRONYMS
µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter of air
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
ADT Average daily traffic
ALSO Arterial Level of Service
ALUCP Airport Land Use Commission Plan
APN Assessor’s parcel number
AQIP Air Quality Improvement Plan
ATSC Adaptive Traffic Signal Control
BC-4 Business Center 4
BDPDM Best Management Practices Design Manual
BMP Best management practice
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
C&D Construction and Demolition
C&DD Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
CERT Community Emergency Response Team
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs Cubic feet per second
CH4 Methane
City City of Chula Vista
CNEL Community noise equivalent level
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
Acronyms
vi
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CVESD Chula Vista Elementary School District
CVFD Chula Vista Fire Department
CVLFMP Chula Vista Public Library Facilities Master Plan
CVMC Chula Vista Municipal Plan
CVPD Chula Vista Police Department
CVPL Chula Vista Public Library
CWA Clean Water Act
dB(A) A-weighted decibels
DEH Department of Environmental Health
DOT Department of Transportation
DPM Diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
Energy Plan Energy Strategy and Action Plan
EO Executive Order
EP Employment Park
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ESP Energy Services Provider
FDD Facilities Development Division
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act
FFMP Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment Master Plan
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
GBS Green Building Standards
GDP General Development Plan
GHG Greenhouse gas
GM Growth Management
GME Growth Management Element
GMO Growth Management Ordinance
GMOC Growth Management Oversight Committee
GMP Growth Management Program
gpd Gallons per day
H&SC Health and Safety Code
HAS Hydrologic Subarea
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HMD Hazardous Materials Division
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HU Hydrologic Unit
Acronyms
vii
Hz Hertz
in/sec Inch per second
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IR Research and Limited Manufacturing
IWMA California Integrated Waste Management Act
JRMP Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt hour
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq One-hour equivalent noise level
LID Low Impact Development
LLG Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
LMA Local Mobility Assessment
Lmax Maximum sound level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local responsibility area
LUST Leaking underground storage tanks
LUT Land Use and Transportation
MCER Maximum Considered Earthquake
METRO Metropolitan Wastewater System
mgd Million gallons per day
MJHMP Multi-Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan
Mmax Maximum moment magnitudes
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT CO2E Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
mph Miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MRZ Mineral Resource Zones
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program
MT CO2E Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
N2O Nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OES Office of Emergency Services
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHPD Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
Acronyms
viii
OWD Otay Water District
Pb Lead
PC Planned Community
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
PFC Perfluorocarbon
PFDIF Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
PFS Public Facilities and Services
PLDO Park Lands Dedication Ordinance
PM10 10-micron particulate matter
PM2.5 2.5-micron particulate matter
ppm Parts per million
PPV Peak particle velocity
project Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
PV photovoltaic
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized environmental conditions
RES Regional Energy Strategy
RMP Resource Management Plan
ROC Reactive organic compound
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Boards
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SPA Sectional Planning Area
SR State Route
SUHSD Sweetwater Union High School District
SWQMP Stormwater Quality Management Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic air contaminant
Acronyms
ix
TCM Transportation Control Measures
TCM Transportation Control Measure
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
TMDL Total maximum daily load
TMP Traffic Monitoring Program
TSG Transportation Study Guidelines
UDC Unified Disaster Council
ULSO Urban Street Level of Service
USC United States Code
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground storage tanks
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WDR Report of Waste Discharge
WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan
WRMP Water Resource Master Plan
1.0 Executive Summary
1-1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Project Synopsis
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital project (project) is for informational use by the City of Chula Vista (City), other
public agencies, and members of the public. This summary provides a brief synopsis of:
(1) the project, (2) results of the environmental analysis contained within this
environmental document, (3) alternatives to the project that were considered, and
(4) major areas of controversy and issues to be resolved by decision-makers. This
summary does not contain the extensive background and analysis found throughout the
individual sections within the document. Therefore, the reader should review the entire
document to fully understand the project and its environmental consequences.
This document constitutes an EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA, this Project EIR
examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project, and focuses on
the physical changes in the environment that would result from the project.
1.2 Project Location and Setting
The project is located within the City, in southwestern San Diego County. The project site
is a 10.42-acre parcel located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place, north of Fenton Street,
west of Hunte Parkway, and east of Lane Avenue. The project site is subject to a zoning
designation of Business Center 4 (BC-4).
The project site sits adjacent to The District at Eastlake, which is nearly fully developed
with commercial uses and parking. The project site is surrounded by commercial uses
such as restaurants, and family-oriented businesses, providing play areas and classes for
adults and children. A number of these businesses include Eastlake Speed Circuit, Crunch
Select Gym, Ninja Factory, Sky Zone, Play City, Pride Martial Arts, Kid Ventures, Sylvan
Learning Center, Little Artists, DanceArts, and Floaties Swim School. The Eastlake
Montessori School and Awaken Church (Eastlake Campus) is also located within The
District at Eastlake. The Awaken Church provides programming for children of all ages
from six months to high school, meeting on the campus weeknights and Sundays. Medical
and dental facilities are located off Showroom Place, opposite the project site across
Fenton Street. Residential properties are located downslope to the north and east.
1.3 Project Description
The project would include construction of single-story behavioral health hospital. The
acute psychiatric hospital would accommodate 120 beds within an approximately 97,050-
square-foot single-story structure. Specific medical and ancillary services would include
in- and out-patient behavioral health services for geriatric, adult, and adolescent patients,
1.0 Executive Summary
1-2
nutrition support, and physical therapy, as well as a gymnasium, cafeteria for inpatients,
visitors and staff, and an inpatient pharmacy. The facility would employ approximately
150 employees working in three shifts. The site design also includes exterior activity
areas, a patio with shade canopy, walking paths, and a recreation lawn. Details of the
project are outlined in Chapter 3.
1.3.1 Project Objectives
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to include a statement of
objectives for the project that outlines the purpose of the project. The project objectives
are listed in Section 3.3 and are used to develop and compare the alternatives
(Chapter 7.0).
1.3.2 Discretionary Actions
A discretionary action is an action taken by an agency that calls for the decision on whether
to approve or how to carry out a project. The Chula Vista City Council will consider the
following discretionary actions required to implement the project:
• Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP-19-0010) to allow a hospital use to be
constructed within the BC-4 zone.
• Approval of a Design Review (DR19-0012) to construct the building and associated
parking within the existing Business Center (BC-4).
• Certification of a Final EIR, adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, if necessary, pursuant to CEQA (PER 19-0006).
1.4 Areas of Controversy
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on August 31, 2020 for a 30-day public
review and comment period. Pursuant to the Governor of the State of California's
Executive Order N-29-20, a virtual public scoping meeting was made available through a
prerecorded presentation for the entirety of the scoping period (August 31, 2020 to
September 29, 2020). Comments were submitted via the City’s online e-comment portal.
The public was directed to focus comments on the environmental issues discussed in the
NOP. A total of 272 comments were received. The NOP and comments received are
included in this EIR as Appendix A. After a detailed review of the comments, CEQA related
concerns associated with the project include issues associated with availability of public
services (police and fire), land use (consistency with existing plans), aesthetics
(community character, light and glare), public utilities (infrastructure improvements),
increased traffic, increased noise (construction and operation), cultural (tribal) resources,
and hazards. These issues are analyzed in this EIR.
1.0 Executive Summary
1-3
1.5 Issues to be Resolved by the City Council
The issues to be resolved by the decision-making body are whether to adopt the project.
The City will also determine whether any alternative might meet the key objectives of the
project while reducing any environmental impact.
1.6 Project Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of “a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most
of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project” and the evaluation of the comparative merits of the
alternatives. The alternatives discussion is intended to “focus on alternatives to the project
or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant
effects of the project,” even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the
attainment of the project objectives.
CEQA Guidelines mandate that the EIR analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects. These alternatives allow informed
decision making and public participation. The alternatives fully evaluated in Chapter 7
include the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative and the Reduced Intensity
Alternative.
1.6.1 No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative
The No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative illustrates what could be built on the
project site under existing plans and policies consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C). Specifically, the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative
assumes the construction of a medical office building which could be developed on the
project site by-right under the existing zoning regulations.
Compared to the proposed project implementation of the No Project/Medical Office
Building Alternative would result in incrementally greater potentially significant impacts
related to landform/aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise.
The No Project (Existing Zoning) Alternative would not meet most of the program
objectives. This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives (see Table 7-1).
1.6.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative presents a reduced size behavioral health hospital that
would accommodate 50 percent less patient beds, for a total of 60 beds. Compared to the
proposed project, implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the
same potentially significant impacts, except for air quality, energy, greenhouse gas
emissions, and utilities and services, which would be incrementally less (see Table 7-1).
1.0 Executive Summary
1-4
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project as it
would not serve the regional needs of the community of providing the needed inpatient
beds.
1.7 Summary Table
Table 1-1 identifies the subject areas analyzed in the EIR and conclusions related to the
significance of those impacts.
1-5
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
Land Use
Would the project physically divide an
established community?
The proposed land use, design, and layout for the project
would be compatible with existing land use plans and patterns.
There are residential neighborhoods in the project vicinity;
however, the project would be located within an existing site
designated for commercial use; the project would not
physically divide an established community. Impacts would be
less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
The project does not propose any change in land use that
would be inconsistent with existing plans, policies, or
regulations governing the project site. Table 5.1-1 summarizes
the project’s consistency with relevant General Plan objectives
and policies. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
Would the project have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
The project site does not support any trees, rock outcroppings,
or historic buildings and is not located within any designated
scenic roadways or vistas; however, it does offer views of
surrounding mountains and ridge lines. The project would
comply with all relevant provisions of the City’s General Plan
and relevant planning documents, including the Eastlake II
General Development Plan (GDP)/Business Center II
Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to ensure
that proposed site design, architectural design, height,
landscaping, signage, and utilities are consistent with the
scenic quality of the surrounding area, including the continued
ability to view the distant mountains and ridgelines. Impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
In non-urbanized areas, would the project
substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings (public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage
points). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project would comply with all relevant General Plan
objectives which establish policies focused on the requirement
for design review to ensure new development is compatible
with the surrounding visual character and quality. Specifically,
the project would comply with all landscape and architectural
design requirements to ensure the project’s consistency with
the existing community character and visual quality of the
area. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
1-6
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
Would the project create a new source of light
or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Construction lighting would be limited to regulatory standards
and would be short term. The project is designed to ensure all
lighting is directed downward and shielded. Additionally, the
project has been designed primarily of solid surfaces, with
glass enhancements of muted grays, blues, and greens to
provide low glare and would be absorptive of light or made of
anti-reflective material. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Air Quality
Would the project conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
The project would be consistent with the General Plan land
use designation and would not result in growth in population
beyond that anticipated by the General Plan and San Diego
Association of Governments. Therefore, the project would not
result in an increase in emissions that are not already
accounted for in the Regional Air Quality Standards. Impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation
The project would not result in regional emissions that would
exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or
contribute to existing violations during construction operation.
Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or
state AAQS (including the release of emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Emissions of ozone precursors from construction and
operation would be below the applicable thresholds.
Therefore, the project would not generate emissions in
quantities that would result in an exceedance of the NAAQS or
CAAQS for ozone, 10-micron particulate matter, or 2.5-micron
particulate matter. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentration (including
air toxics)?
There would be no harmful concentrations of carbon monoxide
and localized air quality emission would not exceed applicable
standards with implementation of the project. Impacts would
be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people
The project does not include heavy industrial or agricultural
uses that are typically associated with odor complaints. The
project would not create or expose sensitive receivers to
odors. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
1-7
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
Energy
Would the project result in potentially
significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during
project construction or operation?
The project would not result in the use of excessive amounts
of fuel or other forms of energy during construction or
operation and the project would not create a land use pattern
that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of
energy. Impacts would be less than significant
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would
be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Geology and Soils
Would the project directly or indirectly cause
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42;
• Strong seismic ground shaking;
• Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction; or
• Landslides?
The project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations and building standards related to seismic
safety, including the California Building Code (CBC),
specifically those seismic design considerations included in
the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project.
Additionally, the project would be consistent with all relevant
General Plan policies to ensure the risk of injury, loss of life,
and property damage associated with geologic hazards would
not occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The project would implement the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Evaluation to ensure the preservation and
protection of soils from erosion and uncontrolled runoff.
Additionally, the project would include best management
practices (BMPs) during and post-construction to reduce the
potential for soil erosion due to excess runoff volume and
velocity. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project be located on a geological
unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on-site or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
Compliance with current seismic design specifications, CBC
standards, and other regulatory requirements would ensure
that the project would reduce the potential for soil instability
and associated geologic hazards. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
1-8
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
Would the project be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
The project would implement the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Evaluation, and adhere to all regulations related
to seismic safety to ensure the project is designed to withstand
potential impacts associated with expansive soils. Impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal
of waste water?
The project would not require the use of septic systems. No
impact would occur.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
The project site has been previously graded and any
remaining underlying geological formations are only marginally
sensitive for paleontological resources. It is, therefore, unlikely
the project would impact such resources. Impacts would be
less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project generate greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
The project would generate 2,986 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MT CO2E) annually, which is less than the
3,000 MT CO2E residential/commercial screening threshold.
Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs?
The project would be consistent with all relevant statewide and
local plans, including the City’s Climate Action Plan. Impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Hazards
Would the project create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Project construction and post construction activities would
comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations
governing the transportation, use, handling, storage,
management, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste,
biohazards, medical waste, and radioactive materials to
ensure protection of public safety, health, and welfare and the
environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
The project would prepare a Hazardous Materials Business
Plan and Risk Management Program as required by state and
local regulations that identify the risks of a hazardous event
and provide a plan to ensure any accidental hazardous
release would be managed and contained without significant
harm to the public or environment. Impacts would be less
than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
1-9
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
Would the project emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The project would adhere to regulatory requirements regarding
all forms of handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous
chemicals including biohazardous and radioactive waste.
Therefore, the project would not expose schools to hazardous
materials and substances. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
No hazardous materials sites are located on or within the
vicinity of the project site. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan,
nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project would have adequate emergency access and
would not significantly impair implementation or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is not identified within an area considered a
“very high hazard” or “high hazard.” The project site is
surrounded by developed lands and would not expose people
or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from
wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
Implementation of site design, source control, and structural
pollutant control measures would preclude any violations of
applicable standards and discharge regulations, ensuring that
the project would be consistent with the City’s Threshold
Standards. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project substantially decrease
ground water supplies or interfere substantially
with ground water supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
The project would not use ground water sources and would
instead connect to the Otay Water District existing public water
system. No Impact would occur.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
1-10
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
Would the project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner, which would:
• result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
• substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner, which would
result in flooding on- or off-site?
• create or contribute runoff water, which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
• impede or redirect flood flows?
The project would adhere to all County and local regulations
including the inclusion of on-site BMPs in the form of two
hydromodification/detention basins to ensure that impacts
related to altering drainage patterns, erosion/siltation, excess
runoff, and redirection of flood flows would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
would the project risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
The project site is not located in an area identified as having a
potential for flooding. Additionally, the project site is located
approximately 14 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. No impact
related to flood hazard tsunami, or seiche would occur.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan
or sustainable groundwater management plan
The project would comply with all relevant regulations. Impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Noise
Would the project generate a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
The project would not result in increased noise levels above
ambient conditions. Construction activities associated with the
project would comply with the applicable regulation for
construction and would be temporary in nature. Exterior noise
levels at the building façade are projected to be less than the
City’s interior noise level standard of 50 community noise
equivalent level (CNEL) and direct off-site noise level
increases due to the project would be 1 decibel (dB) or less.
Additionally, noise anticipated from the project’s on-site
generator would not exceed commercial noise limits. Overall,
impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project generate excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Construction activities associated with the project would
comply with the applicable regulations for construction,
including ground borne vibration Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
1-11
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or airport land use plan, or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport would the project expose people
residing or working in the area to excessive
noise levels?
The project is not subject to an airport land use plan, nor within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No impact
related to airport noise would occur.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Public Services and Recreation
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical or other environmental impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i. Fire protection;
ii. Police protection;
iii. Schools;
iv. Parks; and
v. Other public facilities?
The project would not require any new or physically altered
facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
The project would not result in any new residential uses that
would place a burden or cause deterioration of existing parks
or recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project would not result in any new residential uses that
would require construction or expansion of recreational
facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Transportation
Would the project conflict with a program plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation
system including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
The project would be consistent with all relevant program
plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation
system. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
1-12
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b) (Vehicle Miles Traveled)?
Based on City screening of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the
project would be screened out of the requirement for a detailed
VMT analysis, and the project is considered as resulting in a
less than significant VMT impact without conducting a detailed
study.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The project does not include any features that would
substantially increase hazards. Changes to the existing
circulation system would be limited to the project commitment
of fund for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection
of Harold Place/Fenton Street. This improvement would not
increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project result in inadequate
emergency access?
The project would not generate congestion that could delay
emergency evacuation. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project require or result in the
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
The project would not require the relocation or construction of
new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment,
storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications. Impacts would be less than significant
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project have insufficient water
supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Sufficient water supplies are planned for and would be
available to serve the project based on land use consistency
with water use assumptions used in the Otay Water District
Urban Water Management Plan. As the project would not
require new or expanded water supplied, impacts would be
less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it does not
have adequate capacity to serve project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
The wastewater outflow for the project is estimated meet City
Engineering standards for sewer. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project generate solid waste in
excess of state or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
The Otay Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
projected increase in waste disposal needs. Impacts would be
less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
1-13
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
Would the project comply with federal, state,
and local management and reduction statutes
and regulation related to solid waste?
The project would adhere to all relevant federal, state, and
local management and reduction statutes and regulation
related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Wildfire
Would the project substantially impair an
adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
The project would not require change to the local circulation or
infrastructure that would impair implementation of, or
physically interfere with, emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The project would be required to comply with the City’s Fire
Code and Urban Wildland-Urban Interface Code for all
construction and design details relating to building materials,
interior safety devices, and brush management to ensure that
wildfire risks are not exacerbated. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project require the installation or
maintenance of associated infrastructure (such
as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
The project would only require the construction of a single
traffic signal at the intersection of Harold Place/Fenton Street.
All utility improvements would occur on-site and connect to
existing lines. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate fire
risk related to infrastructure improvements. Impacts would be
less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
Would the project expose people or structures
to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
The project would not change drainage patterns nor leave
soils exposed in a manner that would result in post-fire
flooding or slope instability. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Not Applicable.
2.0 Introduction
2-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This introduction provides the background and rationale for the purpose, content, and
review procedures for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastlake
Behavioral Health Hospital Project (project) in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report
In accordance with CEQA, the City of Chula Vista (City) is the lead agency for the
preparation of this environmental document. This EIR is intended to inform decision-
makers, public agencies, and the public about the potential significant adverse
environmental impacts of the project and provide decision-makers with an understanding
of the associated physical and environmental changes prior to taking action on the
project. The EIR includes recommended mitigation measures which, when implemented,
would lessen project impacts and provide the City with ways to substantially lessen or
avoid significant effects of the project on the environment, whenever feasible.
Alternatives to the project that can further reduce or avoid significant impacts are also
addressed.
The major purposes of this EIR are:
• To identify current and projected environmental conditions that may affect or
be affected by the project;
• To disclose potential environmental impacts of the project to the public and to
the decision-makers;
• To inform the public and to foster public participation in the City’s planning
process;
• To identify mitigation measures which could eliminate or reduce potentially
significant environmental impacts; and
• To evaluate alternatives that might be environmentally superior to the project.
The environmental impact analysis outlines the environmental setting of the project,
identifies potential environmental impacts, determines the significance of the potential
impacts, and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts. This EIR also addresses cumulative impacts, growth-
inducing impacts, effects found not to be significant, irreversible environmental effects,
and alternatives to the project.
2.0 Introduction
2-2
2.2 Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
This EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR, as defined in Section 15161 of the CEQA
Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA, and the City of Chula Vista environmental review
procedures this Project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific
development project, and focuses on the physical changes in the environment that
would result from the project.
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on August 31, 2020 for a 30-day public
review and comment period. The purpose of the NOP is to solicit comments from the
public on potential environmental issues to be examined in the EIR. Pursuant to the
Governor of the State of California's executive order N-29-20, a virtual public scoping
meeting was made available through a prerecorded presentation for the entirety of the
scoping period. Comments were submitted via the City’s online e-comment portal. The
public were directed to focus comments on the environmental issues discussed in the
NOP. A total of 272 comments were received. The NOP and comments received are
included in this EIR as Appendix A.
2.2.1 EIR Content
The intent of this EIR is to determine whether implementation of the project would have
a significant effect on the environment through analysis of the issues identified during
the scoping process. Impacts are identified as direct or indirect, short term or long term,
and analyzed.
Through these scoping activities, the project was determined to have the potential to
result in the following significant environmental impacts:
• Land Use
• Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
The following subject areas have been determined to not be considered significant and
are discussed in Section 9.0, Issues Found Not to be Significant, of this EIR.
2.0 Introduction
2-3
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
2.2.2 EIR Format
A brief overview of the various sections of this EIR is provided below.
• Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary. Provides a summary of the EIR, a brief
description of the project, identification of areas of controversy, and inclusion of a
summary table identifying significant impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and
impact rating after mitigation. A summary of the analyzed project alternatives and
a comparison of the potential impacts of the alternatives with those of the project
are also provided.
• Chapter 2.0, Introduction. Contains an overview of the purpose and intended
uses of the EIR; lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and the CEQA
environmental review process. It also provides a discussion of the scope and
format of the EIR.
• Chapter 3.0, Project Description. Provides a detailed discussion of the project,
including background, objectives, key features, and environmental design
considerations. The discretionary actions required to implement the project and a
chronicle of project changes are also included.
• Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting. Provides a description of the project’s
regional context, location, and existing physical characteristics and land use. A
summary of available public infrastructure and services, as well as their
relationship to relevant plans, is also provided in this chapter.
• Chapter 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. Provides an analysis of the
potentially significant environmental impacts identified, and proposed mitigation
measures to reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts.
• Chapter 6.0, Cumulative Impacts. Identifies the impact of the project in
combination with other planned and future development in the region.
• Chapter 7.0, Project Alternatives. Provides a description of alternatives to the
project, including a No Project (No Development) Alternative and others which
constitute a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6.
2.0 Introduction
2-4
• Chapter 8.0, Issues Found Not to be Significant. Identifies all of the issues
determined in the scoping and preliminary environmental review process to be
not significant and briefly summarizes the basis for these determinations.
• Chapter 9.0, Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/Significant
Irreversible Environmental Changes. Discusses the significant unavoidable
impacts of the project, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to
below a level of significance. This section also describes the potentially
significant irreversible changes that may be expected with development of the
project and addresses the use of nonrenewable resources during its construction
and operational life.
• Chapter 10.0, Growth Inducement. Evaluates the potential influence the project
may have on economic or population growth within the project area as well as
the region, either directly or indirectly.
• Chapter 11.0, References Cited. Lists all of the reference materials cited in the
EIR.
• Chapter 12.0, EIR Preparation. Identifies the individuals responsible for the
preparation of the EIR.
2.2.3 Technical Appendices
Technical appendices, used as a basis for much of the environmental analysis in the
EIR, have been summarized in the EIR and are printed under separate cover as part of
the EIR. The technical appendices are available for review at the City of Chula Vista,
Development Services Department, located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California 91910.
2.2.4 EIR Process
The EIR review process occurs in two basic stages. The first stage is the Draft EIR,
which offers the public the opportunity to comment on the document, while the second
stage is the Final EIR, which incorporates comments received during the public review
period.
2.2.5 Draft EIR
In accordance with Sections 15085 and 15087(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, upon
completion of the Draft EIR, a Notice of Completion is filed with the State Office of
Planning and Research, and Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR issued in a newspaper
of general circulation in the area.
2.0 Introduction
2-5
The Draft EIR is distributed for review to the public and interested and affected agencies
for the purpose of providing comments “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying
and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant
effects of the project might be avoided and mitigated” (Section 15204, CEQA
Guidelines).
This Draft EIR and all related technical studies are available for review during the public
review period at the offices of the City, Development Services Department, located at
276 Fourth Avenue, Building B, Chula Vista, California 91910. Copies of the Draft EIR
are also available at the Chula Vista Public Library, 365 F Street, Chula Vista, California
91910.
This EIR is also available for review online at:
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/public-
notices/environmental-notices
2.2.6 Final EIR
Following public review of the Draft EIR, the City will provide written responses to
comments per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 and will consider all comments in
making its decision to certify the Final EIR. Responses to the comments received during
public review, an MMRP, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for any impacts identified in the Draft EIR as significant and unmitigable
will be prepared and compiled as part of the Final EIR.
The culmination of this process is a public hearing where the City Council will determine
whether to certify the Final EIR as being complete and in accordance with CEQA. The
Final EIR will be available for public review at least 14 days before the public hearing to
provide commenters the opportunity to review the written responses to their comment
letters.
2.3 Agency Review Procedure
This document provides environmental information to the public, agencies affected by
the project, or entities which are likely to have an interest in the project, including, but not
limited to, the following:
• California Air Resources Board
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control
• California Department of Transportation
• California Office of Emergency Services
• California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
• Otay Water District
• San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
3.0 Project Description
3-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Location and Setting
The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital (project) would be located at 830 and
831 Showroom Place within the City of Chula Vista (City), in southwestern San Diego
County. The project site’s regional and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) locations are
shown in Figures 3-1, and 3-2, respectively. The topography of the site, shown in
Figure 3-3, consists of a relatively flat, vacant lot that has been previously graded. The
project site is comprised of two lots (assessor’s parcel numbers [APNs] 595-710-11 and
595-710-12) totaling 10.42 acres. Specifically, as shown in Figure 3-3, the project site sits
north of Fenton Street, west of Hunte Parkway, and east of Lane Avenue. The project site
is within the approved Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA),
which is part of the larger Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP). The Eastlake
Business Park, which contains existing commercial development and parking lots, is
subject to a zoning designation of Business Center 4 (BC-4). The environmental setting is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.0 of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As
shown in Figure 3-4, residential properties to the north and east are downslope
approximately 60 feet at the base of an existing manufactured slope. There is no legal
access between the project site and adjacent neighborhood.
3.2 Project Background
The site was graded in 2002, consistent with approved grading plans associated with the
approved Eastlake Business Center II-Phase 2 grading plans but has remained vacant
since that time. The project site sits adjacent to The District at Eastlake, which is nearly
fully developed with commercial uses and parking. The project site is surrounded by
commercial uses such as restaurants, and family-oriented businesses, providing play
areas and classes for adults and children. A number of these businesses include Eastlake
Speed Circuit, Crunch Select Gym, Ninja Factory, Sky Zone, Play City, Pride Martial Arts,
Kid Ventures, Sylvan Learning Center, Little Artists, DanceArts, and Floaties Swim School.
The Eastlake Montessori School and Awaken Church (Eastlake Campus) is also located
within The District at Eastlake. The Awaken Church provides programming for children of
all ages from six months to high school, meeting on the campus weeknights and Sundays.
FIGURE 3-1
Regional Location
kj
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
Mission Trails
Regional Park
Cleveland NF
Sutherland
Lake
Batiquitos Lagoon
Lake Hodges
El Capitan
Reservoir
San Vicente
Reservoir
Loveland
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
ReservoirSanDieguitoRiver
D u lz u ra C r e e
k
S a n t a Y s a b e lC r e e k
SanDie g u ito
Rive r
O t a y
R i v e r
E s c o n d idoC r e e k
Sweetw a t e rR iverS a n D ie g o R i v e
r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Capitan
Grande
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa de
Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite Hills
Harbison
Canyon
Jamul
Lakeside
La
Presa
Ramona
Rancho
San Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
San Diego
Country
Estates
Spring Valley
Winter Gardens
UV163
UV282
UV78
UV905
UV56
UV54
UV75
UV125
UV67
UV94
UV52
§¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
M
E
X
I
C
O
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial
Beach
La
Mesa
Lemon
Grove
National
City
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
kj
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
Mission Trails
Regional Park
Cleveland NF
Sutherland
Lake
Batiquitos Lagoon
Lake Hodges
El Capitan
Reservoir
San Vicente
Reservoir
Loveland
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
ReservoirSanDieguitoRiver
D u lz u ra C r e e
k
S a n t a Y s a b e lC r e e k
SanDie g u ito
Rive r
O t a y
R i v e r
E s c o n d idoC r e e k
Sweetw a t e rR iverS a n D ie g o R i v e
r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Capitan
Grande
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa de
Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite Hills
Harbison
Canyon
Jamul
Lakeside
La
Presa
Ramona
Rancho
San Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
San Diego
Country
Estates
Spring Valley
Winter Gardens
UV163
UV282
UV78
UV905
UV56
UV54
UV75
UV125
UV67
UV94
UV52
§¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
M
E
X
I
C
O
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial
Beach
La
Mesa
Lemon
Grove
National
City
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
0 5Miles [
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig1.mxd 3/18/2019 lrb
SAN DIEGO
RIVERSIDE
SAN BERNARDINO
ORANGE
MEXICO
Project Locationkj
FIGURE 3-2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Jamul Mountains quadrangle, 1994, Otay (Dominguez) Land Grant
0 2,000Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig2_USGS.mxd 3/5/2020 lrb
FIGURE 3-3
Project Topography
N
O
R
T
H
V
A
L
L
EYVI
EWDRWATERLINE WAY
WINDWARD WAY HUNTE PKYCAT A MARAN W
A
Y
C R E EKSIDEPLSTARBOARD STSHOWROOM PLESPERA NZA P L
YOSE M IT E D R
RIVER RO C K R D
680680670 680640690 63072072068 0
620720
650
700700 660630680690700
690640650660690680
670710700N
O
R
T
H
V
A
L
L
EYVI
EWDRWATERLINE WAY
WINDWARD WAY HUNTE PKYCAT A MARAN W
A
Y
C R E EKSIDEPLSTARBOARD STSHOWROOM PLESPERA NZA P L
YOSE M IT E D R
RIVER RO C K R D
680680670 680640690 63072072068 0
620720
650
700700 660630680690700
690640650660690680
670710700Image Source: Nearmap (Flown September 2019)
0 200Feet [
Project Boundary
Topo
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig3-3_Topo.mxd 4/29/2020 lrb
FIGURE 3-4
Project Location on Aerial PhotographST
O
NE CA N Y O N R D
W INDWARD WAY
O TAY L AKES RD
W
ATERLINE W AYSTARBOARD STNORTHVA
L
L
E
Y
VIE
W
DRBRYCECANYONAVEJETTY LNYOS EMIT E WAYANCHORAGE PL
RIVER ROCK RD
HITACHI W A YMAST WAY
C A TA M A R A N W A Y
LEEWARD WAY YO S E M I T E D R
WI
NDCAVEPLCREE
K
S
I
D
E
P
LFENTON S
T
E
S
P
E
R
ANZ
APL
HAROLDPLHUNTEPKYSHOW ROOMPLST
O
NE CA N Y O N R D
W INDWARD WAY
O TAY L AKES RD
W
ATERLINE W AYSTARBOARD STNORTHVA
L
L
E
Y
VIE
W
DRBRYCECANYONAVEJETTY LNYOS EMIT E WAYANCHORAGE PL
RIVER ROCK RD
HITACHI W A YMAST WAY
C A TA M A R A N W A Y
LEEWARD WAY YO S E M I T E D R
WI
NDCAVEPLCREE
K
S
I
D
E
P
LFENTON S
T
E
S
P
E
R
ANZ
APL
HAROLDPLHUNTEPKYSHOW ROOMPLImage Source: Nearmap (Flown September 2019)
0 400Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig2.mxd 11/20/2019 lrb
3.0 Project Description
3-6
3.3 Project Objectives
Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires
an environmental impact report (EIR) to include a statement of objectives for the proposed
project that outlines the purpose of the project and allow the development of project
alternatives. The project objectives provide the decision makers with a way to evaluate
the proposed project against the alternatives and in preparing findings and overriding
considerations, if necessary. To that end, the objectives support the primary purpose of
constructing the behavioral health hospital. To achieve the project purpose, the following
objectives are envisioned:
• Provide quality, safe, cost-effective, socially responsible health care services that
focus on behavioral health.
• Construct a behavioral healthcare facility compliant with the state’s Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) seismic safety regulations,
right sized for the growth of patient volumes.
• Provide ancillary services including dietary services, on-site pharmacy, and
outdoor activities.
• Facilitate a responsible partnership between Scripps and Acadia healthcare to
provide expert, specialized care in behavioral health.
• Locate a facility at a site that best serves the needs of the community including:
o Location in an area underserved by inpatient beds (based on
recommendations from the California Hospital Association that there be
50 inpatient behavioral health beds for every 100,000 population 1);
o Proximity to major road network;
o Appropriate size (10+ undeveloped acres) to construct a one-story facility; and
o Zoning that allows for a hospital use.
3.4 Discretionary Actions
The Chula Vista Planning Commission will need to approve the project. Specifically, they
will consider the following discretionary actions required to implement the project:
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
• Design Review Permit
1The City of Chula Vista should have 134 inpatient beds, but only 64 beds are available.
3.0 Project Description
3-7
City Council would only review the project if the Planning Commission decision is
appealed.
3.4.1 Conditional Use Permit
Implementation of the project would require approval of a CUP (CUP19-0010) to allow a
hospital use to be constructed within the BC-4 zone.
3.4.2 Design Review Permit
The project would require approval of a Design Review Permit (DR19-0012) to construct
the building and associated parking within the existing Business Center (BC-4).
3.4.3 Certification of Final EIR
In order to comply with requirements of CEQA, approval of the discretionary actions listed
above would need to be accompanied by Certification of a Final EIR, as well as adoption
of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and approval of the CEQA
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, if necessary under CEQA. In this
environmental analysis, no significant impacts have been identified. Therefore, the project
would not require adoption of an MMRP.
3.5 Project Overview
The project includes the construction of a new behavioral health hospital on a 10.42-acre
lot within the existing Eastlake Business Center.
The project would be constructed within a vacant lot, located in the northeast section of
the business center, bounded by existing commercial office space to the south and west,
and single-family residential homes to the north and east. The proposed one-story
building would total approximately 97,050 square feet, and would include 186 parking
spaces, landscaping, and on-site recreational areas, all detailed below. The site plan is
shown in Figure 3-5.
The building would include 120 beds located within six distinct nursing units:
• Unit 1A: a 20-bed geriatric psychiatric unit
• Unit 1B: a 20-bed adolescent psychiatric unit
• Unit 2A: a 20-bed adult general psychiatric unit
• Unit 2B: a 20-bed adult dual-diagnosis psychiatric unit
• Unit 3A: a 20-bed psychiatric unit (patient mix to be determined)
• Unit 3B: a 20-bed psychiatric unit (patient mix to be determined)
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY L
INE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESHOWROOM PLACE
BUILDING
PARKING
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS
EXTERIOR
ACTIVITY AREA
EXTERIOR
ACTIVITY AREA
EXTERIOR
ACTIVITY AREA
EXTERIOR
ACTIVITY AREA
EXTERIOR
ACTIVITY AREA
PARKING
PARKINGPARKING
FLEXIBLE
RECREATION
LAWN
EXTERIOR
ACTIVITY AREA
BUILDING
BUILDING
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR\Figure3-5.ai 04/28/20
Map Source: SWA Architects
FIGURE 3-5
Site Plan
3.0 Project Description
3-9
The project would also include separate adolescent and adult outpatient therapy
programs, gymnasium, and a recreational arts and craft program. Specific medical and
ancillary services would include in- and outpatient behavioral health services for geriatric,
adult, and adolescent patients, nutrition support, and physical therapy, as well as a
gymnasium, cafeteria for inpatients, visitors, and staff, and an inpatient pharmacy.
3.5.1 Outdoor Areas/Landscape and Lighting Plans
The project would include approximately 25,000 square feet of outdoor activity areas
within the project site, including six exterior patient activity areas and two outdoor staff
areas. The project includes approximately 164,206 square feet of landscaping including
around the proposed building/perimeter of the project site and parking areas. The
landscaping plans and planting legend are shown on Figures 3-6a and 3-6b, respectively.
As shown, the project includes walls and fencing around the perimeter of the project site.
Specifically, the project proposes two different types of fencing, including a 12-foot solid
fence around the outdoor activity areas, and a 8-foot perimeter fence on the east, north,
and south borders of the property. The security fencing would be a decorative wall,
constructed of solid concrete. The perimeter fence would be constructed of split-face
concrete block. The proposed wall and fence plans are shown in Figure 3-7.
Outdoor lighting within the project site would be constructed to illuminate all external
pedestrian walkways, and outdoor activity areas, as well as the parking lot. Lighting would
include pole-mounted lights for vehicular areas, pedestrian scale pole-mounted lights for
general campus illumination along pedestrian pathways, bollard pathway lighting for
enclosed garden areas, and downlight-mounted lighting with architectural shade canopy
at facility entryway points. Exterior lighting around the building is automatic, controlled by
motion/ambient and light sensor built-in with the fixtures. Exterior security lights are also
automatic controlled by motion/ambient and light sensor built-in with the fixtures. Parking
lot lights are automatic controlled by motion sensor and Photocell which are built-in with
the light fixtures. These light sensors would turn on lights when it gets dark or when motion
is detected. They also serve to save energy by switching themselves to ambient mode
when extra light is unnecessary. The proposed lighting plan is shown on Figure 3-8.
3.5.2 Grading
The project site was previously graded in 2002, but additional earthwork would be required
to accommodate the behavioral health hospital. Approximately 61,000 cubic yards of cut
and 10,000 cubic yards of fill would be required, resulting in an export of 51,000 cubic
yards of soil. The existing grade separation between the site and the adjacent residential
areas would remain as the existing perimeter manufactured slope would not be altered by
the proposed finish grading of the site. The proposed Grading Plan is shown on Figure 3-9.
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY L
INE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESHOWROOM PLACE
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR\Figure3-6a.ai 04/28/20
Map Source: SWA Architects
FIGURE 3-6a
Landscape Plan
PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND
EVERGREEN PATIO SHADE TREE
Character defining trees that provide a large canopy of shade for pedestrians in patio
areas and along pathways
36" box size
Olea europaea (Common Olive), 20' x 15'
Quercus virginiana (Southern Live Oak), 40' x 60'
Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), 40' x 50'
SEMI-EVERGREEN AND EVERGREEN SHADE
CANOPY TREE
For shade and to establish a formal plane of vegetation along the parking stalls
50% 24" box size, 50% 36" box size
Cercidium 'Desert Museum' (Palo verde), 25' x 30'
Prosopis chilensis (Thornless Chilean Mesquite), 25' x 30'
Ulmus parvifolia 'True Green' True Green Chinese Elm), 30' x 40'
PERIMETER SCREEN TREE
For screening and transition to open space
50% 15 gallon size, 50% 24" box size
Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), 20'-70' x 30'-80'
Plantus racemosa (California Sycamore), 30'-80' x 20'-50'
Acacia salicina (Black Wattle), 40' x 15'
Acacia stenophylla (Shoestring Acacia), 30' x 20'
Lophostemon confertus (Brisbane Box)
EVERGREEN SPREADING GROUNDCOVERS AND
GRASSES
100% 1 gallon size @ 42" O.C. average spacing
Festuca rubra (Creeping Red Fescue) - WUCOLS H
Senecio mandraliscae (Blue Chalksticks) - WUCOLS L
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' (Dwarf Coyote Brush) - WUCOLS L
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' (Bearberry Cotoneaster) - WUCOLS L
Westringia fructicosa 'Mundi' (Low Coast Rosemary) - WUCOLS L
Lantana montevidensis (Trailing Lantana) - WUCOLS L
Lantana 'New Gold' (New Gold Lantana) - WUCOLS VL
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' (Green Carpet Natal Plum) - WUCOLS L
Plant sizes are indicated for general reference by height x width.
MEDIUM HEIGHT (24"-42") EVERGREEN FOUNDATION
SHRUBS AND ORNAMENTAL GRASSES
100% 5 gallon size @ 36" O.C. average spacing
Carissa macrocarpa (Natal Plum) - WUCOLS L
Callistemon 'Little John' (Dwarf Callistemon) - WUCOLS L
Crassula ovata (Baby Jade) - WUCOLS L
Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' (Waxleaf Privet) - WUCOLS M
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'Minor' (Dwarf Yeddo Hawthorn) - WUCOLS L
Senecio decaryi (Madagascar Senecio) - WUCOLS L
Westringia fruticosa 'Blue Gem', (Coast Rosemary) - WUCOLS L
Westringia fruticosa 'Grey Box' (Dwarf Coastal Rosemary) - WUCOLS L
Festuca mairei (Atlas Fescue) - WUCOLS L
Lomandra 'Breeze' (Dwarf Mat Rush) - WUCOLS M
Leonotis leonurus (Lion's Ear) - WUCOLS L
Senecio barbertonicus (Succulent Bush Senecio) - WUCOLS L
WATER QUALITY BASIN PLANTING
100% 1 gallon size, 36" O.C.
Achillea millefolium (Common Yarrow) - WUCOLS L
Carex praegracilis (California Field Sedge) - WUCOLS M
Chondropetalum tectorum (Cape Rush) - WUCOLS L
Iris Douglasiana (Douglas Iris) - WUCOLS L
Juncus patens (California Gray Rush) - WUCOLS L
Lomandra longifolia (Dwarf Mat Rush) - WUCOLS L
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' (Canyon Prince Wild Rye) - WUCOLS L
LOW HEIGHT (12"-18") FOREGROUND SHRUBS,
GROUNDCOVERS, AND SUCCULENTS
Aloe 'Blue Elf' (Blue Elf Aloe) - WUCOLS L
Aloe brevifolia (Short-leaved Aloe) - WUCOLS L
Aloe 'Cynthia Giddy' (Cynthia Giddy Aloe) - WUCOLS L
Aloe striata (Coral Aloe) - WUCOLS L
Carex praegracilis (Clustered Field Sedge) - WUCOLS M
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' (Green Carpet Natal Plum) - WUCOLS L
Salvia chamaedryoides (Germander Sage) - WUCOLS L
Senecio mandraliscae (Blue Chalksticks) - WUCOLS L
Sesleria autumnalis (Autumn Moor Grass) - WUCOLS M
Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star jasmine) - WUCOLS M
TALL HEIGHT (6'-8') EVERGREEN SCREENING SHRUBS
75% 5 gallon size, 25% 15 gallon size
Bambusa dolichomerithalla 'Green Stripe' (Green Stripe Blowgun Bamboo) - WUCOLS M
Dodonaea viscosa 'Atropurpurea' (Smoke Bush) - WUCOLS L
Feijoa sellowiana (Pineapple Guava) - WUCOLS L
Laurus nobilis (Sweet Bay) - WUCOLS L
Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' (Waxleaf Privet) - WUCOLS M
Prunus caroliniana (Carolina cherry-laurel) - WUCOLS M
Callistemon viminalis 'Slim' (Slim Bottlebrush) - WUCOLS L
(41) IN TOTAL
(90) IN TOTAL
LOW HEIGHT GARDEN PLANTINGS: MIXTURE OF
SUCCULENTS, ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, AND GRASS-LIKE
PLANTS AND PERENNIALS
25% 5 gallon size, 75% 1 gallon size @ 42" O.C.
Aeonium arboreum (Tree Aeonium) - WUCOLS L
Aeonium abroreum var. atropurpureum (Purple Aeonium) - WUCOLS L
Aloe 'Blue Elf' (Blue Elf Aloe) - WUCOLS L
Aloe brevifolia (Short-leaved Aloe) - WUCOLS L
Aloe 'Cynthia Giddy' (Cynthia Giddy Aloe) - WUCOLS L
Aloe striata (Coral Aloe) - WUCOLS L
Anigozanthos 'Bush Ranger' (Dwarf Kangaroo Paw) - WUCOLS M
Carex praegracilis (Clustered Field Sedge) - WUCOLS M
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' (Green Carpet Natal Plum) - WUCOLS L
Dianella revoluta 'Little Rev' (Little Rev Flax Lily) - WUCOLS L
Dianella tasmanica 'Variegata' (White Striped Tasman Flax Lily) - WUCOLS L
Hesperaloe parviflora (Texas Red Yucca) - WUCOLS VL
Lantana montevidensis (Trailing Lantana) - WUCOLS L
Lantana 'New Gold' (New Gold Lantana) - WUCOLS L
Lomandra 'Breeze' (Dwarf Mat Rush) - WUCOLS M
Salvia chamaedryoides (Germander Sage) - WUCOLS L
Salvia spathacea (Hummingbird Sage) - WUCOLS L
Senecio mandraliscae (Blue Chalksticks) - WUCOLS L
Sesleria autumnalis (Autumn Moor Grass) - WUCOLS M
Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star jasmine) - WUCOLS M
Westringia fructicosa 'Mundi' (Low Coast Rosemary) - WUCOLS L
PERIMETER SHRUB & HYDROSEED
Combination of two seed mixes and container shrub plantings:
40% Ornamental, Low Growing Native Mix by S&S Seeds
Achillea millefolium (Yarrow) - WUCOLS L
Acmispon glaber (Deerweed) - WUCOLS VL
Camissoniopsis cheiranthifolia (Beach Evening Primrose) - WUCOLS VL
Clarkia bottae (Punch-bowl Godetia) -
Collinsia heterophylla (Chinese Houses) -
Eschscholzia californican (California Poppy) - WUCOLS VL
Festuca microstachys (Small Fescue) - WUCOLS L
Lasthenia californica (Dwarf Goldfields) -
Layia platyglossa (Tidytips) -
Lupinus bicolor (Bicolor Lupine) - WUCOLS L
Lupinus nanus (Sky Lupine) - WUCOLS L
Mimulus aurantiacus longiflorus (Sticky Monkeyflower) - WUCOLS VL
Mimulus aurantiacus puniceus (Mission Red Monkeyflower) - WUCOLS VL
Muhlenbergia microsperma (Littleseed Muhly) - WUCOLS L
Nemophila maculata (Five Spot) - WUCOLS L
Sisyrinchium bellum (Blue-eyed Grass) - WUCOLS L
40% Native Fescue Mix
Festuca occidentalis (Western Mokelumne Fescue) - WUCOLS L
Festuca idahoensis (Idaho Fescue) - WUCOLS L
Festuca rubra (Creeping Red Fescue) - WUCOLS H
20% 1 Gallon Shrub/Grass @ 36" QC. Average Spacing
Baccharis pilularis (Coyote brush) - WUCOLS L
Carex praegracilis (Clustered Field Sedge) - WUCOLS M
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' (Green Carpet Natal Plum) - WUCOLS L
Hesperaloe parviflora (Hummingbird Yucca) - WUCOLS VL
Lantana montevidensis (Trailing Lantana) - WUCOLS L
Lantana 'New Gold' (New Gold Lantana) - WUCOLS VL
Lomandra 'Breeze' (Dwarf Mat Rush) - WUCOLS VL
Salvia chamaedryoides (Germander Sage) - WUCOLS L
Salvia spathacea (Hummingbird Sage) - WUCOLS L
Westringia fructicosa 'Mundi' (Low Coast Rosemary) - WUCOLS L
TURF GRASS
Marathon II SOD (Dwarf Tall Fescue)
SCREENING VINE AT PERIMETER WALL
100% 5 Gallon Size
Macfadyena unguis-cati - WUCOLS L
Bougainvillea - WUCOLS L
Thunbergia gregorii - WUCOLS M
Distictis sp. - WUCOLS M
(76) IN TOTAL
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 164,206 SF
TOTAL SITE: 461,036 SF
PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPE AREA TO TOTAL SITE: 35.6%
PERCENTAGE OF SHADE COVERAGE OVER PARKING STALLS
(AFTER 5 YEARS OF GROWTH): 51.4%
MAINTENANCE
“MAINTENANCE: ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE
OWNER. LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION AREAS IN THE PUBLIC ROW SHALL BE
MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. THE LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE
OF DEBRIS, WEEDS AND LITTER AND ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN
A HEALTHY GROWING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. DISEASED OR DEAD PLANT
MATERIAL SHALL BE SATISFACTORILY TREATED OR REPLACED PER THE
CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT.” (City of Chula Vista Regulations and Standards)
KEY MAP
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR\Figure3-6b.ai 04/28/20
Map Source: SWA Architects
FIGURE 3-6b
Planting Legend
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR\Figure3-7.ai 04/28/20
Map Source: SWA Architects
FIGURE 3-7
Wall and Fence Plan
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY L
INE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEXXXXXXXXXXXXWALL & FENCE LEGEND
SYMBOL
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
XTRASH ENCLOSURE PER
ARCHITECTURE PLANS
LOW LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALL
HEIGHT: 3'-4'
MATERIAL: CAST IN PLACE DECORATIVE FINISH
COLOR: DAVIS 'PALOMINO'
FINISH: LIGHT ETCH OR FORMLINER
SOLID FENCE AT PATIENTS COURTYARDS
(SEE ARCHITECTURE PLAN FOR MORE DETAILS)
HEIGHT: 12'
MATERIAL: PER ARCHITECT
COLOR/FINISH: PER ARCHITECT
ACCENT WALL
HEIGHT: 8'
MATERIAL: SOLID CMU WALL WITH ART PAINTING
OR TILE
COLOR: TBD PER ARTIST
FINISH: TBD PER ARTIST
SEAT WALL
HEIGHT: 18"
MATERIAL: CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE
COLOR: NATURAL
FINISH: LIGHT ETCH
MAY RETAIN UP TO 16" IN SOME CONDITIONS
CALLOUT
W-1
W-2
W-3
W-4
W-2
W-3W-3 W-1
W-1
W-4
W-4
W-4
W-1
XXW-3
W-3
W-1
W-1
PERIMETER WALL
HEIGHT: 8'
MATERIAL: SPLIT-FACE CMU WITH INTEGRAL COLOR
COLOR: EARTH TONE (EXACT COLOR TBD)
FINISH: SPLIT FACE ON OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL;
SMOOTH CMU ON INSIDE
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5 W-5SHOWROOM PLACE
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR\Figure3-8.ai 05/4/20 ccn
Map Source: SWA Architects
FIGURE 3-8
Lighting Plan
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY L
INE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESHOWROOM PLACE
LIGHTING LEGEND
SYMBOL
POLE MOUNTED POST TOP LIGHT FOR VEHICULAR
AREAS ILLUMINATION (20'- 25' HEIGHT)
PEDESTRIAN SCALE POLE MOUNTED LIGHT FOR
GENERAL CAMPUS ILLUMINATION (12'- 14' HEIGHT)
DESCRIPTION
DOWNLIGHT MOUNTED WITH ARCHITECTURAL SHADE
CANOPY
BOLLARD PATHWAY LIGHT FOR ENCLOSED GARDEN
(30'- 42' HEIGHT)
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR\Figure3-9.ai 04/29/20
Map Source: SWA Architects
FIGURE 3-9
Grading Plan
702
701
703
704
706
707 707
706
704
706
702
70
5
706707 708
705
703
708
708 710714712FF = 708.5
701
PLAN W/ CUP SUBMITTAL
SHOWROOMPLACE0 50'
1
0
0
'
200'1'=100'-0"
3.0 Project Description
3-15
3.5.3 Personnel and Security
The project would operate 24 hours per day, employing approximately 150 staff and facility
personnel, working in three employee shifts. Day shifts would be eight hours, except for
nursing who would work 12 hours. Shifts are anticipated to be varying times (depending
on type of personnel) between 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and
11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
The project includes a security plan which addresses security of patients, staff, and the
surrounding community. On-site security measures include fencing and landscape
barriers, a single public entry and exit from a driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac, 24-
hour monitoring of common areas through closed circuit camera monitoring, patient
checks at a minimum of every 15 minutes, and controlled access in and out to the facility
and between units to encourage safety. Security personnel will be on-site 24 hours a day
to monitor the hospital and the surrounding area.
3.6 Circulation and Access
Access to the project site would be taken from the driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac
at the terminus of Showroom Place. An internal roadway around the perimeter of the
project site would allow for large truck and fire truck access. The Internal Circulation Plan
is shown in Figure 3-10.
3.7 Parking
As shown on Figure 3-5, internal parking lots would be constructed within the southern
portion of the project site. Pursuant to the Eastlake II Specific Plan (which governs
development standards), a hospital is required to provide 1.5 parking spaces per bed.
Therefore, the project is required to provide a total of 180 parking spaces. The project
proposes to construct a total of 186 parking spaces, with 20 of these designated as
accessible spaces. Patient and visitors would park closest to the building. Staff would
park towards the south, closer to the vehicular entry point.
3.8 Infrastructure
3.8.1 Drainage and Storm Water Quality
The project would construct two on-site storm water runoff detention and biofiltration
basins to manage runoff, located along the southern border of the site, adjacent to the
project’s driveway entrance. The project includes on-site drainage facilities consistent with
the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) and all City regulations and policies relating to
drainage and storm water runoff. Overall, storm water would be transferred from the site
to an existing 24-inch storm drain line located within the cul-de-sac at the terminus of
Showplace Drive. No upgrades to the existing system would be required (see Sections 5.8
and 5.12 of this EIR). The proposed drainage condition/Best Management Practices
(BMP) map is shown in Figure 3-11.
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR 04/24/20
SWA ARCHITECTS
FIGURE 3-10
Internal Circulation Plan
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR\Figure3-11.ai 04/29/20
Map Source: KNS Engineering
FIGURE 3-11
Best Management Practices (BMP) Map
3.0 Project Description
3-18
3.8.2 Water
The project would be served by the Otay Water District. Specifically, the project would
connect to an existing 12-inch water pipe located within the cul-de-sac at the terminus of
Showplace Drive. No upgrades to the existing system would be required (see
Section 5.12 of this EIR).
3.8.3 Wastewater
Sewer disposal would be provided by the City. The project would connect to the existing
8-inch sewer line located within the cul-de-sac at the terminus of Showplace Drive. No
upgrades to the existing system would be required (see Section 5.12 of this EIR).
3.9 Utilities and Services
Communications systems for telephone, computers, and cable television for the project
would be provided by service providers such as AT&T, Cox, and other independent
telecommunications companies. The City also works with service providers to
underground overhead wires, cables, conductors, and other structures associated with
communication systems in residential areas in accordance with proposed development
projects. San Diego Gas & Electric would provide electricity and natural gas. Utilities
necessary to serve the proposed uses would be installed in conjunction with the
development of the project.
Public services (see Section 5.10 of this EIR) would be provided as follows:
• Fire: The project would be served by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department. The
closest station is Fire Station 8, located at 1180 Woods Drive, Chula Vista,
California 91914, approximately one mile from the project site. The project would
be designed to be consistent with the California Fire Code as adopted by the City.
Fire hydrants and fire access lanes would be installed consistent with requirements
and hydrants would conform to all placement and identification regulations.
• Police: The project would be served by the City of Chula Vista Police Department.
The police department is comprised of 249 sworn officers, 106 civilian employees,
and more than 100 volunteers (www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/police-
department/about-us). The Police Department is located at 315 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, California 91910. The Patrol Division provides quality law
enforcement to the residents and visitors to the City 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
• Library: The City of Chula Vista’s Public Library system has three branches located
throughout the City. The closest library branch to the project site is Otay Ranch,
located at 2015 Birch Road, Suite 40, Chula Vista, California 91915.
3.0 Project Description
3-19
3.10 Off-Site Improvements
As a result of the Local Mobility Analysis prepared for the project pursuant to City
Transportation Study Guidelines, the project includes the commitment of funding for the
construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Harold Place/Fenton Street.
Additionally, the project includes provision of a fair share towards the construction of
Adaptive Traffic Signal Control modules to all signalized intersections along Otay Lakes
Road between Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. These improvements would allow
the project to be consistent with relevant plans, policies, and programs relating to
transportation. (see Section 5.11 of this EIR).
3.11 Environmental Design Consideration
The project would implement the following project design features to both support
sustainability and for avoidance of environmental impacts. These project design features
have been noted on project plans and/or throughout the environmental document, as
necessary. Implementation of these design measures would be considered part of the
project and required as conditions of project approval or other implementation
mechanisms.
• Aesthetics/Visual Quality: The project design is a one-story, at-grade
development, which would be constructed on a previously graded pad. The project
design maintains a low-profile aesthetic, avoiding any interruption in existing land
use patterns. Specifically, the building design and proposed landscape provides
visual screening from the residential neighborhood located below grade. The
project grading would not result in any changes to the existing grade separation
between the project site and adjacent residential neighborhoods (see Section 5.2
of this EIR).
• Storm Water Runoff/Drainage: The project is designed to reduce storm water
runoff through inclusion of two on-site storm water runoff detention and biofiltration
basins. The project site is designed such that the peak runoff flow from the project
site would be less than its current condition, thereby avoiding drainage and storm
water related impacts (see Section 5.8 of this EIR).
• Landscape: The project’s planting palette includes low and moderate water use
plant species. Smart irrigation controllers would be installed and plants would be
grouped by water needs as detailed in planting and irrigation plans. No invasive
plant species would be used. This design would allow the project to meet City
water conservation and landscape requirements.
• Recycling: The project would provide litter bins with recycling as a way to reduce
the amount of waste disposed. The project would comply with the City’s Recycling
Ordinance and Refuse and Recyclable Material Storage Regulations.
3.0 Project Description
3-20
• Energy: The inclusion of energy conserving measures would ensure the project’s
consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan and, therefore, avoid greenhouse
gas related impacts (see Sections 5.4 and 5.6 of this EIR).
• Water: minimize water consumption through installation of low-flow
fixtures/appliances including kitchen faucets, dishwashers, and clothes washers.
Units would be equipped with a demand hot water recirculation system per
A4.303.5 of the California Green Building Standards Code.
3.12 Locational and Operational Characteristics
Locational and operational features are described below.
3.12.1 Discharge of Patients
Hospital policy will ensure that discharge plans include secure transportation for patients
to their home or next care site. Prior to discharge, patients must have a detailed discharge
plan that outlines the specifics of the transition to and location of their next stage of care
(e.g., nursing home, residential treatment center, long-term rehabilitation, transitional or
temporary housing, and personal residence). Arranged transportation would be provided
to specific post-treatment care locations for all patients upon discharge, either by hospital
personnel or in some cases by the patient’s family, legal guardians, or other authorized
individuals.
To ensure that patients do not remain on-site after discharge, on-site security would
include controlled access to the facility and between units, one public entry and exit, 24-
hour monitoring of common areas, minimum 15-minute patient checks, and design
features to encourage safety. Security personnel will be on-site 24 hours a day to monitor
the hospital and the surrounding area.
3.12.2 Patient Access
Generally, patients (both inpatient and outpatient) will arrive and depart by coordinated,
secure private transportation.
3.12.3 Patient Care
The project would provide both inpatient and intensive outpatient treatment for behavioral
health conditions not requiring intensive, simultaneous medical treatment. Like all licensed
hospitals, the project’s clinical staff will have the full ability to safely provide for the needs
of its behavioral health patients (including in-house pharmacy and medication dispensing),
who in some cases may also be living with chronic but stable medical conditions such as
diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and those affecting mobility. Daily support services
such as daily medical visits by an internist, nutrition support, and physical therapy will be
provided.
4.0 Environmental Setting
4-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section briefly describes the regional setting and on-site characteristics of the project
area. A more detailed description of existing conditions is provided in the beginning of
each impact issue area addressed in Chapter 5.0 of the EIR.
4.1 Project Location and Regional Setting
The City of Chula Vista (City) is an incorporated city located approximately 12 miles south
and southeast of the downtown area of the City of San Diego and 4 miles north of the Otay
Mesa border crossing via the State Route 125 (SR-125) toll road. The City encompasses
approximately 50 square miles, with National City and County of San Diego lands forming
its northern boundary and the Otay River roughly demarcating the City’s southern
boundary. The City’s eastern boundary extends to San Miguel and the Jamul Mountains.
Figures 3-1 and 3-4 depict the regional location and vicinity location, respectively.
The proposed Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital (project) project site is located in the
northeast corner of the Eastlake Business Center II within the City. The Eastlake Business
Park is generally bounded on the west by the Eastlake Business Center I/ Eastlake
Parkway; on the north by slopes dipping into a residential community known as Rolling
Hills; on the east by eastern sloping topography adjacent to a residential community
bounded by Hunte Parkway; and Otay Lakes Road to the south. Designated land uses
that surround the project site are shown in Figure 4-1.
4.2 Physical On-Site Characteristics
The proposed site is a previously graded, relatively flat, and undeveloped portion of the
Eastlake Business Park II, accessed by Showroom Place via Fenton Street/Otay Lakes
Road. There are no existing structures or other features of historical or cultural significant
within the project site. Additional information regarding the topographic character of the
project area is provided in Section 5.2 of this EIR.
The business park is mostly built out with multiple existing commercial uses and parking.
A few graded pads remain south of the project site.
4.3 Surrounding Land Uses
As shown on Figure 4-1, the project area is built out with commercial and residential
development. The project site sits adjacent to The District at Eastlake, which is nearly fully
developed with commercial uses and parking. The project site is surrounded by
commercial uses such as restaurants, and family-oriented businesses, providing play
areas and classes for adults and children. A number of these businesses include Eastlake
Speed Circuit, Crunch Select Gym, Ninja Factory, Sky Zone, Play City, Pride Martial Arts,
Kid Ventures, Sylvan Learning Center, Little Artists, DanceArts, and Floaties Swim School.
4.0 Environmental Setting
4-2
The Eastlake Montessori School and Awaken Church (Eastlake Campus) is also located
within The District at Eastlake. The Awaken Church provides programming for children of
all ages from six months to high school, meeting on the campus weeknights and Sundays.
Residential neighborhoods are located to the north and east. These neighborhoods are
separated by steep vegetated slopes and do not offer any legal access to the project site.
Because the project site sits at a higher elevation than surrounding residential land uses
to the north and west, the slopes provide topographic separation between land uses.
When compared to land uses in other directions (to the west, and south), the site is at a
similar elevation to the surrounding land uses.
4.4 Planning Context
The project site is located within the Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP) and
Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. The project site
was originally located within the Eastlake III GDP; however, an amendment to the Eastlake
III GDP (1999 GDP Amendment) resulted in expanding the adjacent Eastlake II GDP to
include the Business Center II SPA in order to combine similar uses. At that time the
project site (along with the entirety of the business center) was designated Research and
Limited Manufacturing. Under the 1999 GDP Amendment, the entirety of the business
center was intended to be an extension of the westerly adjacent Eastlake Business Center
I (City of Chula Vista 1999a). Under the Eastlake II GDP and associated SPA, the project
site was designated IR-Retail Commercial. Likewise, under the SPA, the Site Utilization
Plan (Exhibit 5 of the SPA) designated the project site as Employment Park. Since its
approval, most lots have been developed and support active community serving
commercial uses.
The project site has never been developed, and has remained vacant since it was graded
consistent with the approved Eastlake Business Center II-Phase 2 grading plans. The
project site is currently zoned Business Center 4. A rezone is not required; however, a
Conditional Use and Design Review Permits must be approved to allow construction of
the project within the zone.
Multi-Family
Residential
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
DetachedSingle
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single Family
Detached Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single Family
Detached
Single
Family
Detached
Single Family
Detached
Single Family
Multiple-Units
Single Family
Multiple-Units
Single Family
Multiple-Units
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Industrial
Park
Industrial
Park
Industrial
Park
Industrial
Park
Industrial
Park
Industrial
Park
Industrial
Park
Light
Industry -
General
Warehousing
Warehousing
Warehousing
Public
Storage
Public
Storage
Public
Storage
Communications
and Utilities
Communications
and Utilities
Other
Transportation
Community
Shopping
Center
Community
Shopping
Center
Neighborhood
Shopping Center
Specialty
Commercial
Service
Station
Service
Station Other Retail
Trade and Strip
Commercial
Office
(Low-Rise)
Office
(Low-Rise)Office
(Low-Rise)
Office
(Low-Rise)
Office
(Low-Rise)
Government
Office/Civic
Center
Religious
Facility
Religious
Facility
Post Office
Fire/Police
Station
Fire/Police
Station
Other
Health
Care
Other
Health
Care
Other
Health
Care
Other
Health
Care
Other
Health
Care
Junior High
School or
Middle School
Elementary
School
Elementary
School
Other
School
Golf
Course
Golf Course
Park -
Active
Park -
Active
Park -
Active
Park - Active
Park - Active
Park - Active
Open Space
Park or
Preserve
Open Space
Park or
Preserve
Open Space Park
or Preserve
Open Space Park or Preserve
Open Space
Park or
Preserve
Open
Space Park
or Preserve
Open Space
Park or
Preserve
Open Space
Park or
Preserve
Open Space
Park or
Preserve
Landscape
Open Space
Landscape
Open Space
Landscape
Open Space
Landscape
Open Space
Landscape
Open
Space
Landscape
Open Space
Landscape
Open Space
Landscape
Open Space
Landscape
Open Space
Landscape
Open
Space
Landscape
Open Space
Residential
Recreation
Residential
Recreation
Residential
Recreation
Residential
Recreation
Residential
Recreation
Vacant and
Undeveloped
Land
Vacant and
Undeveloped Land
Vacant and
Undeveloped
Land
Vacant and
Undeveloped
Land
Vacant
and
Undeveloped Land
Residential
Under
Construction
E A S TL A KE PARKWAY
H U N TEPARKWAYOTAY L AKES ROAD
UV125
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\LandUse.mxd 7/26/2021 bma
[
Image Source: Nearmap (Flown May 2020)
0 500Feet
Project Boundary
Landuse
Communications and Utilities
Community Shopping Center
Elementary School
Fire/Police Station
Freeway
Golf Course
Government Office/Civic Center
Industrial Park
Junior High School or Middle School
Lake/Reservoir/Large Pond
Landscape Open Space
Light Industry - General
Multi-Family Residential
Neighborhood Shopping Center
Office (Low-Rise)
Open Space Park or Preserve
Other Health Care
Other Retail Trade and Strip Commercial
Other School
Other Transportation
Park - Active
Post Office
Public Storage
Religious Facility
Residential Recreation
Residential Under Construction
Road Right of Way
Service Station
Single Family Detached
Single Family Multiple-Units
Specialty Commercial
Vacant and Undeveloped Land
Warehousing
FIGURE 4-1
Surrounding Land Uses
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis
5-1
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
This chapter provides an assessment of environmental factors potentially affected by the
Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital (project) as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064. Using CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and
the City of Chula Vista (City) Threshold Standards, the following sections analyze the
potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation.
The environmental issues analyzed in the following sections include those that were
identified by the City through the scoping process (see Appendix A).
Thirteen environmental issues, as identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, are
addressed in the following sections of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The
remaining issues of agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural
resources/tribal cultural resources, mineral resources, and population and housing were
determined to be less than significant as disclosed in the Notice of Preparation, and are
discussed briefly in Chapter 8.0.
The environmental issues addressed in Chapter 5.0, in sequential order, include:
• Land Use (Section 5.1)
• Landform Alteration/Aesthetics (Section 5.2)
• Air Quality (Section 5.3)
• Energy (Section 5.4)
• Geology and Soils (Section 5.5)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 5.6)
• Hazards (Section 5.7)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 5.8)
• Noise (Section 5.9)
• Public Services and Recreation (Section 5.10)
• Transportation (Section 5.11)
• Utilities and Service Systems (Section 5.12)
• Wildfire (Section 5.13)
Each section is formatted to include a discussion of existing conditions, the criteria for the
determination of impact significance (threshold of significance), evaluation of potential
project impacts (direct and cumulative), summary conclusion of the level of significance
prior to mitigation, a list of required mitigation measures, if applicable, and conclusion of
significance after mitigation for impacts identified as requiring mitigation. All potential
impacts in Chapter 5.0 are evaluated in relation to applicable City, state, and federal
standards.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 Land Use
5.1-1
5.1 Land Use
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the consistency of the
Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project (project) with applicable City of Chula Vista
(City) development regulations and planning documents. Information presented is based
on review and analysis of City regulations, objectives, and policies within relevant plans.
Additionally, project development plans were examined to determine potential land use
elated effects of the project.
5.1.1 Existing Conditions
5.1.1.1 Existing and On-site and Surrounding Land Uses
The project is located on 10.42 acres within the Business Center II located north of Otay
Lakes Road. As described in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR, the project site was previously
graded pursuant to the 1999 approval of the Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP)
and Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. The project
site is surrounded by existing development. Specifically, the project site is bounded on the
west by existing commercial uses within the business center. The project site sits adjacent
to The District at Eastlake, which is nearly fully developed with commercial uses and
parking. The project site is surrounded by commercial uses such as restaurants, and
family-oriented businesses, providing play areas and classes for adults and children. A
number of these businesses include Eastlake Speed Circuit, Crunch Select Gym, Ninja
Factory, Sky Zone, Play City, Pride Martial Arts, Kid Ventures, Sylvan Learning Center,
Little Artists, DanceArts, and Floaties Swim School. The Eastlake Montessori School and
Awaken Church (Eastlake Campus) is also located within The District at Eastlake. The
Awaken Church provides programming for children of all ages from six months to high
school, meeting on the campus weeknights and Sundays. The Rolling Hills Ranch
residential community lies downslope, north of the project site; on the east by a residential
community between the project site and Hunte Parkway, which is also downslope from
the site.
5.1.1.2 Local Planning Context
The project is located in the East Planning Area and Master Planned Communities
Subarea. The East Planning Area encompasses open space and master planned
communities that are generally bound by Interstate 805 on the west; State Route 54 on
the north; the San Miguel Mountain/Proctor Valley area on the northeast and east; and
within and adjacent to the City of San Diego and unincorporated San Diego County on the
south. The project is located within the master planned community of Eastlake.
Development within Eastlake is guided by the Eastlake II GDP which sets more specific
goals and policies, and the Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan which more directly
addresses land use, circulation, public facilities, open space, and design guidelines.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 Land Use
5.1-2
5.1.2 Regulatory Setting
5.1.2.1 Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The City’s General Plan was updated on December 13, 2005 (City of Chula Vista 2005a).
The General Plan Update looked out to the year 2030 and provides guidance for the City’s
growth and development. Specifically, the General Plan now directs growth and manages
resources, provides goals, objectives, and policies intended to create what the City
envisions through the year 2030. Therefore, the General Plan is the fundamental policy
document of the City and provides the framework for decisions regarding land use, the
design, and/or character of buildings and open spaces, and the conservation of existing
housing and the provision of new dwelling units.
The Land Use and Transportation (LUT) Element of the City’s General Plan provides a
link between land use designations, intensity of development, and mobility. The LUT
Element establishes plans and policies to establish direction for new development,
redevelopment, and community enhancement. The following objectives and policies found
in the LUT Element are relevant to the project.
OBJECTIVE LUT 1
Provide a balance of residential and non-residential development throughout the City that
achieves a vibrant development pattern, enhances the character of the City, and meets
the present and future needs of all residents and businesses.
Policy LUT 1.2: Coordinate planning activities and resources to balance land uses,
amenities, and civic facilities in order to sustain or improve the quality of life.
OBJECTIVE LUT 6
Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with one another.
Policy LUT 6.2: Require that proposed development plans and projects consider and
minimize project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods.
OBJECTIVE LUT 69
Create and maintain unique, stable, and well-designed communities that are master
planned to guide development activities.
Policy LUT 69.1: The policies and regulations within GDP and SPA plans that are specific
to each community shall continue to guide the completion of development activities.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 Land Use
5.1-3
The Economic Development (ED) Element details the methods to establish the long-term
vitality of the local economy and shape future economic development. The following
objective and policies found in the ED Element are relevant to the project:
OBJECTIVE ED 2
Maintain a variety of job and housing opportunities to improve Chula Vista’s jobs/housing
balance.
Policy ED 2.2: Pursue a diverse supply of housing types and costs, as well as a diverse
supply of jobs with varying income potential, to balance local job and housing
opportunities.
Policy ED 2.6: Leverage economic development incentives to provide high-quality jobs for
Chula Vista Residents.
The Public Facilities and Services (PFS) Element focuses on public infrastructure, public
safety, and health and human services that support the community and allow it to operate
efficiently. In addition, hospitals are identified as a place where people could receive care
and treatment in the event of an emergency situation or major disaster. The substantial
residential growth throughout the City over the past two decades has caused an increased
demand for medical services. The following objective and policy found in the PFS Element
are relevant to the project:
OBJECTIVE PFS 6
Provide adequate fire and police protection services to newly developing and redeveloping
areas of the City.
Policy PFS 6.1: Continue to require new development and redevelopment projects to
demonstrate adequate access for fire and police vehicles.
Eastlake II General Development Plan
In addition to the General Plan, several planning tools are used to implement policies set
forth in the General Plan elements. In particular, the City has prepared customized
regulatory documents to provide more focused guidance and regulation for particular
areas. These include specific plans, GDP, SPA plans, and precise plans. In 1999, an
amendment expanded the Eastlake II GDP area to include the Business Center II SPA. A
supplemental SPA Plan for the business center expansion was approved concurrently
with the GDP amendment. From a planning perspective, the project is located within the
Eastlake II GDP, which is implemented and further regulated by the Business Center II
Supplemental SPA Plan (see below).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 Land Use
5.1-4
The purpose and scope of the Eastlake II GDP includes the establishment of a planning
and development framework to allow diverse land uses to exist in harmony within planned
community and surrounding developments (City of Chula Vista 1999b, as amended 2007).
Specifically, the GDP establishes districts and defines in broad terms the type and
intensity of development permitted in each district. The GDP is implemented through
adopted SPA plans, which are more detailed. Overall, the GDP functions as a policy bridge
between the General Plan and the SPA Plan (City of Chula Vista 1999b, as amended
2007). Under the GDP, the project site is designated Research and Limited Manufacturing
(IR).
Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area Plan
The purpose of the Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan is to define, in more detail,
the development parameters for the Business Center II project area including the land
use, design criteria, circulation pattern, open space concept, and infrastructure
requirements to support the project and the overall community (City of Chula Vista 2007).
In addition to the IR designation, the project site is identified as Employment Park (EP) 12
under the SPA Site Utilization Plan (City of Chula Vista 2007).
The Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan provides specific design guidance,
especially as it relates to the northern and eastern edges of the Business Center where it
abuts residential uses. Section II.2.3.7 of the SPA Plan provides for increased building
setbacks and dense landscaping along the upper portions of the Business Center lots and
downslope. This area is known as the Residential Interface Buffer.
Permitted uses within the project site under the adopted Business Center II Supplemental
SPA Plan include hospital and medical care facilities, subject to a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP).
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code/Planned Communities District Zones
The Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) provides consistency and is often reflective of
the General Plan’s land use goals. The CVMC details regulations that control land use,
density, the location, height, bulk, appearance, dimension, open space, and appearance
of structures. The Planning and Zoning Code (CVMC Title 19, Chapter 19.02, et seq.)
contains regulations which provide for the orderly planning and long-term development of
land located within Planned Community (PC) zones (see CVMC Chapter 19.48). All PC
zones are required to be divided into sectional planning areas. The project is located within
a PC zone; governed by the Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan, and further
regulated by the Eastlake II PC District Regulations (City of Chula Vista 2005b) pursuant
to the CVMC. The regulations set forth the development and use standards for the project
site by establishing setbacks, building heights, parking requirements, landscape
requirements, use restrictions, animal regulations, density, lot size, fencing, and signing
regulations. The PC District Regulations, along with the Business Center II Supplemental
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 Land Use
5.1-5
SPA Plan, delineate precisely the allowable use and specific development standards of
the project site.
The project site is zoned BC-4 within the PC District which allows for the proposed use
with a CUP and the design review is consistent with the specific development standards
(Design Review permit).
City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan
The City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan is a subregional
plan under the California Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The City
adopted the MSCP Subarea Plan in 2003. The MSCP is the City’s comprehensive long-
term habitat conservation plan designed to protect species against the potential impacts
of habitat loss associated with development of both public and private lands. Any project
subject to City approval must be in conformance with the Subarea Plan. The Chula Vista
Subarea is comprised of lands within the incorporated city limits for which Take
Authorization will be granted. The City’s Preserve will eventually encompass the City’s
most sensitive open space area.
The project site lies within an area designated for development by the MSCP Subarea
Plan.
5.1.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, impacts related to land use would be significant if the project would:
1. Physically divide an established community.
2. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
5.1.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Physically Divide an Established Community
The project would not result in any changes to the land use patterns that are established
in the relevant planning documents including the Eastlake II GDP and Business Center II
Supplemental SPA Plan. Specifically, the project site is within the business park,
designated IR under the Eastlake II GDP and identified as EP-12 under the Site Utilization
Plan (City of Chula Vista 2007). The surrounding land uses consist of commercial
development to the south and west, and residential to the north and east. The project
would not divide either of these established land use areas, as the project site sits within
designated commercial use space, with hospital use permitted subject to a CUP, which is
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 Land Use
5.1-6
being concurrently processed. The project would comply with all design guidelines and
relevant development standards specific to the project site. Through development
regulations, including height restrictions, architectural design, and building material
requirements, the bulk and scale of the project would be consistent with the existing
commercial uses within the business center. The existing grade differential between the
project site and the residential areas to the north and east would be maintained and the
on-site project landscaping would further provide a buffer between the site and the
adjacent residential areas. Therefore, impacts related to physically dividing an established
community would be less than significant.
Additional details relating to the project’s consistency with the community character and
visual quality aspects of the project area are addressed in Section 5.2 of this EIR.
Threshold 2: Affecting Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
The project does not propose any change in land use that would be inconsistent with
existing plans, policies, or regulations governing the project site. Additionally, the project
supports policies relating to public health and safety as detailed below.
General Plan
Evaluation of the project’s consistency with the General Plan is presented in Table 5.1-1,
which provides a summary of the project’s consistency with all relevant General Plan
goals, objectives, and policies. As detailed in Table 5.1-1, the project would not result in
any changes to development plans or land use patterns. The construction of a hospital
use is allowed pursuant to the relevant planning documents including the Eastlake II GDP
and Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan that allows hospital uses subject to a
CUP, which is being processed concurrently. Residential neighborhoods are located
downslope to the north and east of the project site. The project would adhere to all design
and development standards including, screening, walls and fencing, and landscape and
architectural design to ensure that the structure and exterior areas would not affect the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Additionally, the project is consistent with Objective PFS 19 (Policies 19.1 and 19.8). The
project provides a benefit to the community through the construction of a neighborhood
integrated facility that would serve all levels of patient needs including adolescent and
geriatric patients. The project site is centrally located to serve the community of Eastlake
as well as the entirety of the City. The project site is assessable from main roadways (Otay
Lakes Road) and State Route 125.
As further summarized in Table 5.1-1, the project would be consistent with all relevant
General Plan policies.
5.1-7
TABLE 5.1-1
LAND USE POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS – GENERAL PLAN
General Plan
Goals, Objectives & Policies Eastlake Behavioral Hospital Project
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective LUT 1
Provide a balance of residential and non-residential development throughout the City that achieves a vibrant development pattern, enhances the
character of the City, and meets the present and future needs of all residents and businesses.
Policy LUT 1.2: Coordinate planning
activities and resources to balance land
uses, amenities, and civic facilities in order
to sustain or improve the quality of life.
The project site is graded and the proposed used is allowed within the Business Park II Supplemental SPA Plan
subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The project would fit the development pattern of the existing business center, as
it would comply with all design, and development standards. The provision of a behavior health facility would be
beneficial to the community as it would serve all levels of patient needs including adolescent and geriatric patients.
The project would be consistent with Policy LUT 1.2.
Objective LUT 6
Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with one another.
Policy LUT 6.2: Require that proposed
development plans and projects consider
and minimize project impacts upon
surrounding neighborhoods.
The project would not result in any changes to development plans or land use patterns. The construction of a hospital
use is allowed pursuant to the Eastlake II GDP and Eastlake Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan subject to a
Conditional Use Permit, which is being processed concurrently. Residential neighborhoods are located to downslope
to the north and east of the project site. The project would adhere to all design and development standards including,
screening, walls and fencing, landscape and architectural design to ensure that the structure and exterior areas
would not affect the surrounding neighborhoods. The project would be consistent with Policy LUT 6.2.
Objective LUT 69
Create and maintain unique, stable, and well-designed communities that are master planned to guide development activities.
Policy LUT 69.1: The policies and
regulations within GDP and SPA Plans
that are specific to each community shall
continue to guide the completion of
development activities.
The project would not result in any changes to development plans or land use patterns. The construction of a
behavioral health hospital use is allowed pursuant to the Eastlake II GDP and Eastlake Business Center II
Supplemental SPA Plan subject to a Conditional Use Permit, which is being processed concurrently. The project
would adhere to all design and development standards including, screening, walls and fencing, landscape and
architectural design required in each relevant planning document. The project would be consistent with Policy
LUT 69.1.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Objective ED 2
Maintain a variety of job and housing opportunities to improve Chula Vista’s jobs/housing balance.
Policy ED 2.2: Pursue a diverse supply of
housing types and costs, as well as a
diverse supply of jobs with varying income
The project would provide new professional, technical, administrative, and manual jobs to the City. It is anticipated
that a number of new employees would be residents of the City which would result in beneficial economic
opportunities for many diverse levels of employment. The project would be consistent with Policy ED 2.2.
5.1-8
TABLE 5.1-1
LAND USE POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS – GENERAL PLAN
General Plan
Goals, Objectives & Policies Eastlake Behavioral Hospital Project
potential, to balance local job and housing
opportunities.
Policy ED 2.6: Leverage economic
development incentives to provide high-
quality jobs for Chula Vista Residents.
The project would provide new professional, technical, administrative, and manual jobs to the City. The applicant,
Acadia Healthcare, in its partnership with Scripps Healthcare, brings high-quality and long-term employment
opportunities for many diverse levels of employment. The project would be consistent with Policy ED 2.6.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
Objective PFS 6
Provide adequate fire and police protection services to newly developing and redeveloping areas of the City.
Policy PFS 6.1: Continue to require new
development and redevelopment projects
to demonstrate adequate access for fire
and police vehicles.
The project would provide adequate ingress, egress, and tuning ratios to support the internal circulation of fire and
emergency vehicles (see Figure 3-10). The project would be consistent with Policy PFS 6.1.
Objective PFS 19
Provide art and cultural programs, childcare facilities and health and human services that enhance the quality of life in the City of Chula Vista.
Policy 19.1: Promote land use
designations that accommodate location
of childcare facilities and other health and
human services near homes; schools;
work places; activity centers; and major
transit facilities and routes.
The proposed used is allowed within the Eastlake Business Park II Supplemental SPA Plan subject to a Conditional
Use Permit. The provision of a behavior health facility would be beneficial to the community as it would serve all
levels of patient needs including adolescent and geriatric patients. The project site is centrally located to serve the
community of Eastlake as well as the entirety of the City. The project site is assessable from main roadways (Otay
Lakes Road) and State Route 125. The project would be consistent with Policy PFS 19.1.
Policy 19.8: Encourage an integrated,
neighborhood-based approach to the
delivery of health and human services.
The project would provide a new healthcare facility designed to be integrated into its location from both a design and
land use perspective. The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital would serve all levels of patients and be available to
serve the needs of the local community. The project would be consistent with Policy PFS 19.8.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 Land Use
5.1-9
Eastlake II GDP/Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan
The framework for development within the project site is guided by the Eastlake II GDP
as implemented by the Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan. Pursuant to the land
use designations and zoning allowances, the project would be a permitted use subject to
a CUP. All building setbacks, landscaping, architectural design, and development
regulations would be consistent with the Eastlake II GDP and the Business Center II
Supplemental SPA Plan.
The Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan includes a discussion of community
structure which provides specific design guidance related to landscaping required for the
residential edge along the northern and eastern edges of the project site (Business Center
II Supplemental SPA Plan, page I-7). Specifically, the northern residential edge abutting
the Rolling Hills Ranch SPA is required to provide increased building setbacks and dense
landscaping along the upper portion of the slope banks (Business Center II Supplemental
SPA Plan, page III-4). As shown on Figure 3-6a, the project proposes a wide swath of
perimeter shrubs and screening trees along the northern and eastern property edges.
Additionally, rear setbacks along the northern edge are 50 feet as required by the property
development standards for the Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan. Therefore, the
project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or zoning regulations.
MSCP Subarea Plan
The project site is designated for development by the MSCP Subarea Plan. The project
site is surrounded by development and the site itself has been previously disturbed. The
project would not be in conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan, NCCP, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, including the MSCP.
5.1.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed land use, design, and layout for the project would be compatible with
existing land use plans and patterns. There are residential neighborhoods in the project
vicinity; however, the project would not physically divide these neighborhoods. As
required, the project includes a CUP and, therefore, would be consistent with all applicable
land use plans, policies, and zoning regulations. The project site is not included or
adjacent to MSCP preserve areas and is, therefore, not subject to requirements of the
MSCP. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.1.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
5.2-1
5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential impacts
related to aesthetic resources resulting from the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
project (project), specifically as they relate to landform alteration and changes in visual
quality within the City of Chula Vista (City). Information presented is based on an
evaluation of surrounding land uses, topography, and landform. Additionally, project site
development plans, including elevations and architectural designs, were examined to
determine potential visual effect of the project.
5.2.1 Existing Conditions
5.2.1.1 Landform and Open Space
The City contains major landforms and open space which defines its visual character.
Major landforms are those features that provide physical and unique interest throughout
the City. Examples of major landform features include the Chula Vista Greenbelt1, Rock
Mountain, and the San Miguel, Jamul, and San Ysidro mountains. The City Greenbelt is
the backbone of the City’s open space and park system (City of Chula Vista 2005c). The
project site is located within a portion of the City where mesas and canyons are the
dominant landform (City of Chula Vista 2005c). As depicted in Figure 5.2-1 of the City of
Chula Vista General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (GPU FEIR) there
are no major landforms in proximity of the project site, nor is the project site located near
the City Greenbelt.
The project site consists of a relatively flat, vacant lot, located in the northeast section of the
existing developed Eastlake Business Center. There are no trees, rock outcroppings,
historic buildings, or any other scenic qualities within the project site (see Figure 3-3).
Residential properties to the north and east are downslope approximately 60 feet at the
base of an existing manufactured slope. The project site sits adjacent to The District at
Eastlake, which is nearly fully developed with commercial uses and parking. The project site
is surrounded by commercial uses such as restaurants, and family-oriented businesses,
providing play areas and classes for adults and children. A number of these businesses
include Eastlake Speed Circuit, Crunch Select Gym, Ninja Factory, Sky Zone, Play City,
Pride Martial Arts, Kid Ventures, Sylvan Learning Center, Little Artists, DanceArts, and
Floaties Swim School. The Eastlake Montessori School and Awaken Church (Eastlake
Campus) is also located within The District at Eastlake. The Awaken Church provides
programming for children of all ages from six months to high school, meeting on the campus
weeknights and Sundays.
1The Greenbelt incorporates developed and undeveloped open space and potential new open
space linkages to form a continuous 28-mile open space and park system around the perimeter
of the City.
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\Figure5.2-1.ai 09/08/20 lb
FIGURE 5.2-1
Project Views
Southern View Eastern View
Southeastern View Northwestern View
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
5.2-3
5.2.1.2 Scenic Vistas
As noted in the City’s GPU FEIR, the mountains and foothills to the east are visible from
a number of viewpoints within the City, especially those occupying the mesa tops. As
shown in Figure 5.2-1, while the project site itself does not support any visual landform or
valuable open space, it offer views of mountains and ridgelines.
The City General Plan identifies two types of scenic highways – urban and rural. Urban
routes are those “that traverse an urban area with the scenic corridor offering a view of
attractive and exciting urban scenes.” Rural scenic highways provide for an enriched
experience of natural scenic resources and aesthetic values and may include large
preserved canyons or natural areas, or areas within the Chula Vista Greenbelt (City of
Chula Vista 2005a, Section 5.2.1.2). Otay Lakes Road, located south of the project site,
is designated a scenic highway in the Eastlake II General Development Plan/Business
Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area Plan (see Section 5.2.2.1).
Additionally, the City maintains its gateways as scenic resources which offer visual
introductions to the differing areas throughout the City. As shown in Figure 5-6 of the Land
Use and Transportation Element of the City’s General Plan, the Otay Lakes Road gateway
provides access from State Route 125 into the Eastlake Village Center and Business Park.
This gateway is located at the southwest edge of the Eastlake Business Center (City of
Chula Vista 2005a).
5.2.2 Regulatory Setting
5.2.2.1 Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Land Use and Transportation (LUT) Element of the General Plan addresses scenic
resources and roadways, gateways, and neighborhood identity. Pursuant to Figure 5-4 of
the LUT Element, Otay Lakes Road and Hunte Parkway, within the project vicinity, are
designated scenic roadways. Additionally, as shown in Figure 5-6 of the LUT Element, the
Otay Lakes Road gateway provides access from State Route 125 into the Eastlake Village
Center and Business Park. This gateway is located at the southwest edge of the Eastlake
Business Center (City of Chula Vista 2005a). There are a number of objectives focused
on preserving visual quality and neighborhood character. Objectives and policies relevant
to the project include the following:
OBJECTIVE LUT 3
Direct the urban design and form of new development and redevelopment in a manner
that blends with and enhances Chula Vista’s character and qualities, both physical and
social.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
5.2-4
OBJECTIVE LUT 6
Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with one another.
Policy LUT 6.1: Ensure, through adherence to design guidelines and zoning standards,
that the design review process guarantees excellence in design and that new construction
and alterations to existing buildings are compatible with the best character elements of the
area.
Policy LUT 6.2: Require that proposed development plans and projects consider and
minimize project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LUT 6.3: Require that the design of new residential, commercial, or public
developments is sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods through
consideration of access, compatible building design and massing, and building height
transitions, while maintaining the goals and values set forth in the General Plan.
Policy LUT 6.5: Require, through sensitive and attractive design, that neighborhood retail
centers and commercial service buildings are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
OBJECTIVE LUT 8
Strengthen and sustain Chula Vista's image as a unique place by maintaining, enhancing,
and creating physical features that distinguish Chula Vista's neighborhoods, communities,
and public and recreational spaces, and enhance its image as a pedestrian-oriented and
livable community.
Policy LUT 8.3: Ensure that buildings are appropriate to their context and designed to be
compatible with surrounding uses and enhance the desired character of their district.
OBJECTIVE LUT 11
Ensure that buildings and related site improvements for public and private development
are well-designed and compatible with surrounding properties and districts.
Policy LUT 11.2: Promote and place a high priority on quality architecture, landscape, and
site design to enhance the image of Chula Vista, and create a vital and attractive
environment for businesses, residents, and visitors.
Policy LUT 11.3: The City shall, through the development of regulations and guidelines,
ensure that good project landscape and site design creates places that are well-planned;
attractive; efficient; safe; and pedestrian-friendly.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
5.2-5
Policy LUT 11.4: Actively promote architectural and design excellence in buildings, open
space, and urban design.
Policy LUT 11.5: Require a design review process for all public and private discretionary
projects.
OBJECTIVE LUT 13
Preserve scenic resources in Chula Vista, maintain the City's open space network, and
promote beautification of the City.
Policy LUT 13.4: Any discretionary projects proposed adjacent to scenic routes, with the
exception of individual single-family dwellings, shall be subject to design review to ensure
that the design of the development proposal will enhance the scenic quality of the route.
Review should include site design, architectural design, height, landscaping, signage, and
utilities. Development adjacent to designated scenic routes should be designed to:
• Create substantial open areas adjacent to scenic routes through clustering
development;
• Create a pleasing streetscape through landscaping and varied building setbacks;
and
• Coordinate signage, graphics and/or signage requirements, and standards.
OBJECTIVE LUT 69
Create and maintain unique, stable, and well-designed communities that are master
planned to guide development activities.
OBJECTIVE LUT 75
Preserve and protect Otay Ranch’s significant natural resources and open space lands
with environmentally sensitive development.
Policy LUT 69.1: The policies and regulations within GDP and SPA Plans that are specific
to each community shall continue to guide the completion of development activities.
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
The Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) sets forth the administrative procedures and
requirements for permits (CVMC Section 19.14.010). Plans for the establishment, location,
expansion, or alteration of structures in all multi-family residential zones and all
commercial and industrial zones shall require design review by the Planning Commission
(CVMC Section 19.14.582).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
5.2-6
Eastlake II General Development Plan/Business Center II Supplemental Sectional
Planning Area Plan
Consistent with the LUT Element, the project site is subject to the Eastlake II General
Development Plan (GDP)/Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan. The SPA Plan contains specific guidance for development, the following of
which is relevant to the project/project site.
SECTION II.2.3.7
Scenic Highway Edge: Otay Lakes Road is designated a scenic highway. The treatment
of this scenic highway shall reflect the landscape treatment that currently exists along its
southern boundary within the Eastlake Greens SPA. This highway includes a meandering
walk and an on-street bicycle trail.
Residential Edge: The northern residential edge abutting the Rolling Hills Ranch SPA will
have increased building setbacks and require dense landscaping along the upper portion
of slope banks and within a ten foot landscape setback within the abutting lot.
The eastern residential edge is significantly higher than expected residential development
in the Eastlake III GDP, but will also require dense landscape along the upper portion of
the Eastlake Business Center lots and downslope.
General Landscape Plan: Exhibit 9 of the SPA Plan illustrates the specific locations
requiring a residential interface buffer.
Eastlake II Planned Community (PC) District Regulations
The Planned Community (PC) District Regulations are adopted pursuant to the Title 19
CVMC (Zoning) as a means to create development standards that are applicable to the
Eastlake Business Center. Property development standards for the BC-4 zone ae detailed
in Section IV.2 and summarized in Table 5.2-1.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
5.2-7
TABLE 5.2-1
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Lot area, net 1 acre
Lot width 150 feet
Lot depth 150 feet
Front yard setback 25 feet
Side yard setback 15 feet
Public street setback 20 feet
Rear yard setback 10 feet
Building height, maximum 35 feet
Lot coverage (percent, net) 70%
SOURCE: Section IV.2 Property Development Standards, Business
Center District (Planned Community [PC] District
Regulations) as contained within the Eastlake II General
Development Plan/Business Center II Supplemental
Sectional Planning Area Plan (City of Chula Vista 2005b)
5.2.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to landform
alteration/aesthetics would be significant if the project would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
3. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality.
4. Create a new source of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
5.2.4 Impacts
Thresholds 1 and 2: Scenic Vista/Scenic Resources
As shown in Figure 3-3, the project site is vacant and graded with no trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings. While there are several scenic vistas located
throughout the City, the project site itself is not within a scenic vista nor contains any scenic
resources. The project site does offer views of distant mountains and ridgelines as shown
in Figure 5.2-1. Similar to the finding in the City’s GPU FEIR, construction of the project
within a surrounding residential area could affect the aesthetic character of the City,
specifically within the Eastern Planning Area. The project would be a single-story
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
5.2-8
structure; the exterior would be muted colors of stucco, with earth-toned glass and metal
accents as shown on Figure 5.2-2. The structure itself (size and elevations) would be
consistent with the existing pattern of development as shown in Figure 5.2-3. Overall, as
shown in Figure 5.2-3, due to the project design which complies with all regulatory
requirements, along with the low building height would allow continued views of the distant
mountain and ridgelines after construction.
As shown in Figure 5.2-4, the project site is located within the vicinity of two City-
designated Scenic Highways, Otay Lakes Road and Hunte Parkway. The project would
comply with all relevant provisions of the City’s General Plan and relevant planning
documents, including the Eastlake II GDP/Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan.
General Plan Policy LUT 13.4 requires discretionary projects adjacent to scenic routes to
be subject to design review to ensure that proposed site design, architectural design,
height, landscaping, signage, and utilities are consistent with the scenic quality of the
surrounding area. While not adjacent to the scenic highways, the project has been
designed to be consistent with surrounding uses.
Overall, due to location, design, and regulatory compliance, the project would have a less
than significant impact to scenic vistas and scenic resources.
Threshold 3: Visual Character
As shown in the City GPU EIR Figure 5.2-1, no major landforms exist within or in proximity
to the project site. However, the project site does provide views of the foothills and
mountains along the City’s edge (see Figure 5.2-1). Construction of the project could
impact the surrounding visual character by changing the landscape of the project site in a
way that could block views. However, the project would comply with all relevant General
Plan objectives, including LUT 6 and LUT 11, which establish policies focused on the
requirement for design review to ensure new development is compatible with the
surrounding visual character and quality. As discussed under Thresholds 1 and 2, the
project would be consistent with the existing pattern of development in the Eastlake II
GDP/Business Center II. Additionally, the Eastlake II GDP/Business Center II
Supplemental SPA Plan require specific landscape and architectural designs to be
included as part of the project’s design due to its proximity to residential uses. The project’s
setbacks and landscape plan have been designed to provide additional buffering along
the project’s residential interface consistent with the Eastlake II GDP/Business Center II
Supplemental SPA Plan. Specifically, the project adheres to the Property Development
Standards of the Eastlake II PC District Regulations, and as shown in Figure 3-6a of this
EIR, heavy landscaping is proposed along the northern and eastern edges of the project
site.
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\Figure5.2-2.ai 09/08/20 lb
Map Source: SWA Architects
FIGURE 5.2-2
Project Materials and Colors
SOUTH ELEVATION
STUCCO COLORS
METAL PANEL COLORS
M1 M2
STONE ACCENT
GLASS AND STOREFRONT COLORS
S1 S2 S3 S4
SA4
G1 G1A G2 G2A G3 G3A GF
tel: 626.793.9805 • fax: 626.793.9807
48 east holly street
pasadena, ca 91103
ARCHITECTSSWA #: 20180024
SHOWROOM PLACE • CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
ACADIA HEALTHCARE, CHULA VISTA 02-13-20
MATERIALS AND COLORS
NORTHERLY ELEVATION
S5
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\Figure5.2-3.ai 09/08/20 lb
Map Source: SWA Architects
FIGURE 5.2-3
Project Renderings
48 east holly streetpasadena, ca 91103
tel: 626.793.9805 fax: 626.793.9807•
ARCHITECTS
EAST LAKE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
HOSPITAL
830 & 831 SHOWROOM PLACE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91914
ACADIA
HEALTHCARE
A-3.01
FIGURE 5.2-4
Project Site in Proximity
UV125UV125
Image Source: Nearmap (Flown September 2019)
0 2,000Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig5.2-4_EIR.mxd 10/2/2020 lrb
to Scenic Highways
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
5.2-12
In addition, as shown in Figure 5.2-5 (project site cross sections), the project would not be
visible from surrounding residential neighborhoods. As shown in Section C-C, existing
topography (the residential neighborhood to the east is approximately 18 feet below the
grade of the project’s ground floor) and proposed landscape would prevent residents to
the east on River Rock Drive from having views into the project site. Additionally, lots
adjacent to the west and east of the project site are approximately 50 feet and 60 feet
below the grade, respectively, of the ground floor of the project (see Figure 5.2-2, Sections
B-B and A-A).
As required by the City General Plan and CVMC, the project would need approval of a
Design Review Permit showing project consistency with all relevant planning documents
and General Plan objectives, including LUT 3, LUT 6, and LUT 11). As detailed in the
Landscape Plans (see Figures 3-6a and 3-6b), landscaping along the project perimeter is
composed of shrubs and screening trees which would serve to soften views of the project
site from nearby areas. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact
to scenic vistas.
Overall, the project would comply with applicable regulations governing scenic quality and
would be designed to fit the visual character of the site and its surroundings. Application
of these policies to the project’s design would ensure the project’s consistency with the
existing community character of the area, and ensure surrounding views of local hillsides
would not be impaired. Impacts related to visual quality would be less than significant.
Threshold 4: Light and Glare
The project would include new lighting sources for both construction and operation.
General construction practices would be limited, at a maximum, to the daytime hours of
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m. on the weekend.
During construction, lighting for security purposes would be similar or less than the on-site
lighting associated with the existing surrounding buildings. Safety lighting would be
oriented downward with shielding and away from the project boundary to ensure lighting
does not spill to the north and to the east, toward the residences located at lower
elevations.
The project has been designed primarily of solid surfaces with windows at the entrance
and to allow for natural light to enter patient rooms. Exterior glass and storefront colors
would be muted grays, blues, and greens to provide low glare (see Figure 5.2-2) and
would be absorptive of light or made of anti-reflective materials.
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\Figure5.2-5.ai 09/08/20 lb
Map Source: SWA Architects
FIGURE 5.2-5
Site Sections
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
5.2-14
At nighttime with the inclusion of automatic, controlled by motion/ambient and light
sensors, and minimum outdoor illumination, impacts from lighting and glare would be less
than significant.
5.2.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The project site does not support any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings and is
not located within any designated scenic roadways or vistas; however, it does offer views
of surrounding mountains and ridge lines. The construction of the proposed hospital
building would not alter the views from the project site. The project would fit the pattern
and character of the existing business park and would be designed with earth tones and
muted glass shades to ensure it does not interfere in views or create glares that would
affect downslope residences. All potential impacts associated with landform
alteration/aesthetics would be less than significant.
5.2.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-1
5.3 Air Quality
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential short-term
and long-term local and air quality impacts resulting from construction and operation of
the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project (project). Information presented in this
section is based on the Air Quality Analysis for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
(Air Quality Analysis; Appendix B) prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (2020a).
5.3.1 Existing Conditions
5.3.1.1 Geographic Setting/Climate
The state of California is divided geographically into 15 air basins for managing the air
resources of the state on a regional basis. Areas within each air basin are considered to
share the same air masses and, therefore, are expected to have similar ambient air
quality. The project is located in the city of Chula Vista (City), approximately 10 miles
east of the Pacific Ocean and sits within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The SDAB is
surrounded by mountains to the north, east, and south. These mountains tend to restrict
airflow and concentrate pollutants in the valleys and low-lying areas below.
The project area, like the rest of San Diego County, has a Mediterranean climate
characterized by warm, dry summers and mild winters. The mean annual temperature
for the project area is 62 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The average annual precipitation is
12 inches, falling primarily from November to April. Winter low temperatures in the
project area average about 41°F, and summer high temperatures average about 78°F.
The average relative humidity is 69 percent and is based on the yearly average humidity
at Lindbergh Field (Western Regional Climate Center 2020).
The dominant meteorological feature affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure
Zone, which produces the prevailing westerly to northwesterly winds. Fluctuations in the
strength and pattern of winds from the Pacific High Pressure Zone creates a
temperature inversion layer (a layer in the atmosphere in which temperature increases
with height) that acts as a lid to the vertical dispersion. Sunlight reacts with air pollutants
to create ozone (see Section 5.3.1.2). Additional details relating to meteorological
conditions and air quality measurements are included in Section 4.2 of Appendix B.
5.3.1.2 Air Pollutants of Key Concern
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) sets standards for six
air pollutants of key concern known as “criteria pollutants.” These criteria pollutants are
each common in outdoor environments across the United States and each pose a threat
to human health. Criteria pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-2
Ozone
Ozone is the primary component of smog. Ozone is not directly emitted into the air but is
formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of NOX and
reactive organic gases (ROGs; also known as volatile organic chemicals [VOC] or
reactive organic compounds [ROC]). These compounds react in the presence of sunlight
to produce ozone, which is the primary air pollution problem in the SDAB. The adverse
health effects associated with exposure to ozone pertain primarily to the respiratory
system. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of ozone affect not only
sensitive receptors, such as asthma sufferers and children, but healthy adults as well.
Exposure to ozone has been found to significantly alter lung functions by increasing
respiratory rates and pulmonary resistance, decreasing tidal volumes (the amount of air
inhaled and exhaled), and impairing respiratory mechanics. Symptomatic responses
include throat dryness, chest tightness, headache, and nausea. About half of smog-
forming emissions come from automobiles (https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-
pollution).
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas. CO is released when something is
burned. The greatest sources of CO to outdoor air are cars, trucks, and other vehicles or
machinery that burn fossil fuels. CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs by
combining with hemoglobin, which normally supplies oxygen to the cells. However, CO
combines with hemoglobin much more readily than oxygen does, resulting in a drastic
reduction in the amount of oxygen available to the cells. Adverse health effects
associated with exposure to CO concentrations include such symptoms as dizziness,
headaches, and fatigue. CO exposure is especially harmful to individuals who suffer
from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-
iaq/carbon-monoxides-impact-indoor-air-quality).
Small-scale, localized concentrations of CO above the federal and state Ambient Air
Quality Standards may occur at intersections with stagnation points such as those that
occur on major highways and heavily traveled and congested roadways. Localized high
concentrations of CO are referred to as “CO hotspots” and are a concern at congested
intersections, where automobile engines burn fuel less efficiently and their exhaust
contains more CO.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gases known as oxides of
nitrogen or nitrogen oxides (NOx). Nitrogen dioxide is a brownish, highly reactive gas
that is present in all urban environments. NO2 primarily gets in the air from the burning of
fuel. NO2 forms from emissions from cars, trucks and buses, power plants, and off-road
equipment. The major human-made sources of NO2 are combustion devices, such as
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-3
boilers, gas turbines, and mobile and stationary reciprocating internal combustion
engines. Inhalation is the most common route of exposure to NO2. Breathing air with a
high concentration of NO2 can irritate airways in the human respiratory system. Such
exposures over short periods can aggravate respiratory diseases, particularly asthma,
leading to respiratory symptoms (such as coughing, wheezing or difficulty breathing).
The severity of the adverse health effects depends primarily on the concentration
inhaled rather than the duration of exposure. Longer exposures to elevated
concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially
increase susceptibility to respiratory infections (https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-
information-about-no2#Effects).
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a combustion product, with the primary source being power plants
and heavy industries that use coal or oil as fuel. SO2 is also a product of diesel engine
combustion. The health effects of SO2 include lung disease and breathing problems for
people with asthma (https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics#what is
so2).
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air.
Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen
with the naked eye. Others are so small they can only be detected using an electron
microscope. Particle pollution includes:
• PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and
smaller; and
• PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers
and smaller.
PM10 is particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. Ten
microns is about one-seventh of the diameter of a human hair. Under typical conditions
(i.e., no wildfires) particles classified under the PM10 category are mainly emitted directly
from activities that disturb the soil including travel on roads and construction, mining, or
agricultural operations. Other sources include windblown dust, salts, brake dust, and tire
wear.
Airborne, inhalable particles with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less have
been recognized as an air quality concern requiring regular monitoring and pose the
greatest risk to health. Federal regulations required that PM2.5 monitoring begin
January 1, 1999. Similar to PM10, PM2.5 is also inhaled into the lungs and causes serious
health problems.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-4
Health studies have shown a significant association between exposure to particulate
matter and premature death in people with heart or lung diseases. Other important
effects include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, lung disease,
decreased lung function, asthma attacks, and certain cardiovascular problems such as
heart attacks and irregular heartbeat (https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-
environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm). PM2.5 are the main cause of reduced
visibility (haze) in parts of the United States. Particles can be carried over long distances
by wind and then settle on ground or water. Depending on their chemical composition,
the effects of this settling may include making lakes and streams acidic, changing the
nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins, depleting the nutrients in soil,
damaging sensitive forests and farm crops, affecting the diversity of ecosystems
(https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-
pm).
Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products.
At high levels of exposure, lead can have detrimental effects on the central nervous
system. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and
industrial sources. As a result of the phase out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is
currently the primary source of lead emissions.
5.3.1.3 Existing Air Quality
The SDAB is a designated non-attainment area for the federal and state ozone standard,
and is also designated a non-attainment area for state PM10 and PM2.5 standards.
Air quality at a particular location is a function of the kinds, amounts, and dispersal rates
of pollutants being emitted into the air locally and throughout the basin. The major
factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind speed and direction, the vertical dispersion
of pollutants (which is affected by inversions), and the local topography.
Air quality is commonly expressed as the number of days in which air pollution levels
exceed state standards set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) or federal
standards set by the U.S. EPA. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD)
maintains nine air quality monitoring stations located throughout the greater San Diego
metropolitan region. Air pollutant concentrations and meteorological information are
continuously recorded at these stations. Measurements are then used by scientists to
help forecast daily air pollution levels.
The Chula Vista monitoring station located at 80 East J Street, approximately 6 miles
west of the project site, is the nearest station to the project site. The monitoring station
measures ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Table 5.3-1 provides a summary of
measurements collected at the monitoring station for the years 2014 through 2018.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-5
TABLE 5.3-1
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS RECORDED AT THE
CHULA VISTA AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION
Pollutant/Standard 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Ozone
Federal Max 8-hr (ppm) 0.072 0.066 0.068 0.074 0.064
Days 2015 Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (0.07 ppm) 1 0 0 1 0
Days 2008 Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (0.075 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0
State Max 8-hr (ppm) 0.072 0.067 0.069 0.075 0.065
Days State 8-hour Standard Exceeded (0.07 ppm) 1 0 0 1 0
Max. 1-hr (ppm) 0.093 0.088 0.073 0.085 0.076
Days State 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.09 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide
Max 1-hr (ppm) 0.055 0.049 0.054 0.057 0.052
Days State 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0
Days Federal 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.100 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0
Annual Average (ppm) 0.011 0.010 0.009 -- 0.009
PM10*
Federal Max. Daily (µg/m3) 38.0 46.0 48.0 59.0 45.0
Measured Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 0 0
Calculated Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (150 µg/m3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Federal Annual Average (µg/m3) 22.9 19.7 21.6 21.4 20.7
State Max. Daily (µg/m3) 39.0 45.0 48.0 61.0 45.0
Measured Days State 24-hour Standard Exceeded (50 µg/m3) 0 0 0 1 0
Calculated Days State 24-hour Standard Exceeded (50 µg/m3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 --
State Annual Average (µg/m3) 23.4 19.8 21.8 21.7 --
PM2.5*
Federal Max. Daily (µg/m3) 26.5 33.5 23.9 42.7 41.9
Measured Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (35 µg/m3) 0 0 0 1 1
Calculated Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (35 µg/m3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- 2.7
Federal Annual Average (µg/m3) 9.2 8.3 8.7 -- 9.9
State Max. Daily (µg/m3) 26.5 33.5 23.9 42.7 41.9
State Annual Average (µg/m3) 9.3 8.4 8.7 -- 10.0
SOURCE: CARB 2020 (see Appendix B).
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; -- = Not available.
* Calculated days value. Calculated days are the estimated number of days that a measurement would have been
greater than the level of the standard had measurements been collected every day. The number of days above
the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year.
5.3.2 Regulatory Setting
5.3.2.1 Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
Ambient Air Quality Standards represent the maximum levels of background pollution
considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and
welfare. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977
and 1990 [42 United States Code (USC) 7401] for the purposes of protecting and
enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and
productivity. In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of the CAA
[42 USC 7409], the U.S. EPA developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for the six criteria pollutants discussed in Section 5.3.1.2. The CAA requires
periodic review of the science upon which the standards are based and the standards
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-6
themselves. The NAAQS are presented in Table 5.3-2 (California Air Resources Board
[CARB] 2016). The SDAB is a non-attainment area for the federal state ozone standard.
5.3.2.2 State
California Air Resource Board
The U.S. EPA allows states the option to develop different (stricter) standards. CARB
has developed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and generally has
set more stringent limits on the criteria pollutants. The CAAQS are presented in
Table 5.3-2, along side the NAAQS, for comparative purposes.
In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for
visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride (see
Table 5.3-2). Similar to the federal CAA, the state classifies specific geographic areas as
either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each pollutant based on the comparison
of measured data with the CAAQS. The SDAB is a nonattainment area for the state
ozone standards, the state PM10 standard, and the state PM2.5 standard.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The public’s exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant public health
issue in California. Diesel-exhaust particulate matter emissions have been established
as TACs. The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification
and control of TACs and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic
exposures and for reducing risk. Additionally, the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and
Assessment Act requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of certain
substances routinely released into the air.
The goals of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act are to collect emission data, to identify
facilities having localized impacts, to ascertain health risks, to notify nearby residents of
significant risks, and to reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-7
TABLE 5.3-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Ozone8
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
– Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8 Hour 0.07 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)9
24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Gravimetric or
Beta
Attenuation
150 µg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 –
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)9
24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 µg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3
Gravimetric or
Beta
Attenuation
12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Non-dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3) –
Non-dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
8 Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) –
8 Hour
(Lake
Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) – –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)10
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemi-
luminescence
100 ppb
(188 µg/m3) – Gas Phase
Chemi-
luminescence
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3)
0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)11
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196 µg/m3) –
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectro-
photometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3 Hour – –
0.5 ppm
(1,300
µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)
0.14 ppm
(for certain
areas)11
–
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
–
0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)11
–
Lead12,13
30 Day
Average 1.5 µg/m3
Atomic
Absorption
– –
High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Calendar
Quarter –
1.5 µg/m3
(for certain
areas)12 Same as
Primary
Standard Rolling
3-Month
Average
– 0.15 µg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles14
8 Hour See footnote
14
Beta
Attenuation and
Transmittance
through Filter
Tape
No National Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Ion Chroma-
tography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride12 24 Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 µg/m3)
Gas Chroma-
tography
See footnotes on next page.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-8
TABLE 5.3-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(continued)
ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not applicable.
1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen
dioxide, particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All
others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in
Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be
exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration
measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour
standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above
150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily
concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further
clarification and current national policies.
3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based
upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be
corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by
volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4 Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give
equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public
health.
6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7 Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have
a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.
8 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070
ppm.
9 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 µg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The
existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual
secondary standards of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were
retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
10 To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of ppb. California
standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be
converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.
11 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards
were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour
daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and
annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated
non-attainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or
maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the
1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard
of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
12 The Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of
exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at
levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
13 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard
(1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard,
except that in areas designated non-attainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until
implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
14 In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility
standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer”
for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
SOURCE: CARB 2016 (see Appendix B).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-9
The Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act, California Senate Bill 25 focuses on
children’s exposure to air pollutants. The act requires CARB to review its air quality
standards from a children’s health perspective, evaluate the statewide air monitoring
network, and develop any additional air toxic control measures needed to protect
children’s health. Locally, toxic air pollutants are regulated through the SDAPCD’s
Regulation XII. Of particular concern statewide are diesel-exhaust particulate matter
emissions. Diesel-exhaust particulate matter was established as a TAC in 1998, and is
estimated to represent a majority of the cancer risk from TACs statewide (based on the
statewide average). Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine
particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a
complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and
formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB and are listed as
carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the federal Hazardous Air
Pollutants program.
Following the identification of diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC in 1998, CARB
has worked on developing strategies and regulations aimed at reducing the risk from
DPM. The overall strategy for achieving these reductions is found in the Risk Reduction
Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles
(CARB 2000). A stated goal of the plan is to reduce the statewide cancer risk arising
from exposure to DPM by 85 percent by 2020.
In April 2005, CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective (CARB 2005). The handbook makes recommendations directed at
protecting sensitive land uses from air pollutant emissions while balancing a myriad of
other land use issues (e.g., housing, transportation needs, economics, etc.). It notes that
the handbook is not regulatory or binding on local agencies and recognizes that
application takes a qualitative approach. As reflected in the CARB handbook, there is
currently no adopted standard for the significance of health effects from mobile sources.
Therefore, the CARB has provided guidelines for the siting of land uses near heavily
traveled roadways. Of pertinence to this study, the CARB guidelines indicate that siting
new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads with 100,000 or
more vehicles per day should be avoided when possible.
As an ongoing process, CARB will continue to establish new programs and regulations
for the control of diesel particulate and other air-toxic emissions as appropriate. The
continued development and implementation of these programs and policies will ensure
that the public’s exposure to DPM will continue to decline.
State Implementation Plan
The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a collection of documents that set forth the
state’s strategies for achieving the NAAQS. In California, the SIP is a compilation of new
and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, permitting,
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-10
etc.), district rules, state regulations, and federal controls. The CARB is the lead agency
for all purposes related to the SIP under state law. Local air districts and other agencies,
such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Bureau of Automotive Repair,
prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. The CARB
then forwards SIP revisions to the U.S. EPA for approval and publication in the Federal
Register. All of the items included in the California SIP are listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 52.220.
The SDAPCD is responsible for preparing and implementing the portion of the SIP
applicable to the SDAB. The air pollution control district adopts rules, regulations, and
programs to attain federal and state air quality standards, and appropriates money
(including permit fees) to achieve these objectives.
5.3.2.3 Local
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
The SDAPCD is the agency that regulates air quality in the SDAB. The SDAPCD
prepared the Regional Air Quality Standards (RAQS) in response to the requirements
set forth in the California CAA Assembly Bill (AB) 2595 (SDAPCD 1992, 2016) and the
federal CAA. Motor vehicles are San Diego County’s leading source of air pollution
(SDAPCD 2016). In addition to these sources, other mobile sources include construction
equipment, trains, and airplanes. Reducing mobile source emissions requires the
technological improvement of existing mobile sources and the examination of future
mobile sources, such as those associated with new or modification projects (e.g.,
retrofitting older vehicles with cleaner emission technologies). In addition to mobile
sources, stationary sources also contribute to air pollution in the SDAB. Stationary
sources include gasoline stations, power plants, dry cleaners, and other commercial and
industrial uses. Stationary sources of air pollution are regulated by the local air pollution
control or management district, in this case the SDAPCD.
The SDAPCD is responsible for preparing and implementing the RAQS. As part of the
RAQS, the SDAPCD developed Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) for the air
quality plan prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in
accordance with AB 2595 and adopted by SANDAG on March 27, 1992, as Resolution
Number 92-49 and Addendum. The RAQS and TCM set forth the steps needed to
accomplish attainment of NAAQS and CAAQS. The required triennial updates of the
RAQS and corresponding TCM were adopted in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2009, and
2016. The SDAPCD published a workshop draft of the 2020 RAQS in July 2020 and has
solicited feedback through public meetings.
The SDAPCD has also established a set of rules and regulations initially adopted on
January 1, 1969, and periodically reviewed and updated. These rules and regulations
are available for review on the agency’s website.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-11
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Environmental Element of the City’s General Plan contains policies that focus on the
improvement of air quality. Objectives and policies relevant to the project include the
following:
OBJECTIVE E 6
Improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by minimizing the
release of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and limiting the exposure of people to
such pollutants.
Policy E 6.1: Encourage compact development featuring a mix of uses that locate
residential areas within reasonable walking distance to jobs, services, and transit.
Policy E 6.2: Promote and facilitate transit system improvements in order to increase
transit use and reduce dependency on the automobile.
Policy E 6.3: Facilitate the use of alternative fuel and low- and zero-emission vehicles
and equipment in the community.
Policy E 6.4: Do not site new or re-powered fossil-fueled baseload or peaking-type
Electric Generating Facilities and other major toxic emitters within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors, or site sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of such facilities.
Policy E 6.5: Ensure Electrical Generating Facilities incorporate cleaner fuel sources
and least polluting technologies in order to help transition the City to a less fossil fuel-
dependent future, while meeting Chula Vista’s energy demand.
Policy E 6.6: Explore incentives to promote voluntary air pollutant reductions, including
incentives for developers who go above and beyond applicable requirements and for
facilities and operations that are not otherwise regulated.
Policy E 6.7: Encourage innovative energy conservation practices and air quality
improvements in new development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City's
Air Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines or its equivalent, pursuant to the City's Growth
Management Program.
Policy E 6.8: Encourage climate resilient design techniques in new buildings and
infrastructure to reduce future risks from climate change-related impacts such as
wildfires, extreme heat, and flooding.
Policy E 6.9: Discourage the use of landscaping equipment powered by two-stroke
gasoline engines within the City and promote less-polluting alternatives to their use.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-12
Policy E 6.10: The siting of new sensitive receivers within 500 feet of highways resulting
from development or redevelopment projects shall require the preparation of a health
risk assessment as part of the CEQA review of the project. Attendant health risks
identified in the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be feasibly mitigated to the
maximum extent practicable, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), in order to help ensure that applicable federal and state standards are not
exceeded.
Policy E 6.11: Develop strategies to minimize CO hot spots that address all modes of
transportation.
Policy E 6.12: Promote clean fuel sources that help reduce the exposure of sensitive
uses to pollutants.
Policy E 6.13: Encourage programs and infrastructure to increase the availability and
usage of energy-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, or
those that run on alternative fuels.
Policy E 6.14: Transition the City fleet to 100% “clean” vehicles by integrating hybrid
and alternative fuel vehicles as current municipal fleet vehicles are replaced.
Policy E 6.15: Site industries and other stationary emitters in a way that minimizes the
potential impacts of poor air quality on homes, schools, hospitals, and other land uses
where people congregate, and disadvantaged populations.
Policy E 6.16: Encourage the use of bicycles through support of bike share
opportunities, community bike programs, and the provision of bicycle parking
opportunities such as bike racks and bike lockers.
5.3.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to air quality would
be significant if the project would:
1. Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation;
3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
AAQS (including the release of emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors);
4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration (including air
toxics); or
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-13
5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
As discussed in the Air Quality Analysis (see Appendix B), the City evaluates project
emissions based on the quantitative emission significance thresholds established by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
In addition to a comparison with the quantitative emission significance thresholds, the
project was evaluated for local air quality impacts, such as consistency with assumptions
of the RAQS and potential odors impacts.
5.3.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Plan Consistency
The RAQS is the applicable regional air quality plan that sets forth the SDAPCD’s
strategies for achieving the NAAQS and CAAQS. The SDAB is a designated non-
attainment area for the federal and state ozone standard. Accordingly, the RAQS was
developed to identify feasible emission control measures and provide expeditious
progress toward attaining the standards for ozone. The two pollutants addressed in the
RAQS are ROG and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which are precursors to the formation of
ozone. Projected increases in motor vehicle usage, population, and growth create
challenges in controlling emissions and by extension to maintaining and improving air
quality. The RAQS, in conjunction with the TCM, were most recently adopted in 2016 as
the air quality plan for the region.
The growth projections used by the SDAPCD to develop the RAQS emissions budgets
are based on the population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed in general
plans and used by SANDAG in the development of the regional transportation plans and
sustainable communities strategy. As such, projects that propose development that is
consistent with the growth anticipated by SANDAG’s growth projections and/or the
General Plan would not conflict with the RAQS. In the event that a project would propose
development that is less dense than anticipated by the growth projections, the project
would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. In the event a project proposes
development that is greater than anticipated in the growth projections, further analysis
would be warranted to determine if the project would exceed the growth projections used
in the RAQS for the specific subregional area.
The project site is within the approved Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Plan
Area (SPA), which is part of the larger Eastlake II General Plan Development. The
project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Title 19 – Planning and Zoning
of the City’s Municipal Code, and the Eastlake II SPA Plan, Planned Community District
regulations. These regulations allow the placement of a medical facility with approval of
a Conditional Use Permit. No change to land use designation or zoning is proposed that
would increase residential uses or density within the City. Thus, the project would be
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-14
consistent with the growth projections anticipated by SANDAG. The project would,
therefore, not result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the
RAQS. Thus, the project would not obstruct or conflict with implementation of the RAQS.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 2: Air Quality Violation
Project air emissions were calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) 2016.3.2 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA]
2017).
Construction Emissions
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of air emissions.
Sources of construction-related air emissions include:
• Fugitive dust from grading activities;
• Construction equipment exhaust;
• Construction-related trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material-hauling
trucks; and
• Construction-related power consumption.
Construction emissions were modeled with construction activities beginning in 2021 and
lasting for approximately 16 months. Primary inputs are the numbers of each piece of
equipment and the length of each construction stage. Specific construction phasing and
equipment parameters are not available at this time. However, CalEEMod can estimate
the required construction equipment when project-specific information is unavailable.
The construction equipment estimates are based on surveys, performed by the
SCAQMD and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, of typical
construction projects which provide a basis for scaling equipment needs and schedule
with a project’s size. Air emission estimates in CalEEMod are based on the duration of
construction phases; construction equipment type, quantity, and usage; grading area;
season; and ambient temperature, among other parameters. Project grading would
require the export of approximately 51,000 cubic yards of soil.
Table 5.3-3 shows the maximum daily construction emission levels for each criteria
pollutant; for complete modeling details and outputs refer to the Air Quality Analysis (see
Appendix B).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-15
TABLE 5.3-3
SUMMARY OF WORST-CASE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Construction
Pollutant
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 4 41 22 <1 20 12
Grading 5 74 38 <1 12 6
Building Construction/Architectural Coatings 10 23 22 <1 2 1
Paving 2 11 15 <1 1 1
Maximum Daily Emissions 10 74 38 <1 20 12
Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
SOURCE: See Appendix B.
As shown in Table 5.3-3, maximum daily construction emissions associated with the
project are projected to be less than the applicable thresholds for all criteria pollutants.
Therefore, as project construction emissions would be below these limits, project
construction would not result in regional emissions that would exceed the NAAQS or
CAAQS or contribute to existing violations. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operation Emissions
Mobile source emissions would originate from traffic generated by the project. Mobile
source operational emissions are based on the trip rate, trip length for each land use
type, and size. According to the project traffic report, the project would generate
2,400 average daily vehicle trips with an average one-way trip length of 9.6 miles
(Linscott, Law & Greenspan [LLG] 2020). Default vehicle emission factors for the first
operational year of 2022 were used.
Area source emissions would result from the use of natural gas, consumer products, as
well as applying architectural coatings and landscaping activities. Area source emissions
were modeled based on standard CalEEMod assumptions associated with the project
size.
As discussed in the Air Quality Analysis (see Appendix B), the project would install and
operate an 800 kilowatt Caterpillar C27 Generator Set emergency generator. The
service life and field reliability of the emergency generator is largely dependent on
regular maintenance. Maintenance may include run-tests. As discussed in the Air Quality
Analysis, emissions due to testing were calculated using default emission factors from
CalEEMod, as well as NOX and CO emission factors from manufacturer source tests
assuming testing involves operation at full load for up to 30 minutes of operation per day.
Table 5.3-4 shows the maximum daily operational emission levels for each criteria
pollutant; for complete modeling details and outputs refer to the Air Quality Analysis (see
Appendix B).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-16
TABLE 5.3-4
SUMMARY OF PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Source
Pollutant
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Generator1 1 7 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy Sources <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile Sources 4 16 46 <1 14 4
TOTAL 7 25 47 <1 14 4
Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
SOURCE: See Appendix B.
NOTE: Totals may vary due to independent rounding.
1 Manufacturer source tests emission factors are 6.2 grams per horsepower
hour (g/hp-hr) NOX, and 0.3 g/hp-hr CO.
As shown in Table 5.3-4, maximum daily operational emissions associated with the
project are projected to be less than the applicable thresholds for all criteria pollutants.
Therefore, as project operational emissions would be below these limits, project
operation would not result in regional emissions that would exceed the NAAQS or
CAAQS or contribute to existing violations. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 3: Criteria Pollutants
As discussed above, the region is classified as attainment for all criteria pollutants
except ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The SDAB is a non-attainment area for the 8-hour
federal and state ozone standards, and a non-attainment area for 1-hour state ozone
standards. Ozone is not emitted directly, but is a result of atmospheric activity on
precursors. NOX and ROG are known as the chief “precursors” of ozone. These
compounds react in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone.
As shown in Tables 5.3-3 and 5.3-4, emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX),
PM10, and PM2.5 from construction and operation would be below the applicable
thresholds. Therefore, the project would not generate emissions in quantities that would
result in an exceedance of the NAQQS or CAAQS for ozone, PM10, or PM2.5, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4: Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive land uses include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare
centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. Single-family residential
uses are located north and southeast of the project site. Additionally, Eastlake Middle
School, an assisted living facility, and a recreation center are located east of Hunte
Parkway.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-17
Diesel Particulate Matter – Construction
Construction of the project and associated infrastructure would result in short-term diesel
exhaust emissions from on-site heavy-duty equipment. Construction of the project would
result in the generation of diesel-exhaust DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel
equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction
activities and on-road diesel equipment used to bring materials to and from the project
site.
As discussed in the Air Quality Analysis (see Appendix B), project construction would
result in maximum annual emissions of 0.1097 tons of PM10 exhaust, which, would result
in maximum 1-hour ground-level DPM concentrations of 0.0648 µg/m3. The excess
cancer risk would be 1.7 in a million and the non-carcinogenic hazard quotient would be
0.0010. As the project is anticipated to result in a cancer risk that is less than 10 in
1 million and is anticipated to result in a hazard quotient less than 1, all health risks are
considered less than significant. For complete discussion of modeling details and
outputs, refer to the Air Quality Analysis (see Appendix B).
Diesel Particulate Matter – Freeway and Heavily Traveled Roadways
As discussed in Section 5.3.1.3, the CARB handbook indicates that siting new sensitive
land uses within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads with 100,000 or more vehicles per
day should be avoided when possible. The nearest freeway is located almost one mile
west of the project site. The project site is not located within 500 feet of any heavily
traveled roadways that carry more than 100,000 vehicles per day.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
Localized CO concentration is a direct function of motor vehicle activity at signalized
intersections (e.g., idling time and traffic flow conditions), particularly during peak
commute hours and meteorological conditions. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District developed a screening threshold in 2011, which states that any
project involving an intersection experiencing 31,600 vehicles per hour or more will
require detailed analysis. Based on the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the
project, the traffic volumes at all analyzed intersections would be significantly less than
31,600 vehicles per hour (LLG 2020). Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in
a CO hot spot.
Overall, impacts related to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Threshold 5: Odors
The project does not include heavy industrial or agricultural uses that are typically
associated with odor complaints. During construction, diesel equipment may generate
some nuisance odors. Single-family residential uses are located north and southeast of
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 Air Quality
5.3-18
the project site; however, exposure to odors associated with project construction would
be short term and temporary in nature. Additionally, CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-
Fueled Fleets Regulation outlined above would reduce construction exhaust emissions,
which would also reduce construction-related odors. Impacts would be less than
significant. Once operational, the project would not be a source of odors.
5.3.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
As the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and
would not result in growth in population beyond that anticipated by the General Plan and
SANDAG, the project would not result in an increase in emissions that are not already
accounted for in the RAQS. Thus, the project would not interfere with implementation of
the RAQS or other air quality plans; impacts would be less than significant.
As shown in Tables 5.3-3 and 5.3-4, project construction and operation would not
exceed the applicable regional emissions thresholds. These thresholds are designed to
provide limits below which project emissions would not significantly change regional air
quality. Therefore, as project emissions would be well below these limits, the project
would not result in regional emissions that would exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS or
contribute to existing violations. Impacts would be less than significant.
As shown in Tables 5.3-3 and 5.3-4, emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX),
PM10, and PM2.5 from construction and operation would be below the applicable
thresholds. Therefore, the project would not generate emissions in quantities that would
result in an exceedance of the NAQQS or CAAQS for ozone, PM10, or PM2.5, and
impacts would be less than significant.
There would be no harmful concentrations of CO and localized air quality emission
would not exceed applicable standards with implementation of the project; therefore,
sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not create or expose sensitive receivers to odors. No impacts would
occur.
5.3.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-1
5.4 Energy
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential impacts
related to energy conservation due to implementation of the Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital project (project). The discussion includes modeling of the project’s construction
equipment fuel use, transportation-related fuel use, and building-related energy use
(electricity and natural gas). The energy calculations are included in Appendix C.
5.4.1 Existing Conditions
5.4.1.1 Utility Provider
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) currently provides natural gas and electricity
transmission and distribution infrastructure in San Diego County. SDG&E is regulated by
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which is responsible for making sure
that California utilities’ customers have safe and reliable utility service. The program’s
energy needs would be supplied through the various combinations of energy resources
available within the program areas, and the analysis in this section takes into account
the anticipated future SDG&E energy resource use patterns.
Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078) established the California Renewables Portfolio Standard
(RPS) Program, which requires SDG&E and other statewide energy utility providers to
achieve a 33 percent renewable energy mix by 2020. Table 5.4-1 summarizes the
SDG&E power mix as of 2016. As shown, SDG&E used biomass, solar, and wind
sources, and obtained 43 percent of its energy from renewable resources in 2018
(SDG&E 2019).
TABLE 5.4-1
SDG&E 2018 POWER MIX
Energy Source Power Mix (%)
Renewables
Biomass & Biowaste
Geothermal
Eligible Hydroelectric
Solar
Wind
43
2
0
0
20
21
Coal 0
Large Hydroelectric 0
Natural Gas 29
Nuclear 0
Other <1
Unspecified Sources* 27
SOURCE: SDG&E 2019.
*Unspecified sources of power" means electricity from transactions
that are not traceable to specific generation sources.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-2
5.4.2 Regulatory Setting
5.4.2.1 State
California Energy Efficiency Action Plan
In September 2008, the CPUC adopted the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan,
which established the first integrated framework of goals and strategies for saving
energy, covering government, utility, and private sector actions. Subsequently Assembly
Bill (AB) 758 in 2010 established a requirement for regular updates to the plan and
SB 350 in 2015 identified a plan goal of achieving a doubling of statewide energy
efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers by
January 1, 2030 (relative to 2015 base year). Since 2008, the plan has been
implemented through focused action plans such as the Zero Net Energy Commercial
Building Action Plan in June 2011, the Research and Technology Action Plan in August
2013, the Lighting Action Plan in November 2013, the Codes and Standards Action Plan
in March 2014, and the New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan in June 2015.
The first comprehensive update to the plan, the 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action
Plan, was adopted in November 2019 (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2019). In
response to new direction from the legislature, the focus of the new plan has been
expanded. Rather than being focused on traditional end-use energy efficiency, the new
plan also includes measures aimed at building decarbonization.
Sustainable Communities Strategy
SB 375, the 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, provides for a
new planning process that coordinates land use planning, regional transportation plans,
and funding priorities to help California meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals
established in AB 32. SB 375 requires regional transportation plans developed by
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to incorporate a Sustainable Communities
Strategy in their plans. The goal of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to reduce
regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through land use planning and consequent
transportation patterns. SB 375 also includes provisions for streamlined California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for some infill projects, such as transit-
oriented development.
Renewables Portfolio Standard
The RPS promotes diversification of the state’s electricity supply and decreased reliance
on fossil fuel energy sources. Originally adopted in 2002 with a goal to achieve a
20 percent renewable energy mix by 2020 (referred to as the “Initial RPS”), the goal has
been accelerated and increased by Executive Orders S-14-08 and S-21-09 to a goal of
33 percent by 2020. In April 2011, Senate Bill 2 (1X) (SBX1 2) codified California’s 33
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-3
percent RPS goal. In September 2015, the California Legislature passed SB 350, which
increases California’s renewable energy mix goal to 50 percent by year 2030.
Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, small
hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24 – California Building Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, is referred to as the California
Building Code (CBC). It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes
related to building construction including, plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy
efficiency, handicap accessibility and so on.
TITLE 24, PART 6 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
The CCR, Title 24, Part 6 is the Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code.
This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for
residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy
consumption. The Energy Code is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new
energy-efficiency technologies and methodologies as they become available. New
construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current
Energy Code through submission and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the
local building permit review authority and the CEC.
The current version of the Energy Code, known as the 2019 Title 24, or the 2016 Energy
Code, became effective January 1, 2020. The 2019 Energy Code includes provisions for
smart residential photovoltaic (PV) systems, updated thermal envelope standards
(preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa), residential and
nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. The
2019 Energy Code aims to reduce energy use in new homes by requiring that all new
homes include individual or community solar PV systems or community shared battery
storage system that achieves equivalent time-dependent value energy use reduction.
Accounting for solar PV requirements, the CEC’s preliminary estimates indicate that
homes built consistent with the 2019 Energy Code will result in 53 percent less energy
use than those built under previous 2016 standards.
TITLE 24, PART 11 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CalGreen, was added to
Title 24 as Part 11 first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory
effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 CBC). The 2019 CalGreen institutes
mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new
construction of non-residential and residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers
(I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of
residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-4
mandatory Green Building Standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter
requirements.
The mandatory standards require:
• Outdoor water use requirements as outlined in Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance emergency standards;
• 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline
levels;
• 65 percent construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills;
• Infrastructure requirements for electric vehicle charging stations;
• Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency;
and
• Requirements for low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such
as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particleboards.
5.4.2.2 Regional
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is the council of governments
and transportation planning agency for San Diego County and the 18 cities located
within its territory.
Regional Energy Strategy
The Regional Energy Strategy (RES) establishes goals for the San Diego region to be
more energy efficient, increase use of renewable energy sources, and enhance the
region’s energy infrastructure in order to meet the growing energy demand. The RES
serves as an energy policy guide to support decision-making by SANDAG and its
member agencies as the region strives to meet the energy needs of a growing
population, housing stock, and number of workers while maintaining and enhancing
regional quality of life and economic stability.
Sustainable Communities Strategy – San Diego Forward
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to review and update regional
SB 375 targets at least every eight years. Following the CARB Board Hearing on March
22, 2018, the regional vehicle-use reduction targets from automobiles and light duty
trucks are:
• 15-percent reduction from the 2005 per capita amount by 2020
• 19-percent reduction from the 2005 per capita amount by 2035
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-5
SANDAG is responsible for cooperative regional planning and furthering an efficient
multi-modal transportation system countywide. As the MPO and Regional Transportation
Planning Agency, SANDAG supports freeway construction projects, regional and local
road improvements, train and bus transportation, railroad crossings, call boxes,
ridesharing, congestion management efforts, and long-term planning studies. To achieve
the regional vehicle-use emission reduction targets, SANDAG developed and adopted
the San Diego Forward in October 2015 and updated it in October 2019. The strategy
set forth in San Diego Forward is to “focus housing and job growth in the urbanized
areas where there is existing and planned infrastructure, protect sensitive habitat and
open space, invest in a network that gives residents and workers transportation options
that reduce GHG emissions, promote equity for all, and implement the plan through
incentives and collaboration” (SANDAG 2015).
5.4.2.3 Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Environmental Element of the City’s General Plan contains policies that focus on
energy conservation and renewable energy. Objectives and policies relevant to the
project include the following:
OBJECTIVE E 7
Promote energy conservation through the efficient use of energy and through the
development of local, non-fossil fuel-based renewable sources of energy.
Policy E 7.1: Promote development of regulations and building design standards that
maximize energy efficiency through appropriate site and building design and through the
use of energy-efficient materials, equipment, and appliances.
Policy E 7.2: Encourage and support the local research, development, generation, and
use of non-fossil, fuel-based renewable sources of energy, including wind and solar
resources, that meet local energy needs in an environmentally sensitive manner and
reduce dependence on imported energy.
Policy E 7.3: Develop and provide pertinent information about the benefits of energy
conservation and available energy conservation incentive programs to all segments of
the community.
Policy E 7.4: Pursue and encourage the expansion of local energy conservation, energy
efficiency, and related incentive programs.
Policy E 7.5: Pursue 40% City-wide electricity supply from clean, renewable resources
by 2017.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-6
Policy E.7.6: Encourage the construction and operation of green buildings, considering
such TM programs as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Green Building Rating System.
Policy E 7.7: Support tree planting programs that will be implemented to reduce energy
needs.
Policy E 7.8: Ensure that residential and non-residential construction complies with all
applicable City of Chula Vista energy efficiency measures and other green building
measures that are in effect at the time of discretionary permit review and approval or
building permit issuance, whichever is applicable.
City of Chula Vista Energy Strategy and Action Plan
In May 2001, the City of Chula Vista (City) adopted its Energy Strategy and Action Plan
(Energy Plan). The Energy Plan included implementation measures to support eight
overarching strategies.
1. Monitor the energy market and legal restrictions and be prepared to enter into an
Electrical Services Contract with an Energy Services Provider (ESP) or power
generator as allowed by law.
2. Pursue Distributed Generation and “district” generation opportunities for specific
facilities and technologies.
3. Partner with a third-party to build and operate power generation facilities.
4. Develop an emissions offsets program based on mobile sources.
5. Take initial steps to more specifically assess the costs and benefits of forming
and operating as a Municipal Utility to own/operate all or portions of the local
distribution system.
6. Become a municipal “aggregator” and acquire electricity at negotiated rates for
City facilities and participating residents/business customers.
7. Continue/expand energy conservation projects for City facilities and promote
energy efficient and renewable energy programs for businesses and residents.
8. Develop and implement a legislative strategy that facilitates the City’s overall
Energy plan.
City of Chula Vista Clean Transportation Energy Roadmap
In November 2012, the City adopted its Energy Roadmap Program. The Energy
Roadmap Program included implementation measures to support several strategies
including greening the City vehicle fleet; promoting commuter benefits to City
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-7
employees, leveraging planning and development authority, and marketing programs
and rebates to residents, schools, and local businesses.
5.4.3 Impact Significance Thresholds
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to energy would be
significant if the project would:
1. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or
operation?
2. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
5.4.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Consumption of Energy Resources
The analysis of energy resources requires a discussion of construction, transportation,
and operational energy use.
Construction-Related Energy Use
During construction, energy use would occur in two general categories: fuel use from
vehicles used by workers commuting to and from the construction site, and fuel use by
vehicles and other equipment to conduct construction activities. The construction worker,
equipment, hauling, and delivery trips required for the project were determined as a part
of the GHG modeling prepared for the project (see Appendix F).
Fuel consumption associated with construction equipment was calculated using the
equipment quantities and construction length calculated in the GHG modeling and fuel-
consumption rates from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) OFF-ROAD 2017
model (see Appendix C). Fuel consumption associated with worker, hauling, and
delivery vehicle trips were calculated using the CARB EMFAC2017 fuel consumption
rates (see Appendix C). Based on the modelling, construction equipment and vehicle
trips and on-site fuel consumption that would occur as a result of project construction is
summarized in Tables 5.4-2 and 5.4-3, respectively.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-8
TABLE 5.4-2
CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE TRIPS – FUEL CONSUMPTION
Trip Type
Total Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Total Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Gasoline Diesel
Workers 332,424 11,559 71
Deliveries 307 -- 57
Hauling 127,500 -- 23,658
TOTAL 460,230 11,559 23,786
TABLE 5.4-3
ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL CONSUMPTION
Phase
Phase
Length
(days) Equipment Amount
Total
Usage
Hours
Total Diesel
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 10
Rubber Tired Dozer 3 240 1,224
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe
s
4 320 659
Grading 60
Excavators 2 960 2,976
Graders 1 480 1,900
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 480 2,448
Scrapers 2 960 8,731
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe
s
2 960 1,977
Building Construction 300
Cranes 1 2,100 7,263
Forklifts 3 7,200 7,355
Generator Sets 1 2,400 8,562
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe
s
3 6,300 12,977
Welders 1 2,400 2,851
Paving 20
Pavers 2 320 902
Paving Equipment 2 320 785
Rollers 2 320 558
Architectural
Coatings 150 Air Compressors 1 900 1,934
TOTAL 63,102
The project would include notable fuel use associated with hauling for soils export. As
discussed in the project Geotechnical Evaluation (see Appendix D), export would be
required to remove soils which are compressible, expansive, and corrosive and,
therefore, are not suitable for structural support of building. As this fuel use is necessary
to present structural support of building it is not considered to be wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary.
There are no known conditions in the project area that would require nonstandard
equipment or unusual construction practices that would increase on-site heavy-duty
construction equipment use. Therefore, project construction would not result in the use
of excessive amounts of fuel or other forms of energy.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-9
Operation-Related Energy Use
During operation, energy use would be associated with transportation-related fuel use
(gasoline, diesel fuel, and electric vehicles), and building-related energy use (electricity
and natural gas).
TRANSPORTATION-RELATED ENERGY USE
The project would result in transportation energy use associated with employees,
patients, and visitors. According to the project traffic report, the project would generate
2,400 average daily vehicle trips with an average one-way trip length of 9.6 miles
(Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 2020). In general, trips by individuals traveling to
and from the project site would result from use of passenger vehicles or public transit.
Passenger vehicles would be mostly powered by gasoline, with some fueled by diesel or
electricity. Public transit would be powered by diesel or natural gas, and could potentially
be fueled by electricity.
Total gasoline and diesel fuel consumption was calculated using fuel consumption rates
and fleet data for light duty autos from the CARB EMFAC2017 model. The results are
summarized in Table 5.4-4.
TABLE 5.4-4
VEHICLE FUEL/ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
Fuel Type Daily VMT
Fuel Efficiency
(miles per gallon)
Gallons of Fuel
per Day
Electric
Efficiency
(kWh per mile)*
Electric Vehicle
(kWh per day)
Gasoline 22,313 31.31 713 -- --
Diesel 266 46.63 6 -- --
Electric 460 -- -- 3.4 135
TOTAL 23,040 -- 208 -- 135
kWh = kilowatt hour
*EMFAC does not provide estimates for energy used by electric vehicles. This data was estimated using
existing kWh/mile data and estimates of future electric vehicle efficiencies provided by the Federal
Highway Administration.
Project fuel consumption would decline over time beyond the initial operational year of
the project as a result of continued implementation of increased federal and state vehicle
efficiency standards. There is no component of the project that would result in unusually
high vehicle fuel use during operation.
As discussed in Section 5.4.2.2, SANDAG developed a regional vehicle-use reduction
plan, titled the San Diego Forward. The growth projections used by SANDAG to develop
the San Diego Forward are based on the population, vehicle trends, and land use plans
developed in general plans. As such, projects that propose development that is
consistent with the growth anticipated by SANDAG’s growth projections and/or the
General Plan would not conflict with the San Diego Forward. The project site is within
the approved Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Plan Area (SPA), which is part
of the larger Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP). The project would be
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-10
consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Eastlake II GDP, Business Park II
Supplemental SPA Plan, and citywide Planned Community District regulations. Thus, the
project would be consistent with the growth projections anticipated by SANDAG used to
develop the San Diego Forward. As the project would be consistent with the San Diego
Forward, operation of the project would not create a land use pattern that would result in
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy.
NON-TRANSPORTATION-RELATED ENERGY USE
Non-transportation energy use would be associated with electricity and natural gas. As
discussed, RPS promotes diversification of the state’s electricity supply and decreased
reliance on fossil fuel energy sources. Once operational, the project would be served by
SDG&E. As shown in Table 5.4-1 above, SDG&E has already achieved a 43 percent
renewables mix.
Additionally, the project would be constructed in accordance with the 2019 Energy Code
and the 2019 CalGreen standards. The project would be required to meet the mandatory
energy requirements of 2019 CalGreen and the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6
of the California Code of Regulations) and would benefit from the efficiencies associated
with these regulations as they relate to building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
mechanical systems, water-heating systems, and lighting. Similar to the compliance
reporting procedure for demonstrating Energy Code compliance in new buildings and
major renovations, compliance with the CalGreen operational water reduction
requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms for
non-residential buildings. The water use compliance form must demonstrate a 20
percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the
overall baseline water use as identified in CalGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture
water use rate.
Electricity and natural gas service to the project site is provided by SDG&E. Once
operational, the Acadia Behavioral Health Hospital would use electricity and natural gas
to run various appliances and equipment, including space and water heaters, air
conditioners, ventilation equipment, lights, and numerous other devices. Generally,
electricity use is higher in the warmer months due to increased air conditioning needs,
and natural gas use is highest when the weather is colder as a result of high heating
demand. As a part of the GHG modeling prepared for the project (see Appendix F),
CalEEMod was used to estimate the total operational electricity and natural gas
consumption associated with the project. Table 5.4-5 summarizes the anticipated
operational energy and natural gas use.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4 Energy
5.4-11
TABLE 5.4-5
OPERATIONAL ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS USE
Total Use
Electricity 1,681,446 kWh/Year
Natural Gas 5,625,990 BTU/Year
kWh = kilowatt hour; BTU = British thermal units
Energy use would be associated with space and water heaters, air conditioners,
ventilation equipment, lights, and medical equipment. The project would not include any
nonstandard equipment or operational practices that would increase fuel-energy
consumption above typical rates. Therefore, project operations would not result in the
use of excessive amounts of fuel or other forms of energy during construction.
Threshold 2: Plan Consistency
State Plan Consistency
The applicable state plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency are
CalGreen, the California Energy Code, and RPS. As discussed for Threshold 1, the
project would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of 2019 CalGreen
and the 2019 California Energy Code. The project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of CalGreen and the California Energy Code, or with SDG&E’s
implementation of RPS.
Local Plan Consistency
The applicable local plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency are the
City’s Energy Strategy and Action Plan, Energy Roadmap Program, and applicable
sections of the General Plan. The policies in these energy efficiency plans direct City
actions to clean municipal operations and provide support for the community. The
project does not include a municipal component; therefore, policies from these plans do
not apply to the project. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the City’s Energy Strategy and Action Plan, Energy Roadmap Program, and applicable
sections of the General Plan.
5.4.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The project would not result in the use of excessive amounts of fuel or other forms of
energy during construction or operation and the project would not create a land use
pattern that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Impacts
would be less than significant
The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.4.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-1
5.5 Geology and Soils
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential impacts
related to geology and soils resulting from construction and operation of the Eastlake
Behavioral Health Hospital project (project). Information presented in this section is
based on the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix D) prepared for the project by Ninyo &
Moore (Ninyo & Moore 2019). Additional discussion is summarized from the project’s
Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP; Appendix E), prepared by K&S
Engineering (K&S Engineering 2019a).
5.5.1 Existing Conditions
5.5.1.1 Existing Geology and Soils
Regional Geologic Setting
The project site is located in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately
900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the
southern tip of Baja California. The province varies in width from approximately 30 to
100 miles and generally consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic
metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the
southern California batholith. The portion of the province in western San Diego County
that includes the project area consists generally of uplifted and dissected coastal plain
underlain by Upper Cretaceous-, Tertiary-, and Quaternary-age sedimentary rocks.
The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of subparallel faults and fault
zones trending roughly northwest. Several of these faults are considered to be active.
The active fault systems located in the vicinity of the project area include the Rose
Canyon, Elsinore, San Jacinto, San Andreas, Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, and
San Clemente faults. Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within
this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of right-lateral, strike-slip movement.
The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, the nearest active fault system, is located approximately
12 miles west of the project site.
Site Geology
Subsurface exploration was conducted January 28 through January 30, 2019, and
consisted of drilling of 16 small-diameter, hollow-stem auger borings and the excavation
of 14 test pits. For the specific locations and details relating to the boring and test pits,
refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation, Sections 5 and 6 including Table 1 (see
Appendix D). Geologic units encountered during field reconnaissance and subsurface
exploration included fill and materials of the Otay Formation. Generalized descriptions of
the earth units encountered during subsurface exploration are provided below.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-2
Fill: Fill materials were encountered at the ground surface in each of the borings and test
pits. The depth of fill materials encountered in the borings ranged from approximately
1 foot to approximately 43 feet. Fill depths up to approximately 65 feet are anticipated in
the northeastern corner of the site, near the top of the slope that descends to the
adjacent residential development. As encountered, the fill materials generally consisted
of various shades of brown and gray, moist, stiff to hard, sandy silt, clayey silt, elastic
silt, lean clay, and sandy clay, along with medium dense to very dense silty sand and
clayey sand. With the exception of the stockpile in the east-central portion of the site,
these fill materials are considered to be engineered fill (Geotechnics, Inc. 2003).
Otay Formation: Materials comprising the Otay Formation were encountered in each of
our exploratory borings and test pits with the exception of two, which identified Sandy
Silt (Fill) (see Table 1, Appendix D). The Otay Formation was encountered underlying
the fill and extending to the total depths explored. As encountered, the Otay Formation
generally consisted of various shades of brown, light gray, and gray, moist, moderately
to strongly cemented, silty sandstone, and moderately to strongly indurated clayey
siltstone and silty claystone. Scattered bentonite lenses were observed within the upper
portions of the Otay Formation. Bentonite typically possesses a high expansion potential
and poor strength characteristics when wetted or exposed to moisture.
Geologic Hazards
In general, hazards associated with seismic activity include strong ground motion,
ground surface rupture, and liquefaction. These considerations and other geologic
hazards, such as landsliding and flooding, as they may affect the project site are
discussed in the following sections.
FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The project site is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults (i.e., faults
that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years and 2,000,000
years, respectively). The project site is not located within a State of California
Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant 1997). However, like the majority of southern
California, the site is located in a seismically active area and the potential for strong
ground motion is considered significant during the design life of the proposed structures.
Table 5.5-1 lists selected principal known active faults that may affect the project site,
including the approximate fault-to-site distances, and the maximum moment magnitudes
(Mmax) as published by the U.S. Geological Survey (2019). As described in Table 5.5-1,
the nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 12 miles
west of the site.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-3
TABLE 5.5-1
PRINCIPAL ACTIVE FAULTS
Fault
Approximate Fault-to-Site
Distance
[miles (kilometers)]
Maximum Moment
Magnitude
(Mmax)
Rose Canyon 12 (19) 6.9
Coronado Bank 21 (34) 7.4
Elsinore (Julian Segment) 37 (60) 7.4
Earthquake Valley 41 (66) 6.8
Elsinore (Coyote Mountain Segment) 42 (68) 6.9
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 44 (71) 7.0
Elsinore (Temecula) 47 (76) 7.1
San Jacinto (Coyote Creek) 57 (92) 7.0
San Jacinto (Borrego) 58 (93) 6.8
SOURCE: USGS 2019
Principal seismic hazards evaluated at the project site are surface ground rupture,
ground shaking, seismically induced liquefaction, and various manifestations of
liquefaction related hazards (e.g., dynamic settlement).
SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
Surface fault rupture is the offset or rupturing of the ground surface by relative
displacement across a fault during an earthquake. The project site is not transected by
known active or potentially active faults. Therefore, the probability of damage from
surface fault rupture is considered to be low. However, lurching or cracking of the ground
surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.
GROUND MOTION
Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the Earth’s surface
resulting from an earthquake, and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic
events. The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the
earthquake, distance from the rupture, and local geologic conditions. Intensity is a
subjective measure of the perceptible effects of seismic energy at a given point and
varies with distance from the epicenter and local geologic conditions. Table 5.5-2
presents historic earthquake data within a radius of approximately 60 miles of the project
site with a magnitude of 6.0 or greater.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-4
TABLE 5.5-2
HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES THAT AFFECTED THE PROJECT SITE
Date Magnitude
Approximate Epicentral Distance
(miles)
October 23, 1894 6.1 14
May 27, 1862 6.2 14
November 22, 1800 6.3 52
May 28, 1892 6.5 58
April 9, 1968 6.6 61
SOURCES: Appendix D, Section 8.3; California Geological Survey (CGS) Earthquake History
and Catalogs website (2018)
The 2016 California Building Code (CBC) specifies that the Risk-Targeted, Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motion accelerations be used to evaluate
seismic loads for design of buildings and other structures. According to these
measurements, a target risk for structural collapse would be the equivalent to 1 percent
in 50 years for near-source effects. The MCER calculated for the project site was 0.385g
using a web-based seismic design tool (SEAOC/OSHPD 2019, as cited in Ninyo &
Moore 2019 [see Appendix D]).
LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT
Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.
Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils and non-plastic silts that
are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are susceptible to liquefaction.
Based on the relatively dense nature of the underlying formational materials identified
throughout the project site, the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced
settlement to occur s not a design consideration.
LANDSLIDES
Landslides are deep-seated ground failures that result in a large section of a slope (more
than 10 feet) sliding downhill. They can result in damage to structures both above and
below the slide area. No landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were
indicated at the project site during site reconnaissance or subsurface exploration.
5.5.2 Regulatory Setting
5.5.2.1 State
California Building Code
The 2016 CBC is based largely on the International Building Code. The CBC includes
the addition of more stringent seismic provisions for hospitals and other essential
facilities. The CBC contains specific provisions for structures located in seismic zones.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-5
Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983
The Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act (Seismic Safety Act) requires
that hospital buildings be designed and constructed to resist the forces generated by
earthquakes. In order to accomplish this purpose, the state’s Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development (OSHPD) maintains proper building standards for
earthquake resistance based upon current knowledge, and provides an independent
review of the design and construction of hospital buildings. This act also states that
hospital buildings are not subject to building standards of local jurisdictions and instead
are subject to the more stringent regulations maintained by OSHPD.
State Senate Bill 1953
Hospitals built in accordance with the standards of the Seismic Safety Act resisted the
January 1994 Northridge earthquake with minimal structural damage, while several
facilities built prior to the act experienced major structural damage and had to be
evacuated. However, certain nonstructural components of the hospitals did incur
damage, even in facilities built in accordance with the structural provisions of the
Seismic Safety Act. The provisions and subsequent regulation language of Senate Bill
(SB) 1953 amended the act to address the issues of survivability of both nonstructural
and structural components of hospital buildings after a seismic event. Therefore, the
ultimate public safety benefit of the Seismic Safety Act is to have general acute care
hospital buildings that not only are capable of remaining intact after a seismic event, but
also capable of continued operation and provision of acute care medical services after a
seismic event.
State of California – Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
As previously mentioned, OSHPD monitors the construction, renovation, and seismic
safety of hospitals and skilled nursing facilities. The Facilities Development Division
(FDD) of OSHPD reviews and inspects health facility construction projects and enforces
building standards, per the CBC, as they relate to health facilities construction. The FDD
maintains a seismic compliance program in accordance with the Seismic Safety Act and
SB 1953. The seismic compliance program regulations consist of 11 articles. The
primary purpose of these regulations is to evaluate the potential earthquake
performance of a building or its components and to place the building into specified
seismic performance categories.
FDD is responsible for overseeing all aspects of general acute care hospital, psychiatric
hospital, skilled nursing home, and intermediate care facility construction in California.
This responsibility includes:
• Establishing building standards which govern construction of these types of
facilities;
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-6
• Reviewing the plans and specifications for new construction, alteration,
renovation, or additions to health facilities; and
• Observing construction in progress to ensure compliance with the approved
plans and specifications. FDD serves as a "one-stop shop" for all aspects of
health facility construction.
All geotechnical, structural, mechanical, electrical, and fire/life safety considerations for
inpatient healthcare facility physical plant are handled by OSHPD FDD (see Chapters 6
and 7 of the California Administrative Code).
5.5.2.2 Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Environmental Element of the City’s General Plan contains policies focused on
recognizing and preserving important paleontological resources and the requirement to
identify and limit geological hazards. Objectives and policies within the Environmental
Element relevant to the project include the following:
OBJECTIVE E 10
Protect important paleontological resources and support and encourage public education
and awareness of such resources.
Policy E 10.1: Continue to assess and mitigate the potential impacts of private
development and public facilities and infrastructure to paleontological resources in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Policy E 10.2: Support and encourage public education and awareness of local
paleontological resources, including the establishment of museums and educational
opportunities accessible to the public.
OBJECTIVE E 14
Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage associated with geologic
hazards
Policy E 14.1: To the maximum extent practicable, protect against injury, loss of life, and
major property damage through engineering analyses of potential seismic hazards,
appropriate engineering design, and the stringent enforcement of all applicable
regulations and standards.
Policy E 14.2: Prohibit the subdivision, grading, or development of lands subject to
potential geologic hazards in the absence of adequate evidence demonstrating that such
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-7
development would not be adversely affected by such hazards and would not adversely
affect surrounding properties.
Policy E 14.3: Require site-specific geotechnical investigations for proposals within
areas subject to potential geologic hazards; and ensure implementation of all measures
deemed necessary by the City Engineer and/or Building Official to avoid or adequately
mitigate such hazards.
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
The Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) establishes minimum requirements for land
development work, to provide for the issuance of permits and for the enforcement of the
requirements (CVMC Title 15, Chapter 15.04, et seq.). This chapter specifies that
projects constructing slopes shall be designed for proper stability considering both
geological and soil properties (CVMC Section 15.04.040). Reports shall be prepared by
registered engineers and contain the results of surface and subsurface exploration and
analysis and contain assurance that the underlying bedrock and soil supporting the
slope have strength characteristics sufficient to provide a stable slope and will not pose
a danger to persons or property (CVMC Section 15.04.040).
5.5.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to geology and
soils would be significant if the project would:
1. Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
• Strong seismic ground shaking;
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
• Landslides.
2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
3. Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-8
5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water.
6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature
5.5.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Exposure to Seismic-Related Hazards
Known Earthquake Faults/Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
As previously described, the project site is not underlain by known active or potentially
active faults. Additionally, the project site is not located within a State of California
Earthquake Fault Zone nor has there been a seismic event greater than 6.0 magnitude
within the project area in 50 years. However, like the majority of southern California, the
site is located in a seismically active area and the potential for strong ground motion is
required to be considered in the design of proposed structures. Based on the site-
specific ground motion analyses and seismic hazard analysis, it was concluded that the
site is subject to strong ground motion resulting from nearby active faults. Specifically,
the existing fill and upper portions of the Otay Formation where noted to be potentially
compressible, expansive, and corrosive, which could result in soils not suitable for
structural support on buildings (see Appendix D).
The project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and
building standards related to seismic safety, including the CBC, specifically those
seismic design considerations set forth in Table 7 of the Geotechnical Evaluation (see
Appendix D). Additionally, the project would be required to adopt the recommendation of
the Geotechnical Evaluation; the specific geotechnical criteria required in the design and
construction of the project are detailed in Section 10 of the Geotechnical Evaluation (see
Appendix D) and shall become conditions of project approval. With specific respect to
ground shaking, examples of geotechnical design measures that would be included in
the project’s construction design include (but are not limited to) the following:
• Because the project site’s upper fill is not suitable for structural support, existing
fill and upper portions of the Otay Formation would be removed to an
approximate depth of 8 feet below the bottoms of the proposed foundations
within planned building pads;
• Where flatwork, concrete pavement, or segmental concrete pavers are proposed,
the upper one foot of subgrade materials would be removed and replaced with
compacted fill material exhibiting a very low to low expansion potential;
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-9
• Select reuse of fill and imported fill materials should generally be granular soils
with very low to low expansion potential (i.e., an expansion index of 50 or less as
evaluated by ASTM International (ASTM; 2016).
• Prior to placement of compacted fill, the exposed ground surface would then be
scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed,
to achieve optimum moisture contents;
• Compacted fill would be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in
loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift would be watered or dried as
needed to achieve an optimum moisture, and then compacted by mechanical
methods, to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM (2016).
Additional geotechnical measures and seismic design details are listed in the
Geotechnical Evaluation (see Appendix D). Overall, consistent with City’s General Plan
Objective E 14, the project would minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, and property
damage associated with geologic hazards. The project would be designed and
constructed to include geotechnical design measures based on the recommendations of
the site specific Geotechnical Evaluation pursuant to City’s General Plan Policy E 14-3,
and in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, the inclusion of which would
avoid the potential for risks related to seismic events. Therefore, impacts associated with
strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
Seismic-related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction/Landslides
The project site is not located within a landslide or liquefaction hazard area (see
Figure 9-7of the City’s General Plan; City of Chula Vista 2005a). Additionally, according
to the Geotechnical Evaluation (see Appendix D), the potential for liquefaction and
seismically induced settlement occurring within the project site is considered to be low
and would not require specific design considerations. Likewise, no landslides or
indications of landsliding were observed at the project site during the field exploration or
the review of available geologic literature and would not require specific design
considerations.
Additionally, results of the slope stability analysis indicated that the existing slopes that
descend from the eastern, northeastern, and western portion of the site possess
adequate factors of safety with respect to static and seismic conditions. Although no
risks are foreseen, the project would be required to comply with current seismic design
specifications and recommendations detailed in the Geotechnical Evaluation (see
Appendix D), and compliance with CBC standards would ensure that impacts associated
with seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-10
Threshold 2: Soil Erosion
Ground-disturbing activities during construction of the project could potentially leave
loose soil exposed to the erosive forces of rainfall and high winds, which would increase
the potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil. The project site was previously graded in
2002, but additional earthwork would be required to accommodate the behavioral health
hospital. Approximately 61,000 cubic yards of cut and 10,000 cubic yards of fill would be
required, resulting in an export of 51,000 cubic yards of soil. The project would
implement the recommendations detailed in Section 10 of the Geotechnical Evaluation
as project design features which would be adopted as conditions of project approval.
This would ensure that the project site would be graded and maintained such that
surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with the CBC and other
applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage would be directed away from the top
of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage
would be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
In addition to the recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Evaluation, a
SWQMP was prepared for the project (see Appendix E). The SWQMP describes best
management practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to prevent soil
erosion that could result in discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the City’s
storm water system. The BMPs would provide erosion and sedimentation control
through measures such as silt fences, fiber rolls, or gravel bags. Additional details
relating to erosion and siltation are discussed in Section 5.8 of this EIR.
Post construction, structural BMPs proposed by the project include design features such
as landscaped areas and slopes, and biofiltration basins for approximately 30 percent of
the site. The biofiltration basins, shown in Figure 3-11, would provide hydromodification
control and reduce potential for soil erosion due to excess run-off volume and velocity.
Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be temporary and
compliance with the General Construction Permit and BMPs outlined in the SWQMP
would reduce impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil to a level less than
significant.
Threshold 3: Soil Stability
As previously discussed under Threshold 1, the project site is not underlain by known
active or potentially active faults. Surface ground cracking or lateral spreading related to
shaking from distant events is not considered a significant hazard. Compliance with
current seismic design specifications, CBC standards, and other regulatory requirements
would ensure that the project would have less than significant impacts associated with
soil stability and associated geologic hazards.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-11
Threshold 4: Expansive Soils
As identified above, the on-site fill materials and materials derived from the Otay
Formation possess a high potential for expansion and poor strength characteristics when
wetted or exposed to moisture. As such, these soils would not be suitable for structural
support of buildings and improvements in their present condition. The project would
comply with all regulations related to seismic safety, including the CBC. Additionally, the
project would be required to adopt the recommendation of the Geotechnical Evaluation
to be implemented as conditions of project approval. The specific geotechnical criteria
required in the design and construction of the project are detailed in Section 10 of the
Geotechnical Report (see Appendix D) and shall become conditions of project approval.
The project would be designed and constructed based on the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Evaluation and in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Therefore, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.
Threshold 5: Septic Systems
The project would extend the existing sewer system located in Showroom Place in order
to serve the project. The project would not require the use of septic systems. Therefore,
no impact would occur.
Threshold 5: Paleontological Resources
The project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Foothill Region of the City (see
Appendix D). This area is primarily underlain by Mesozoic metavolcanic and
metasedimentary rocks with Mesozoic plutonic (“granitic”) rocks (City of Chula Vista
2005c). As identified in Section 5.6 of the City General Plan Update Final EIR, the only
geologic formation that occurs within the Peninsular Ranges Foothill Region is Santiago
Peak Volcanics (KJsp), and is assigned a Marginal Sensitivity for paleontological
resources (City of Chula Vista 2005c).
Project site excavations are anticipated for subgrade preparation associated with the
shallow foundations required for the proposed single-story slab on grade construction for
the project. Recommendations from the Geotechnical Evaluation indicate that the project
would require remedial grading of up to eight feet of depth below building foundations to
remove and replace the existing fill (see Appendix D). As the project site has been
previously graded and any remaining underlying geological formations are marginally
sensitive for paleontological resources, it is unlikely the project would impact such
resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
5.5.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The project would comply with regulatory seismic design specifications, CBC standards,
and recommendations contained in the site-specific Geotechnical Evaluation. The
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 Geology and Soils
5.5-12
project site would be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away
from the top of slopes into swales and construction BMPs would be enforced to ensure
soil stability is maintained. The project site has been previously graded and would not
impact paleontological resources, Through implementation of the geological project
design features, and compliance with seismic regulations, all potential impacts
associated with geological hazards would be less than significant.
5.5.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-1
5.6 Greenhouse Gas
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyses impacts related to
construction and operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the Eastlake
Behavioral Health Hospital Project (project). Information presented in this section is
based on the Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
(Greenhouse Gas Analysis; Appendix F) prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc.
(RECON 2020b).
5.6.1 Existing Conditions
5.6.1.1 Understanding Global Climate Change
To evaluate the incremental effect of the project on statewide GHG emissions and global
climate change, it is important to have a basic understanding of the nature of the global
climate change problem. Global climate change is a change in the average weather of
the earth, which can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and
temperature. The earth’s climate is in a state of constant flux with periodic warming and
cooling cycles. Extreme periods of cooling are termed “ice ages,” which may then be
followed by extended periods of warmth. For most of the earth’s geologic history, these
periods of warming and cooling have been the result of many complicated interacting
natural factors that include volcanic eruptions that spew gases and particles (dust) into
the atmosphere; the amount of water, vegetation, and ice covering the earth’s surface;
subtle changes in the earth’s orbit; and the amount of energy released by the sun (sun
cycles). However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the
average temperature of the earth has been increasing at a rate that is faster than can be
explained by natural climate cycles alone. Because it is believed that the increased GHG
concentrations around the world are related to human activity and the collective of
human actions taking place throughout the world, it is quintessentially a global or
cumulative issue.
There are numerous GHGs, both naturally occurring and artificial: carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are produced by both natural and anthropogenic
(human) sources. Other gases such as (hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs; such as HFC-23],
perfluorocarbons [PFCs; such as CF4], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]) are the result of
human processes. CO2, CH4 and N2O are the GHGs of primary concern in this analysis.
The project would result in the emission of carbon dioxide during the combustion of fossil
fuels in vehicles, from electricity generation and natural gas consumption, and from solid
waste disposal. Smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide would be emitted from
the same operations.
Additional discussion of global climate change is included in Appendix F.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-2
5.6.1.2 Existing GHG Emissions
State and Regional GHG Inventories
STATE GHG INVENTORY
The CARB performs statewide GHG inventories. The inventory is divided into nine broad
sectors of economic activity: agriculture, commercial, electricity generation, forestry, high
GWP emitters, industrial, recycling and waste, residential, and transportation. Emissions
are quantified in million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E).
Table 5.6-1 shows the estimated statewide GHG emissions for the years 1990, 2005,
and 2017.
TABLE 5.6-1
CALIFORNIA GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 1990, 2005, AND 2017
(MMT CO2E)
Sector
1990
Emissions
(% total)1,2
2005
Emissions (%
total)2,3,4
2017
Emissions
(% total)2,3,4
Sources
Agriculture 23.4 (5%) 33.70 (7%) 32.42 (8%)
Commercial 14.4 (3%) 14.26 (3%) 15.14 (4%)
Electricity Generation 110.6 (26%) 107.85 (22%) 62.39 (15%)
High GWP -- 9.26 (2%) 19.99 (5%)
Industrial 103.0 (24%) 95.93 (20%) 89.40 (21%)
Recycling and Waste -- 7.78 (2%) 8.89 (2%)
Residential 29.7 (7%) 28.81 (6%) 26.00 (6%)
Transportation 150.7 (35%) 189.05 (39%) 169.86 (40%)
Forestry (Net CO2 flux)4 -6.5 -- --
Not Specified4 1.3 -- --
TOTAL 426.6 486.65 424.10
SOURCE: CARB 2007 and 2019 (see Appendix F).
MMT CO2E = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 1990 data was retrieved from the CARB 2007 source.
2 Quantities and percentages may not total properly due to rounding.
3 2005 and 2017 data were retrieved from the CARB 2019 source.
4 Reported emissions for key sectors. The inventory totals for 2005 and 2017 did not include
Forestry or Not Specified sources.
As shown in Table 5.6-1, statewide GHG source emissions totaled about 427 MMT
CO2E in 1990, 487 MMT CO2E in 2005, and 424 MMT CO2E in 2017. Many factors
affect year-to-year changes in GHG emissions, including economic activity, demographic
influences, environmental conditions such as drought, and the impact of regulatory
efforts to control GHG emissions. However, transportation-related emissions consistently
contribute the most GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation and industrial
emissions.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-3
LOCAL GHG INVENTORY
As part of the City’s Climate Action Program (CAP), the Department of Public Works’
Conservation Section performs emission inventories to identify GHG sources and help
guide policy decisions. The City’s community-wide GHG emissions were calculated
using the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’ U.S. Community
Protocol. The results of the community inventory for 1990, 2005, 2012, 2014, and 2016
are summarized in Table 5.6-2.
TABLE 5.6-2
CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY GHG EMISSIONS
(MT CO2E)
Source
1990
Emissions
2005
Emissions
2012
Emissions
2014
Emissions
2016
Emissions
Transportation 335,435 717,256 851,386 740,584 681,000
Energy Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
391,606 197,115 71,363 123,128
471,180 247,559
182,951
41,670
505,311 266,438 204,818 34,055
403,038 221,923
181,115†
416,000†
Solid Waste 78,539 60,780 50,717 67,245 41,000
Potable Water
(embedded energy) — 50,062 40,819 30,810 11,000
Waste Water 9,607 15,457 7,962 7,826 3,000
Community Emissions 815,186 1,315,734 1,456,195 1,249,503 1,152,000
Municipal Vehicle Fleet 4,655 9,282 6,802 5,802 3,176
Municipal Energy Use
Buildings
External Lights
Sewage
24,969 3,728 20,260 981
8,771 5,856 2,896 19
6,590 4,321 2,247 22
5,041 3,646 1,370 25
3.825 2,734 1,077 14
Municipal Solid Waste 2,356 1,830 2,296 1,983 2,055
Municipal Water
(embedded energy) — — 1,133 1,250 684
Municipal Emissions 31,980 19,883 16,821 14,076 9,740
Total Emissions 847,166 1,335,617 1,473,016 1,263,579 1,161,740
SOURCE: City of Chula Vista 2014, 2018, 2020a, and 2020b (see Appendix F).
MT CO2E = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
†Commercial and Industrial energy usage was merged in the 2014 inventory due to privacy concerns.
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial energy usage was merged in the 2016 inventory.
PROJECT SITE GHG EMISSIONS
The project site is currently undeveloped, thus, it is not a source of anthropogenic GHG
emissions. Additionally, the limited vegetation on-site does not provide a measurable
amount of carbon sequestration.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-4
5.6.2 Regulatory Setting
5.6.2.1 Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has many federal level programs
and projects to reduce GHG emissions. The U.S. EPA provides technical expertise and
encourages voluntary reductions from the private sector. One of the voluntary programs
applicable to the project is the Energy Star program. Energy Star products such as
appliances, building products, heating and cooling equipment, and other energy-efficient
equipment may be utilized by the project.
Energy Star is a joint program of U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy, which
promotes energy efficient products and practices. Tools and initiatives include the
Energy Star Portfolio Manager, which helps track and assess energy and water
consumption across an entire portfolio of buildings, and the Energy Star Most Efficient
2020, which provides information on exceptional products which represent the leading
edge in energy efficient products in the year 2020 (U.S. EPA 2020a).
The U.S. EPA also collaborates with the public sector, including states, tribes, localities,
and resource managers, to encourage smart growth, sustainability preparation, and
renewable energy and climate change preparation. These initiatives include the Clean
Energy-Environment State Partnership Program, the Climate Ready Water Utilities
Initiative, the Climate Ready Estuaries Program, and the Sustainable Communities
Partnership (U.S. EPA 2020b).
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards determine the fuel efficiency of
certain vehicle classes in the U.S. The first phase of the program applied to passenger
cars, new light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger cars with model years 2012
through 2016, and required these vehicles to achieve a standard equivalent to
35.5 miles per gallon. The second phase of the program applies to model years 2017
through 2025 and increased the standards to 54.5 miles per gallon. Separate standards
were also established for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The first phase applied to
model years 2014 through 2018 and the second phase applies to model years 2018
through 2027. With improved gas mileage, fewer gallons of transportation fuel would be
combusted to travel the same distance, thereby reducing nationwide GHG emissions
associated with vehicle travel.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-5
5.6.2.2 State
EO S-3-05 – Statewide GHG Emission Targets
This executive order (EO) establishes the following GHG emissions reduction targets for
the state of California:
• by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
This EO also directs the Secretary of the California EPA to oversee the efforts made to
reach these targets, and to prepare biannual reports on the progress made toward
meeting the targets and on the impacts to California related to global warming, including
impacts to water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry. With
regard to impacts, the report shall also prepare and report on mitigation and adaptation
plans to combat the impacts. The first Climate Action Team Assessment Report was
produced in March 2006, and has been updated every two years.
EO B-30-15 – 2030 Statewide GHG Emission Goal
This EO, issued on April 29, 2015, establishes an interim GHG emission reduction goal
for the state of California to reduce GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2030. This EO also directs all state agencies with jurisdiction over GHG-emitting sources
to implement measures designed to achieve the new interim 2030 goal, as well as the
pre-existing, long-term 2050 goal identified in EO S-3-05. Additionally, this EO directs
CARB to update its Climate Change Scoping Plan to address the 2030 goal. CARB is
expected to develop statewide inventory projection data for 2030, as well as commence
its efforts to identify reduction strategies capable of securing emission reductions that
allow for achievement of the EO’s new interim goal.
Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act
In response to EO S-3-05, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and thereby enacted Sections 38500–
38599 of the California Health and Safety Code. The heart of AB 32 is its requirement
that CARB establish an emissions cap and adopt rules and regulations that would
reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 also required CARB to adopt a
plan by January 1, 2009, indicating how emission reductions would be achieved from
significant GHG sources via regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions.
Climate Change Scoping Plan
In 2008, as directed by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, CARB
adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Scoping Plan),
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-6
which identifies the main strategies California will implement to achieve the GHG
reductions necessary to reduce forecasted emissions in 2020 to the state’s historic 1990
emissions level (CARB 2008). In 2014, CARB adopted the First Update to the Climate
Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework (2014 Scoping Pan) (CARB 2014).
The 2014 Scoping Plan “highlights California’s success to date in reducing its GHG
emissions and lays the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued
emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050”
(CARB 2014).
In October 2017, CARB released most recent version of The 2017 Climate Change
Scoping Plan Update, The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030
Greenhouse Gas Target (Draft Scoping Plan; CARB 2017). The Draft Scoping Plan
identifies the state strategy for achieving the state’s 2030 interim GHG emissions
reduction target codified by SB 32. Measures under the Draft Scoping Plan Scenario
build on existing programs such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean
Cars Program, Renewables Portfolio Standard, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and
the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, and the Cap-and-Trade Program.
Additionally the Draft Scoping Plan proposes further strategies to reduce waste
emissions through cogeneration, reduction of GHG emissions from the refinery sector by
20 percent, and new policies to address GHG emissions from natural and working lands.
Renewables Portfolio Standard
The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) promotes diversification of the state’s
electricity supply and decreased reliance on fossil fuel energy sources. Originally
adopted in 2002 with a goal to achieve a 20 percent renewable energy mix by 2020
(referred to as the “Initial RPS”), the goal has been accelerated and increased by EOs S-
14-08 and S-21-09 to a goal of 33 percent by 2020. In April 2011, SB 2 (1X) codified
California’s 33 percent RPS goal. In September 2015, the California Legislature passed
SB 350, which increases California’s renewable energy mix goal to 50 percent by year
2030. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, small
hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas.
Assembly Bill 341 – Solid Waste Diversion
The Commercial Recycling Requirements mandate that businesses (including public
entities) that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week and
multi-family residential with five units or more arrange for recycling services. Businesses
can take one or any combination of the following in order to reuse, recycle, compost, or
otherwise divert solid waste from disposal. Additionally, AB 341 mandates that
75 percent of the solid waste generated be reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-7
Regional Emissions Targets – SB 375
SB 375, the 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was signed into
law in September 2008 and requires CARB to set regional targets for reducing
passenger vehicle GHG emissions in accordance with the Scoping Plan. The purpose of
SB 375 is to align regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction
targets, and fair-share housing allocations under state housing law. SB 375 requires
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a Sustainable Communities
Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy to address GHG reduction targets from cars
and light-duty trucks in the context of that MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan. San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is the San Diego region’s MPO. The
CARB targets for the SANDAG region require a 15 percent reduction in GHG emissions
per capita from automobiles and light duty trucks compared to 2005 levels by 2020, and
a 19 percent reduction by 2035.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24 – California Building Code
The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, is referred to as the California Building
Code (CBC). It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related
to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy
efficiency, handicap accessibility, and so on. Of particular relevance to GHG reductions
are the CBC’s energy efficiency and green building standards.
TITLE 24, PART 6 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 is the California Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (also known as the California
Energy Code). This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency
standards for residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California’s
energy consumption. The Energy Code is updated periodically to incorporate and
consider new energy-efficient technologies and methodologies as they become
available, and incentives in the form of rebates and tax breaks are provided on a sliding
scale for buildings achieving energy efficiency above the minimum standards.
The current version of the Energy Code, known as 2019 Title 24, or the 2019 Energy
Code, became effective January 1, 2020. The Energy Code provides mandatory energy-
efficiency measures as well as voluntary tiers for increased energy efficiency. The
California Energy Commission (CEC), in conjunction with the California Public Utilities
Commission, has adopted a goal that all new residential and commercial construction
achieve zero net energy by 2020 and 2030, respectively. It is expected that achievement
of the zero net energy goal will occur via revisions to the Title 24 standards.
New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the
current Energy Code through submission and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-8
to the local building permit review authority and the CEC. The compliance reports must
demonstrate a building’s energy performance through use of CEC approved energy
performance software that shows iterative increases in energy efficiency given the
selection of various heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; sealing; glazing; insulation;
and other components related to the building envelope.
TITLE 24, PART 11 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CalGreen, was added to
Title 24 as Part 11 first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory
effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 CBC). The most recent 2019 CalGreen
institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up
new construction of non-residential and residential structures. Local jurisdictions must
enforce the minimum mandatory requirements and may adopt CalGreen with
amendments for stricter requirements.
The mandatory standards require:
• Outdoor water use requirements as outlined in local water efficient landscaping
ordinances or current model water efficient landscape ordinance standards,
whichever is more stringent;
• Requirements for water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings;
• 65 percent construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills;
• Infrastructure requirements for electric vehicle charging stations;
• Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency;
and
• Requirements for low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such
as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particleboards.
Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Energy Code
compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CalGreen
mandatory requirements must be demonstrated through completion of compliance forms
and worksheets.
5.6.2.3 Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Environmental Element of the City’s General Plan establishes a policy framework
for implementing the City’s plans and strategies aimed at reducing GHG emissions.
Policies relevant to the project include the following:
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-9
OBJECTIVE E6
Improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by minimizing the
release of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and limiting the exposure of people to
such pollutants
Policy E 6.6: Explore incentives to promote voluntary air pollutant reductions, including
incentives for developers who go above and beyond applicable requirements and for
facilities and operations that are not otherwise regulated.
Policy E 6.7: Encourage innovative energy conservation practices and air quality
improvements in new development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City's
Air Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines or its equivalent, pursuant to the City's Growth
Management Program.
City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan
In 2000, the City became the first municipality in San Diego County to adopt a CAP. The
plan, CO2 Reduction Plan, inventoried existing CO2 emissions, projected emissions
growth to 2010, and evaluated a wide range of CO2 reduction measures (City of Chula
Vista 2000). Measures included in the original Climate Action Plan focus on
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs); land use patterns; clean transportation fuels;
and residential, commercial, and industrial building efficiencies. In 2005 the City re-
inventoried GHG emissions inventory to evaluate the City’s progress in reaching its
emissions goals. Subsequently, the City developed the Climate Mitigation Plans (City of
Chula Vista 2008) and Climate Adaptation Plans (City of Chula Vista 2011a).
In 2017, the City released a new CAP (City of Chula Vista 2017a). The updated focus of
the new Climate Action Plan promoted energy- and water-efficient buildings, smart
growth and clean transit, zero waste policies, and increased local energy generation and
water resources.
City of Chula Vista Air Quality Improvement Plans
Community and site design features and environmentally conscious building practices
can have a substantial effect on air quality emissions and energy consumption. In
recognition of this, the City has been progressive in its approach to advancing the
practices of energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Many City
programs promote energy conservation and reduction of GHG emissions by requiring
applicants to implement the best available community site design practices such as
providing alternative modes of transportation, transit-friendly, walkable communities, and
sustainable building design. Projects that meet development criteria would be required to
prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) which must demonstrate how the
project has been designed consistent with each of these programs and thus represents
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-10
the best available design in terms of improving energy efficiency and reducing GHG
emissions.
5.6.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, impacts related to GHG would be significant if the project would:
1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emission of GHGs.
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, these questions are “intended to encourage
thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not necessarily represent thresholds of
significance” (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA,
Appendix G, VII Greenhouse Gas Emissions).
Because the City has not adopted its own GHG guidance to use in the analysis of the
CEQA thresholds of significance, this analysis follows guidance from the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Guidance from the SCAQMD recommends a
tiered approach for land use development projects. As the project is subject to CEQA
(Tier 1) and is project emissions have not been addressed be a regional GHG emissions
reduction plan (Tier 2), the project is assessed against the Tier 3 Residential/
Commercial Screening Level of 3,000 MT CO2E.
5.6.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: GHG Emissions
Project Emission Modeling
Project GHG emissions were calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) 2016.3.2 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA]
2017). The CalEEMod program is a tool used to estimate air emissions resulting from
land development projects based on California-specific emission factors. CalEEMod can
be used to calculate emissions from mobile (on-road vehicles), area (fireplaces,
consumer products [cleansers, aerosols, and solvents], landscape maintenance
equipment, architectural coatings), water and wastewater, and solid waste sources.
GHG emissions are estimated in terms of MT CO2E.
Below is a summary of modeling methods and assumptions. For a more in-depth
discussion of analysis methodology and model inputs refer Section 5.0 of the
Greenhouse Gas Analysis (see Appendix F).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-11
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction activities emit GHGs primarily though combustion of fuels (mostly diesel) in
the engines of off-road construction equipment and through combustion of diesel and
gasoline in on-road construction vehicles and the commute vehicles of the construction
workers. Construction emissions are calculated for construction activity based on the
construction equipment profile and other factors determined as needed to complete all
phases of construction. The project was modeled with construction occurring from July
2021 through December 2022 and with an operational year of 2022. Based on guidance
from the SCAQMD, total construction GHG emissions resulting from a project should be
amortized over 30 years and added to operational GHG emissions to account for their
contribution to GHG emissions over the lifetime of a project (SCAQMD 2009).
MOBILE EMISSIONS
Emissions from vehicles come from the combustion of fossil fuels in vehicle engines.
According to the project traffic impact report, the project would generate 2,400 average
daily vehicle trips with an average one-way trip length of 9.6 miles (Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers 2020; see Appendix I). Default vehicle emission factors for the
first operational year of 2022 were used.
ENERGY EMISSIONS
GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in buildings for which electricity and natural
gas are used as energy sources. GHGs are emitted during the generation of electricity
from fossil fuels off-site in power plants.
Project energy use was estimated based on the size of the proposed land uses using
data compiled from SCAQMD surveys and incorporated into CalEEMod. By default,
energy use factors in CalEEMod reflect the 2016 Title 24 energy code (Part 6 of the
Building Code). The current version of the energy code, 2019 Title 24, went into effect
on January 1, 2020. For non-residential buildings, it is estimated that the 2019 standards
would decrease energy consumption by 30 percent (CEC 2018). The project would be
subject to the 2019 Title 24 energy code standards. Thus, in order to account for
compliance with the 2019 Title 24 energy code standards, a 30 percent reduction in
building energy use was included in calculations for the project.
The project would be served by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Therefore,
SDG&E’s specific energy-intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO2, CH4, and N2O per
kilowatt-hour) are used in the calculations of GHG emissions. As discussed above, the
state mandate for renewable energy is 33 percent by 2020. Based on the most recent
annual report, SDG&E has already procured 43 percent (SDG&E 2019). However, the
energy-intensity factors included in CalEEMod by default only represent a 10.2 percent
procurement of renewable energy (SDG&E 2011). To account for the continuing effects
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-12
of RPS, the energy-intensity factors included in CalEEMod were adjusted to reflect the
current procurement of 43 percent renewable energy. SDG&E energy intensity factors are
shown in Table 5.6-3.
TABLE 5.6-3
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC INTENSITY FACTORS
GHG
2009
(lbs/MWh)
2020
(lbs/MWh)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 720.49 457.30
Methane (CH4) 0.029 0.018
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.006 0.004
SOURCE: SDG&E 2011.
lbs = pounds; MWh = megawatt hour
AREA SOURCES EMISSIONS
Area sources include GHG emissions that would occur from the use of landscaping
equipment. The use of landscape equipment emits GHGs associated with the
equipment’s fuel combustion. The landscaping equipment emission values were derived
from the 2011 In-Use Off-Road Equipment Inventory Model (CARB 2011).
WATER AND WASTEWATER EMISSIONS
The amount of water used and wastewater generated by a project has indirect GHG
emissions associated with it. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply,
distribute, and treat the water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions
associated with energy use, wastewater treatment can directly emit both CH4 and N2O.
The indoor and outdoor water use consumption data for each land use subtype comes
from the Pacific Institute’s Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water
Conservation in California 2003 (as cited in CAPCOA 2017). Based on that report, a
percentage of total water consumption was dedicated to landscape irrigation, which is
used to determine outdoor water use. Wastewater generation was similarly based on a
reported percentage of total indoor water use (CAPCOA 2017). The project would be
subject to CalGreen, which requires a 20 percent increase in indoor water use efficiency.
Thus, in order to demonstrate compliance with CalGreen, a 20 percent reduction in
indoor water use was included in the water consumption calculations for the project. In
addition to water reductions under CalGreen, the GHG emissions from the energy used
to transport the water are affected by RPS. As discussed previously, to account for the
effects of RPS through 2020, the energy-intensity factors included in CalEEMod were
adjusted to reflect 43 percent renewable energy (see Table 5.6-3).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-13
SOLID WASTE EMISSIONS
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in
landfills, incineration, and transportation of waste. To calculate the GHG emissions
generated by disposing of solid waste for the project, the total volume of solid waste was
calculated using waste disposal rates identified by California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The methods for quantifying GHG emissions
from solid waste are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change method,
using the degradable organic content of waste. GHG emissions associated with the
project’s waste disposal were calculated using these parameters.
These CalRecycle waste generation estimates do not reflect increased waste diversion
achieved through compliance with AB 341, Commercial Recycling Requirements.
According to a CalRecycle report to the Legislature, as of 2013 California has achieved
a statewide 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills through
“reduce/recycle/compost” programs (CalRecycle 2015a). AB 341 mandates that
75 percent of the solid waste generated be reduced, recycled, or composted. Therefore,
compliance with AB 341 requirements would increase solid waste diversion by an
additional 25 percent and thereby reduce solid waste disposal by 50 percent.
EMERGENCY GENERATOR TESTING
The project would install and operate an 800 kilowatt (kW) Caterpillar C27 Generator Set
emergency generator (specifics are included in Attachment 2 of the GHG Analysis; see
Appendix F). Emissions due to maintenance and testing were calculated using the
default emission factors from CalEEMod assuming testing involves operation at full load
for up to 50 total hours per year.
Total GHG Emissions
Table 5.6-4 provides a summary of the calculation methodology for each emission
source. Table 5.6-5 shows that the project would generate 2,986 MT CO2E annually,
which is less than the 3,000 MT CO2E residential/commercial screening threshold.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-14
TABLE 5.6-4
SUMMARY OF GHG EMISSION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Source Project Emission Calculation
Construction Construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Construction emissions were
amortized over 30 years and added to operational emissions.
Vehicles Vehicle emissions were calculated using trip generation from the project Transportation
Impact Analysis and California Air Resources Board vehicle emission factors.
Energy A 30 percent reduction in building energy use was included to account for compliance
with 2019 Title 24 energy code standards. Additionally, SDG&E energy-intensity
factors were adjusted to reflect the current renewable energy procurement.
Area Area-source emissions were calculated based on standard landscaping equipment,
quantities, and consumer product emission factors.
Water A 20 percent increase in indoor water use efficiency was included to account for
compliance with CalGreen standards. Additionally, SDG&E energy-intensity factors
were adjusted to reflect the current renewable energy procurement.
Solid waste Emissions were calculated using CalRecycle waste generation rates and also account
for an additional 25 percent increase in solid waste diversion resulting from compliance
with AB 341 requirements.
Emergency
Generator
Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod default emission factors and assuming
operation for up to 50 hours per year.
TABLE 5.6-5
PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
(MT CO2E per year)
Emission Source
Unmitigated
Project GHG Emissions
Area 2,312
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
506
284
222
Area sources <1
Generator Maintenance 21
Vehicles <1
Water Use 40
Solid Waste 88
Construction1 36
TOTAL2 2,986
MT CO2E = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1Construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period.
2Total may vary due to independent rounding.
Threshold 2: Adopted Plans, Policies, and Regulations Intended to Reduce GHG
Emissions
Statewide Plans
Significance screening levels from SCAQMD guidance are based on the concept of
establishing a 90 percent GHG emission market capture rate. A 90 percent emission
capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from new development projects
would be subject to CEQA analysis and mitigation; the 3,000 MT CO2E
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-15
Residential/Commercial Screening Level would specifically apply to GHG emissions
from new development projects for residential/commercial sectors. The market capture
rate of 90 percent was developed to capture a substantial fraction of GHG emissions
from new development projects while excluding small projects that will in aggregate
contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions.
The market capture rate approach is based on guidance from the CAPCOA report
CEQA & Climate Change, dated January 2008 (CAPCOA 2008). Following rationale
presented in the CAPCOA Guidance, the aggregate emissions from all projects with
individual annual emissions that are equal to or less than the identified screening levels
for 90 percent market capture rate would not impede achievement of the statewide GHG
emissions reduction targets.
Project construction and operation would not exceed the 3,000 MT CO2E
Residential/Commercial Screening Level. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
plans to achieve statewide GHG emissions reduction targets established by AB 32 or
SB 32.
Local Plans
As discussed in Section 5.6.2.3, the City updated its CAP in 2017. The updated focus of
the new CAP promoted energy- and water-efficient buildings, smart growth and clean
transit, zero waste policies, and increased local energy generation and water resources.
Table 5.6-6 summarizes reduction strategies from the CAP and evaluates project
consistency with each strategy. As shown in Table 5.6-6, CAP reduction strategies
would be implemented directly by the City and therefore are not applicable to individual
development projects. The project would be consistent with all applicable CAP reduction
strategies; therefore, the project would not conflict with the CAP and impacts would be
less than significant.
TABLE 5.6-6
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Category Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
Water Conservation & Reuse
Water Education
and Enforcement
Expand education and
enforcement targeting landscape
water waste.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to expand
education or enforcement targeting
landscaping water waste.
Water Efficiency
Upgrades
Update the City’s Landscape
Water Conservation Ordinance to
promote more water-wise
landscaping designs.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to update the
City’s Landscape Water
Conservation Ordinance.
Require water-saving retrofits in
existing buildings at a specific
point in time.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to require water-
saving retrofits in existing buildings.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-16
TABLE 5.6-6
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Category Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
Water Reuse
Plan & System
Installations
Develop a Water Reuse Master
Plan to maximize the use of storm
water, graywater, and on-site
water reclamation.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to develop a
Water Reuse Master Plan.
Streamline complex graywater
system’s permit review.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to streamline
permit review for graywater
systems.
Waste Reduction
Zero Waste Plan
Develop a Zero Waste Plan to
supplement statewide green
waste, recycling, and plastic bag
ban efforts.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to develop a Zero
Waste Plan.
Renewable & Energy Efficient
Energy Education
& Enforcement
Expand education targeting key
community segments and
facilitating energy performance
disclosure.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to expand energy
education and performance
disclosure.
Leverage the building inspection
process to distribute energy-
related information and to deter
unpermitted, low performing
energy improvements.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to distribute
energy-related information.
Clean Energy
Sources
Incorporate Solar Photovoltaic into
all new residential and commercial
buildings.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to adopt pre-
wiring standards or to develop a
solar photovoltaic requirement.
Provide more grid-delivered clean
energy through Community
Choice Aggregation or other
mechanism.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to provide grid-
delivered clean energy.
Energy Efficiency
Upgrades
Expand the City’s “cool roof”
standards to include re-roofs and
western areas.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to revise the
City’s “cool roof” standards.
Facilitate more energy upgrades
in the community through
incentives, permit streamlining
and education.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to facilitate
energy upgrades in the community.
Require energy-savings retrofits in
existing buildings at a specific
point in time.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to require energy-
savings retrofits in existing buildings.
Robust Urban
Forests
Plant more shade trees to save
energy, address heat island
issues, and improve air quality.
Consistent. The project Landscape
Plan includes 41 patio shade trees
throughout the patio areas and
along pathways, 90 shade trees
surrounding and throughout the
parking lot, and 76 perimeter screen
trees.
Smart Growth & Transportation
Complete Streets
& Neighborhoods
Incorporate “Complete Streets”
principles into municipal capital
projects and plans.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to improve
municipal capital projects and plans.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6 Greenhouse Gas
5.6-17
TABLE 5.6-6
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Category Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
Encourage higher density and
mixed-use development in Smart
Growth areas, especially around
trolley stations and other transit
nodes.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to construct
additional high density and mixed-
use development in Smart Growth
areas.
Transportation
Demand
Management
Utilize bike facilities, transit
access/passes and other
Transportation Demand
Management and congestion
management offerings.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to develop
Transportation Demand
Management and congestion
management offerings.
Expand bike-sharing, car-sharing,
and other “last mile” transportation
options.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to develop
Transportation Demand
Management and congestion
management offerings.
Alternative Fuel
Vehicle
Readiness
Support the installation of more
local alternative fueling stations.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to install more
local alternative fueling stations.
Designate preferred parking for
alternative fuel vehicles.
Not applicable. The project would
not impede efforts to designate
preferred parking for alternative fuel
vehicles.
Design all new residential and
commercial buildings to be
“Electric Vehicle Ready”.
Consistent. The project would
comply with 2019 CalGreen
requirements for provision of electric
vehicle charging equipment.
SOURCE: City Climate Action Plan (City of Chula Vista 2017a).
5.6.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Project construction and operation would not exceed the 3,000 MT CO2E
Residential/Commercial Screening Level. Therefore, the project’s contribution to global
climate change impacts on the environment would be less than significant and the
project would not conflict with plans to achieve statewide GHG emissions reduction
targets established by AB 32 or SB 32.
The project would be consistent with all applicable CAP reduction strategies; therefore,
the project would not conflict with the CAP and impacts would be less than significant.
5.6.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-1
5.7 Hazards
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential for the
Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project (project) to result in impacts related to hazards
or hazardous materials. The following discussion is based on federal, state, and local laws
and regulations regarding hazardous materials.
5.7.1 Existing Conditions
5.7.1.1 Existing Hazards Setting
The 10.42-acre project site consists of a relatively flat, vacant lot that has been previously
graded in 2002 consistent with the approved Eastlake Business Center II- Phase 2 grading
plans . The project site lies within the larger Eastlake Business Park, which contains
existing commercial development and parking lots and is subject to a zoning designation
of Business Center 4 (BC-4). The healthcare industry is heavily regulated and the
proposed behavioral health hospital would operate within the parameters of a variety of
laws and regulations as discussed in the following paragraphs. The regulations govern
proper handling and disposal of hospital-related biohazards, “sharps,” radioactive, and
other medical waste.
Airport Hazards
The project site is located 5.1 miles west of John Nichol’s Field Airport and 9.3 miles north
of Brown Field Municipal Airport. John Nichol’s Field Airport does not have an adopted
Airport Land Use Commission Plan (ALUCP) and the project is not located within the
Brown Field Municipal Airport influence area (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
2010).
Hazardous Materials Sites
According to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database,
along with the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor
database, the project site and vicinity (one-mile radius) is not located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2020).
5.7.2 Regulatory Setting
5.7.2.1 Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980 is also known as “Superfund,” and the Superfund Amendments and
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-2
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (amended CERCLA, SARA Title III). CERCLA, SARA
Title III provides a federal framework for setting priorities for cleanup of hazardous
substances releases to air, water, and land. This framework provides for the regulation of
the cleanup process, cost recovery, response planning, and communication standards.
SARA Title III authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA). EPCRA is intended to reduce disaster through the reporting of hazardous and
toxic chemicals, or the “community right-to-know.” The community right-to-know enables
public knowledge by providing information about facilities’ use of chemicals and any
release into the environment.
Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 established the
authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to develop regulations
to track and control hazardous substances from their production, through their use, to their
disposal. The U.S. EPA has the authority under RCRA to authorize states to implement
RCRA, and California is an RCRA authorized state. California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 40, Part 290 establishes technical standards and corrective action requirements for
owners and operators of underground storage tanks (USTs) under RCRA.
5.7.2.2 State
California EPA
The California EPA (Cal EPA) and the SWRCB establish rules governing the use of
hazardous materials and the management of hazardous waste. Applicable state and local
laws include the following:
• Public Safety/Fire Regulations/Building Codes
• Hazardous Waste Control Law
• Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act
• Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act
State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB maintains the GeoTracker database, a data management system used for
managing sites that impact groundwater, especially those that require groundwater
cleanup from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) as well as permitted facilities
such as operating USTs and land disposal sites. LUSTs are a significant source of
petroleum impacts to groundwater and can also result in potential threats to health and
safety.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-3
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Within Cal EPA, the DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of
enforcement to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the state agency, for the
management of hazardous materials and the generation, transport, and disposal of
hazardous waste under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law.
The DTSC regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA
and Title 22 of the California Public Health and Safety Code. The DTSC regulates
hazardous waste, maintains a public database (EnviroStor) of potentially contaminated
properties, cleans up existing contamination, and researches ways to reduce the
hazardous waste produced in California.
The State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (also known as the
Cortese List) is a planning document used by state and local agencies to comply with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements in providing information about
the location of hazardous materials sites. The DTSC is responsible for preparing a portion
of the information that comprises the Cortese List, through its EnviroStor database of sites
listed pursuant to Section 25256 of the Health and Safety Code. This includes a listing of
hazardous substance release sites selected for, and subject to, a response action.
EnviroStor must update the list of sites at least annually to reflect new information
regarding previously listed sites or the addition of new sites requiring a response action.
Hazardous Waste Control
Hazardous waste control (California Health and Safety Code, Section 25100 et seq.) is
intended to protect the public health and the environment and to regulate hazardous waste
generation and hazardous waste management practices. The DTSC is responsible for the
enforcement of this act and lists chemicals and materials that may be hazardous. It also
establishes criteria for identification for packaging and labeling of hazardous waste,
management controls, and permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and
transportation.
Medical Waste Management Act
The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 117600-118360) is defined by the
California Medical Waste Management Act. This act regulates, in detail, medical waste
transport.
Health and Safety Code and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) is the collection of state laws that govern
the handling of hazardous waste, corrective action (remediation), and permitted facilities.
Chapter 6.7 of the H&SC outlines the requirements for USTs, identifies requirements for
corrective actions, cleanup funds, liability, and the responsibilities of owners and operators
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-4
of USTs. The LUST Information System maintained by the SWRCB is available to
determine if LUSTs have been reported within or near a specified property.
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or Cal-OSHA, defines and
enforces worker safety standards and requires proper handling and disposal of hazardous
materials including asbestos containing materials and lead containing surfaces according
to the Occupational Safety and Health Act and EPA regulations. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act /EPA Occupational Chemical Database compiles information from several
government agencies and organizations. This database provides reports on physical
properties, exposure guidelines, and emergency response information, including the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) emergency response guide.
2016 California Fire Code
The 2016 California Fire Code establishes the minimum requirements consistent with best
practices to safeguard public health and safety from fire and explosive hazards and
dangerous conditions in new and existing development throughout California.
Jurisdictions may choose to adopt the 2016 California Fire Code as an enforceable set of
regulations for safeguarding life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from
the storage, handling, and use of hazardous substances, material and devices, and from
conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises.
Chapter 15.36.010 of the City of Chula Vista’s (City) Municipal Code adopts the 2016
California Fire Code.
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
To assist each fire agency in addressing its responsibility area, the California Department
of Forestry and Fire (CAL FIRE) uses a severity classification system to identify areas or
zones of severity for fire hazards within the state. CAL FIRE is required to map these
zones for State Responsibility Areas and identify Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
(VHFHSZ) for Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs).
Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps identify moderate, high, and very high hazard severity
zones using a science-based and field-tested computer model that assigns a hazard score
based on the factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. Factors considered
include fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), flame length, blowing
embers, terrain, and typical weather for the area.
Government Code Section 51179 states, “A local agency shall designate, by ordinance,
very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction…” Title 15 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) provides regulations regarding fire prevention in the City and
adopts the California Fire Code. The Fire Hazard Severity Zone map is adopted through
CVMC 15.34.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-5
5.7.2.3 County
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health
The County of San Diego’s Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Hazardous
Materials Division (HMD) is one of the four divisions of the DEH. HMD is the Certified
Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for San Diego County, responsible for regulating facilities
that handle or store hazardous materials, are a part of the California Accidental Release
Prevention Program, generates or treats hazardous/medical waste, stores at least 1,320
gallons of aboveground petroleum, and owns or operates underground storage tanks.
Section 65850.2 of the California Government Code prohibits the Building Department
from issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy until a specific plan check review process
has been completed.
(1) Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) – The HMBP provides detailed
information regarding the storage of any hazardous materials in order to prevent or
minimize the potential or threatened release of hazardous materials into the
environment that may impact public health and safety.
(2) California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) – The DEH is the local agency
responsible for implementing the CalARP, a state-mandated program. The CalARP
focuses on prevention through awareness by reducing the potential of the release of
extremely poisonous gases such as chlorine, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and/or other
toxic materials. Facilities that handle such materials are required to have a Risk
Management Program (RMP) in place.
(3) Certify and submit a RMP – The RMP outlines and analyzes worst-case scenarios as
it relates to the community, provides an emergency response plan, equipment
procedures and training, mitigation or accidental release plan, prevention programs,
and hazard and location assessments.
County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services
The County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services (OES) coordinates the overall
county response to disasters. OES is responsible for notifying appropriate agencies when
a disaster occurs; coordinating all responding agencies; ensuring resources are available
and mobilized; developing plans and procedures for response to and recovery from
disasters; and developing and providing preparedness materials for the public.
OES staffs the Operational Area Emergency Operations Center, a central facility that
provides regional coordinated emergency response, and also acts as staff to the Unified
Disaster Council (UDC), its governing body. The UDC, established through a joint powers
agreement among all 18 incorporated cities and the County of San Diego, provides for
coordination of plans and programs countywide to ensure protection of life and property.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-6
5.7.2.4 Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Environmental Element of the City General Plan contains policies focused on safe
storing and handling of hazardous materials and waste. Policies relevant to the project
include the following:
OBJECTIVE E 20
Ensure that facilities using, storing, and handling hazardous materials and waste do not
result in significant adverse effects to existing and planned surrounding land uses.
Policy E 20.2: Through the environmental review of proposed developments, in
accordance with CEQA, the City shall ensure that significant and potentially significant
adverse effects from facilities using, storing, and handling hazardous materials and waste
to existing and planned surrounding land uses will be avoided.
Policy E 20.3: Prior to the issuance or renewal of business licenses for businesses
involving hazardous materials and/or generating hazardous waste, the City shall continue
to require licensees to prepare and submit an acceptable Business Plan and Risk
Management Prevention Program to the County DEH, as applicable, and to obtain all
other necessary licenses and permits.
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) is a countywide plan that
identifies risks and ways to minimize damage by natural and manmade disasters. The
plan is a comprehensive resource document that serves many purposes such as
enhancing public awareness, creating a decision tool for management, promoting
compliance with state and federal program requirements, enhancing local policies for
hazard mitigation capability, and providing inter-jurisdictional coordination. The County’s
plan was last revised in 2018 and is currently being revised to reflect changes to both the
hazards threatening San Diego as well as the programs in place to minimize or eliminate
those hazards.
The City specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related potential actions are
included in the MJHMP (County of San Diego OES 2018). A primary goal of the City’s
Hazardous Mitigation Plan is to reduce potential exposure to hazardous materials through
increased security of storage and provide guidelines in the usage of hazardous materials.
5.7.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to hazards or
hazardous materials would be significant if the project would:
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-7
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area.
6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
7. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires.
5.7.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, and Storage
Operational
Project day-to-day operations would involve hazardous materials that could expose
hospital staff, patients, visitors, and/or the environment. However, the project would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials because the behavioral health hospital is
mandated to appropriately manage, handle, use, transport, store, and dispose of all
hazardous materials and waste in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local
laws described above, and manifestation of these laws would be prescribed in the HMBP
and RMP. Additionally, hospital operations require adherence to regulation elating to the
safe handling of biohazards, medical, and radioactive waste.
Biohazardous materials are materials containing certain infectious agents such as
bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens capable of causing or contributing to increased
human mortality. Medical wastes include biohazards and “sharps,” such as needles, razor
blades, broken glass generated from the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-8
beings. Medical waste is regulated under the California Medical Waste Management Act
(Health and Safety Code Sections 117600-118360), through the Medical Waste
Management Program (CCR Title 22, Section 65600-65628 [non-consecutive]), and by
the San Diego County DEH, Hazardous Materials Division. Medical waste is generally
regulated in the same manner as hazardous waste, except that special provisions apply
to storage, disinfection, containment, and transportation. As specified under the Medical
Waste Management Program, the project would not treat or incinerate medical waste on-
site, but would process such waste for transportation, using licensed transporters.
Biohazard waste and sharps would be locked and sealed at the loading dock within a
protected fenced and roofed staging area where workers have access to a spill kit and
safety shower. After the wastes and sharps are picked up, the items would be disposed
of at an off-site permitted facility.
In summary, applicable federal, state, and local laws governing the transportation, use,
handling, storage, management, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste,
biohazards, medical waste, and radioactive materials are intended to protect public safety,
health, and welfare and the environment. Project activities and operations are required to
and would comply with such laws. Therefore, potential impacts relative to project-related
operational hazards would be less than significant.
Construction
Construction activities associated with development of the project would involve temporary
transport, management, handling, use, and storage of hazardous materials such as diesel
fuels, lubricants, petroleum products, paints, solvents, and other typical chemicals
required during construction. These activities could potentially expose workers, the public,
and/or the environment to hazardous materials. Any potential exposure to hazardous
materials would be handled in accordance with current and applicable federal, state, and
local laws regarding the safe transport, handling, and management. Such laws include the
federal OSHA of 1970 (29 United States Code Sections 650 et seq.) and the Cal-OSHA
program (CCR Title 8, Section 330 et seq.). Compliance with existing regulations
regarding the use or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes would prevent any
adverse impacts on human health and safety from the proposed construction activities.
Impacts related to hazardous materials during construction activities would be less than
significant.
Threshold 2: Hazard from Risk of Upset and Accident Conditions
The HMBP and RMP prescribed under applicable laws described above would ensure
prevention and awareness in the event of a hazardous materials release. Other plans,
described in the City chapter in the MJHMP and the City General Plan identify the risks
of a hazardous event and the steps involved to ensure potential impacts are managed
and contained. Required preparation of, and compliance with, plans including but not
limited to the HMBP, RMP, and MJHMP would ensure that hazards from the risk of upset
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-9
and accident conditions would be managed and contained without significant harm to the
public or environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 3: Hazard Located Near Existing or Proposed School
There are three schools located with the vicinity of the project: Salt Creek Elementary
School, Kid Ventures Montessori Academy, and Eastlake Middle School. These schools
are located approximately 1.2 miles southeast, 0.2 mile south, and 1.5 miles east,
respectively, of the project site. Kid Ventures Montessori Academy is located within one-
quarter mile of the project. As noted previously, the project would adhere to regulatory
requirements regarding all forms of handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous
chemicals including biohazardous and radioactive waste. Therefore, the project would not
expose schools to hazardous materials and substances, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Threshold 4: Hazardous Waste Site
The site was graded in 2002 associated with the approved Eastlake Business Center II-
Phase 2 grading plans but has remained vacant since that time. According to the SWRCB
GeoTracker database, along with the California DTSC EnviroStor database, the project
site and vicinity (one-mile radius) is not located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
(DTSC 2020). Since no hazardous materials sites have been identified on or within the
vicinity of the project site. No impact would occur.
Threshold 5: Airport Safety Hazard
The project site is located 5.1 miles west of John Nichol’s Field Airport and 9.3 miles north
of Brown Field Municipal Airport. John Nichol’s Field Airport does not have an adopted
ALUCP and the project is not located within the Brown Field Municipal Airport influence
area (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2010). Therefore, the project would
not result in a safety hazard for sensitive receptors in the project area, and no impacts
related to airport hazards would occur.
Threshold 6: Interfere with Emergency Response Plans
The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan, as construction equipment staging areas would
be restricted to on-site locations, and public roadways would not be impeded by
construction operations. As indicated in the City’s General Plan, Figure 8-5, the project is
surrounded by evacuation routes located on East H Street which is 1.3 miles north, and
Otay Lakes Road, which is 0.3 mile south of the project site (City of Chula Vista 2005a).
The project would be directly linked to these evacuation routes via Lane Avenue and
Fenton Street. The project would have adequate emergency access and would not
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 Hazards
5.7-10
significantly impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Threshold 7: Exposure to Wildland Fires
Wildland fires present a significant threat in the City, particularly in the summer months
when temperatures are high and precipitation is limited. Areas in the City that are
particularly susceptible to fires are designated as “very high hazard” or “high hazard” areas
and are delineated on Figure 9-9 of the City’s General Plan: Wildland Fire Hazard Map.
The project site is not identified within an area considered a “very high hazard” or “high
hazard.” The project site is surrounded by developed lands and would not expose people
or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires. Impacts would
be less than significant.
For additional discussion related to wildfire, see Section 5.13 of this EIR.
5.7.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Inherent to the healthcare industry, day-to-day operations would involve hazardous
materials that could expose hospital staff, patients, visitors, and/or the environment.
However, the healthcare industry is heavily regulated and preparation of plans such as
the HMBP, RMP, and MJHMP, as well as compliance with federal, state, and local laws
and regulations, would preclude significant impacts relative to hazards and risk of upset.
At the local level, the project would also comply with the County DEH’s AB 3205 plan
check review in order to ensure that potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials would be less than significant.
No hazardous materials sites are located on or within the vicinity of the project site. The
project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport.
The project site is not identified within an area considered a “very high hazard” or “high
hazard.” The project site is surrounded by developed lands and would not expose people
or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires. Impacts would
be less than significant.
5.7.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-1
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential for changes
in drainage, runoff, and water quality resulting from implementation of the Eastlake
Behavioral Health Hospital project (project). Information presented in this section is
largely based on the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP; see Appendix E)
prepared by K&S Engineering, Inc. (K&S Engineering 2019a) and the project’s Drainage
Study (Appendix G) prepared by K&S Engineering, Inc. (K&S Engineering 2019b).
5.8.1 Existing Conditions
5.8.1.1 Existing Hydrology and Water Quality
Watershed Planning/Water Quality
Water quality refers to the effect of natural and human activities on the composition of
water. Water quality is expressed in terms of measurable physical and chemical qualities
that can be related to planned water use. Within the City of Chula Vista (City), urban
runoff is transmitted directly to the storm drain system (rather than the sewer system). In
general, storm water can potentially contain a host of pollutants such as trash and
debris, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, sediments, nutrients, metals, and toxic
chemicals. These contaminants can adversely affect receiving and coastal waters, flora
and fauna and public health. Water quality issues are especially prevalent during rainy
periods; however, due to urban runoff (e.g., irrigation or car washing) that is transferred
to the storm drain system, pollution can be a year-round problem. Combinations of urban
runoff, agricultural runoff, resource extraction, and septic systems affect surface water
and ground water quality.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) uses watershed planning to
improve and protect the quality of local and regional waters. Watersheds are the areas
above and below ground that drain into a particular water body. The project site lies
within the Sweetwater Hydrologic Unit (HU; 909) and is part of the Lower Sweetwater,
Telegraph Hydrologic Subarea (HAS; 909.110). The Sweetwater HU encompasses over
145,000 acres and has four major water bodies: Sweetwater River, Sweetwater
Reservoir, Loveland Reservoir, and San Diego Bay. The project site is tributary to
Telegraph Canyon Creek and the San Diego Bay, both listed on the Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and selenium. For water bodies placed on the 303(d) list, states are required to
develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutant(s) that are causing
standard impairment. Once a water body is placed on the 303(d) list, it remains on the
list until a TMDL is adopted and/or water quality standards are attained.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-2
The project site totals 10.42 acres and proposes the introduction of 6.2 acres
(70 percent of the site) of impervious area to the HAS including sidewalks, parking area,
and the building.
Drainage
The project site is currently graded and runoff sheet flows into two existing desilting
basins located at the south side of the project site. One drains to an existing 24-inch
storm drain located within Showroom Place. The second desilting basin drains east to an
existing 18-inch storm drain located within Yosemite Drive in the Eastlake III Woods
subdivision. In its existing condition, the runoff velocity is at a rate of 24.2 cubic feet per
second (cfs).
Flood Hazards
Chula Vista operates and maintains its own drainage and flood control facilities. The
system is made up of improved and unimproved flood control channels, storm drains,
bridge crossings, detention basins, and many miles of storm drain pipes. Drainages
within the City are maintained by the City to keep them free of invasive plants and debris
that can create blockages and flooding. The Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs are used
by the City of San Diego as municipal water storage and are used for flood control.
During severe rain seasons, low-lying areas along the floodplains of the Sweetwater and
Otay rivers and tributaries may experience flooding. Dams, levees, reservoirs, and
drainage channels have been constructed as flood control measures in potentially
hazardous areas. In the event of a dam failure, inundation poses a serious risk in the
Sweetwater and Otay River valleys.
As shown in Figure 5.8-1, the project site and immediate surrounding areas are mapped
as lying outside of 100- and 500-year flood zones. Accordingly, the potential for flooding
of the site is considered low. Additionally, as shown in Figure 5.9-2 of the City General
Plan Update FEIR, the project site is mapped as lying outside of dam failure inundation
zones (City of Chula Vista 2005c).
FIGURE 5.8-1
FEMA Flood Areas
!(
!(!(
3
1
2
!(
!(!(
3
1
2
Image Source: Nearmap (Flown May 2020)
0 800Feet [Project Boundary
!(Measurement Locations
Flood Areas
A
X
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig5.8-1_EIR.mxd 9/22/2020 lrb
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-4
5.8.2 Regulatory Setting
5.8.2.1 Federal
The Federal Clean Water Act
The CWA established a broad national program for protecting water quality and
regulating discharges of waste and pollutants into waters of the United States (Title 33,
United States Code, Section 1251 et seq.). It provides authority for establishment of
water quality standards and waste discharge limits for point source discharges (such as
those from industrial facilities, sewage treatment plants, and storm water). The act also
prohibits discharges of pollutants without a permit or other authorization and allows
states to implement provisions of the act in lieu of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
Section 401 of the CWA requires certification from the state for any applicant applying
for a federal permit to conduct any activity that may result in the discharge of any
pollutant. This process is known as the Water Quality Certification. Section 402 of the
CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program to regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources and discharge
pollutants into waters of the United States.
In the state of California, the U.S. EPA has authorized the permitting authority to
implement the NPDES program. In general, the SWRCB issues two baseline general
permits: one for industrial discharges and one for construction activities. Rather than
setting numeric effluent limitations for storm water and urban runoff, CWA regulation
calls for the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). BMPs reduce or
prevent the discharge of pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable and aim to meet
the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology standards for construction storm water. Regulations and
permits have been implemented at the federal, state, and local level to form a
comprehensive regulatory framework to serve and protect the quality of the nation’s
surface water and ground water resources.
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states and territories are required to develop a list of
water quality limited segments for jurisdictional waters of the United States. The waters
on the list are those that do not meet water quality standards, even after point source
polluters have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology.
As mentioned above, the CWA established the NPDES permit system that is
implemented through the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). This system
regulates both point source discharges and non-point source discharges to surface
waters of the U.S. The NPDES permit for Region 9, which includes the City, is the 2013
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001, as
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-5
amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100). This permit requires that the City
develop water quality plans that identify project-level water quality requirements.
Projects are required to identify existing water quality conditions, potential pollutants of
concern, and implement a comprehensive storm water management program to control
pollutants of concern discharges to waters of the U.S.
National Flood Insurance Act
The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) established the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), which is based on the minimal requirements for floodplain management
and is designed to minimize flood damage within Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs).
FEMA administrates the NFIP. SFHAs are defined as areas that have a 1 percent
chance of flooding within a given year (i.e., the 100-year flood). FIRMs were developed
to identify areas of flood hazards within a community.
5.8.2.2 State
The California Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 established the principal legal
and regulatory framework for water quality control (California Water Code, Division 7,
Section 13000 et seq.). The California Water Code authorizes the SWRCB to implement
the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act. The state of California is divided into nine
regions governed by the RWQCB. The RWQCB implement and enforce provisions of the
California Water Code and the CWA under the oversight of the SWRCB. The Porter–
Cologne Act also provides for the development and periodic review of Water Quality
Control Plans that designate beneficial uses of California’s major rivers and ground
water basins and establish water quality objectives for those waters. Under the Porter-
Cologne Act, “waters of the state” include both surface and ground water. Any entity or
person proposing to discharge waste within any region of the state must file a Report of
Waste Discharge with the appropriate regional board.
5.8.2.3 Local
San Diego Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan
The San Diego RWQCB develops and enforces water quality objectives and implements
plans to protect the area’s waters. The RWQCB adopted the MS4 Permit, establishing a
watershed based approach to preserving water quality and implementing storm water
programs. The San Diego Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) (San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board 2016) represents the MS4 requirement for the
San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area, which includes the Sweetwater HU. The
San Diego Bay WQIP was developed and identified goals, strategies, and schedules to
improve water quality throughout the watershed. It identifies priority conditions which
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-6
require focused improvement plans. The additional purpose of the WQIP is to guide local
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Programs (JRMPs) towards achieving improved
water quality.
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Environmental Element of the City’s General Plan specifically addresses the
improvement of water quality. The following objective and policies found in the
Environmental Element are relevant to the project:
OBJECTIVE E 2
Protect and improve water quality within surface water bodies and groundwater
resources within and downstream of Chula Vista.
Policy E 2.3: Educate residents, business owners and City departments about feasible
methods to minimize the discharge of pollutants into natural drainages and the municipal
storm drainage system.
Policy E 2.4: Ensure compliance with current federal and state water quality regulations,
including the implementation of applicable NPDES requirements and the City's Pollution
Prevention Policy.
Policy E 2.5: Encourage and facilitate construction and land development techniques
that minimize water quality impacts from urban development.
The Public Facilities and Services (PFS) Element of the City’s General Plan establishes
the requirement for reliable drainage facilities. The following objective and policy found in
the PFS Element is relevant to the project:
OBJECTIVE PFS 1
Ensure adequate and reliable water, sewer, and drainage service and facilities.
Policy PFS 1.4: For new development, require on-site detention of storm water flows
such that, where practical, existing downstream structures will not be overloaded. Slow
runoff and maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.
The Growth Management (GM) Element of the General Plan provides integrated
components that create an overall Growth Management Program (GMP). Specifically,
the GM Element seeks to ensure public facilities and services are available to residents
and visitors of the City concurrent with development. The City’s GMP establishes the
basis for Threshold Standards for City facilities and services, including drainage.
The following objective and policies found in the GM Element are relevant to the project:
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-7
OBJECTIVE 1
Concurrent public facilities and services.
Policy GM 1.11: Establish the authority to withhold discretionary approvals and
subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with
applicable Threshold Standards.
City of Chula Vista Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program
The City’s JRMP (updated 2018) presents strategies to reduce the discharge of
pollutants into the storm drain system. The strategies include requirements for
development projects to use BMPs during construction and throughout operation. The
JRMP interacts with other water quality provisions of City regulations to ensure
consistency among documents and to strengthen enforcement and monitoring of long-
term BMPs (City of Chula Vista 2015a).
City of Chula Vista Best Management Practices Design Manual
The City’s BMPs Design Manual (BMPDM), updated March 2019, provides guidance for
land development and public improvement projects to comply with the 2013 MS4 Permit.
The BPMDM addresses on-site post-construction storm water requirements. Specific
requirements include Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs, which seek to minimize
impervious surface areas and promote infiltration. Other requirements incorporate
hydromodification principles by controlling runoff discharge rates and durations (City of
Chula Vista 2015b).
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Title 15, Section 15.04.005, also known as the
Grading Ordinance, establishes minimum requirements for land development work, to
provide for the issuance of permits and for the enforcement of the requirements.
Specifically, CVMC Section 15.04.018 requires all land development activity to meet the
requirements of this chapter, CVMC Chapter 14.20 and the City BMPDM, December
2015. Additionally, CVMC Section 15.04.270 requires requests for land development
applications to include the submittal of plans showing all proposed drainage devices and
facilities. Under the CVMC, all building sites are required to drain to an approved
drainage facility unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer (CVMC Section
15.04.045).
CVMC Title 14, Section 14.20.120 provides that activities which may result in pollutants
entering the storm water conveyance system shall undertake all measures, to the
maximum extent practical, to reduce the risk of such discharges. BMPs and other
pollution control requirements are required to eliminate or reduce pollutants entering the
City’s storm water conveyance system (CVMC Section 14.20.120(A)).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-8
CVMC Section 19.09, et seq. (Growth Management Ordinance; GMO) delineates the
City’s Threshold Standards for City facilities and services. The GMO is intended to
implement the policy framework established by the City’s General Plan and GMP. CVMC
Section 19.09.040 identifies the Thresholds Standards for the maintenance and
improvement of the current level of services related to sewer. CVMC Section 19.09.050
identifies the Threshold Standard to ensure adequate storage, treatment, and
transmission of water. The City Threshold Standards are included in Section 5.8.3.
5.8.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be significant if the
project would:
1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
2. Substantially decrease ground water supplies or interfere substantially with
ground water supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would:
• Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
• Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off-site.
• Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff.
• Impede or redirect flood flows.
4. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation.
5. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan.
City Threshold Standards relevant to this section, as delineated in CVMC
Section 19.09.040, includes the following:
• Section 19.09.040F (Drainage) specifically requires that storm water flows and
volumes shall not exceed city engineering standards and shall comply with
current local, state and federal regulations.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-9
5.8.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
Implementation of the project would result in the construction of 270,274 square feet of
new impervious surfaces throughout the project site, including sidewalks, parking areas,
and a new structure. Runoff from the project site currently drains to Telegraph Canyon
Creek and the San Diego Bay, both of which are impaired water bodies. The increase in
impervious areas could lead to increased flows of storm water runoff that could
negatively affect water quality in downstream waterbodies during both construction and
operation of the project. The City’s GM Element, in concert with CVMC Section 19.09
requires that all new development comply with current local, state, and federal
regulations. The project would include design measures to ensure that potentially
polluted runoff is avoided to the greatest amount feasible during both project
construction and operation.
Temporary Construction Activities
Proposed grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the project
could create a substantial additional source of polluted runoff which could have short-
term impacts on surface water quality. Construction activities could include; clearing and
grading; excavation; stockpiling of soils and materials; and other typical construction
activities. Pollutants associated with construction would degrade water quality if they are
washed into surface waters. Sediment is often the most common pollutant associated
with construction sites because of the associated earth-moving activities and areas of
exposed soil. Hydrocarbons such as fuels, asphalt materials, oils, and hazardous
materials such as paints and concrete discharged from construction sites could also
result in impacts downstream. Debris and trash could be washed into existing storm
drainage channels to downstream surface waters. These activities could impact off-site
aquatic habitat, upland wildlife, and aesthetic land values.
Project construction activities must comply with the requirements outlined in the CVMC,
JRMP, and BMPDM. Consistent with these requirements, the SWQMP prepared for the
project identified a preliminary list of BMPs, which would be implemented as project
design features, to minimize disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or
prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff. The project’s temporary
construction BMPs would include the following: street sweeping, waste disposal, vehicle
and equipment maintenance, concrete washout area, materials storage, minimization of
hazardous materials, and proper handling and storage of hazardous materials. Typical
erosion and sediment control measures include: silt fences; fiber rolls; gravel bags;
temporary desilting basins; velocity check dams; temporary ditches or swales; storm
water inlet protection; and soil stabilization measures. Implementation of these
measures, as project design features, would assure that short-term impacts from
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-10
construction-related activities would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements.
Project Operational Activities
Operation of the project would have the potential to generate pollutants and storm water
runoff. For example, sediment discharge due to post-construction areas left bare;
nutrients from fertilizers; commercial/hospital hazardous waste that is improperly
disposed of; trash and debris deposited in drain inlets; oil and grease, by products
resulting from vehicles; heavy metals; bacteria and viruses; and pesticides from
landscaping. The project would comply with the City’s General Plan policies relating to
protecting and improving water quality, including Policies E 2.3 through E 2.5. These
policies require new development to utilize feasible methods to minimize storm water
discharge. Pursuant to the project’s SWQMP, the project is a Priority Development
Project in which site design, source control, and structural pollutant control measures
apply (see Appendix E, SWQMP). The SWQMP provides examples of BMPs which
would be included as project features. These features are consistent with the
requirements of the CVMC, JRMP, and BMPDM. Site design BMPS are proposed to
maintain ongoing reduction of potential polluted runoff during project operation. For
example, the project includes landscaping of all pervious areas to ensure loose soils are
eradicated and rain and irrigation are absorbed into vegetation. Source control and
structural BMPs are proposed to treat potentially polluted runoff prior to entering the
storm drain system. The project includes on-site storm drain inlets which would include
signage and stenciling advising of downstream habitats. Additionally, the project
includes two biofiltration basins for hydromodification (reduction of runoff volume) and
pollution control. The location of the biofiltration basins and other proposed BMPS are
shown in Figure 3-11.
In order to assure ongoing operation of the project’s storm water BMPs, the BMPDM
requires the consideration of the source of funding for long-term maintenance of on-site
BMPs. It is noted in the project’s SWQMP that structural BMPs must be maintained in
perpetuity and the City would be required to confirm a long-term maintenance plan, prior
to project approval.
Overall, implementation of site design, source control, and structural pollutant control
measures would preclude any violations of applicable standards and discharge
regulations, ensuring that the project would be consistent with the City’s Threshold
Standards. Therefore, project impacts, associated with construction and long-term
operations would be less than significant.
Threshold 2: Deplete Ground Water Reserves or Alter Ground Water Quality
The project would not use ground water sources and would instead connect to the Otay
Water District existing public water system. Construction activities would not involve
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-11
pumping of ground water. In addition, the foundation excavations would not extend
below the ground water table. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater would occur.
Threshold 3: Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Project Site
Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-site
Runoff from the project site currently flows to into two existing desilting basins located at
the south side of the project site. Hydromodification is the alteration of the natural flow of
water through a landscape. Failure to adjust for hydromodification in project designs
could result in increased impairment of downstream waterbodies due to increased
erosion and sedimentation as flows increase or drainage patterns are changed.
Construction and operation of the project could result in changes to the volume and/or
velocity of runoff which flows from the project site resulting in increased erosion or
siltation.
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Project grading, excavation, and construction activities could increase the potential for
erosion and siltation.
As discussed above, a SWQMP was prepared for the project providing a preliminary list
of BMPs as project design features to be employed during temporary construction
activities. These measures are consistent with the requirements of the MS4 Permit and
City storm water standards. The implementation of these features would avoid erosion
and water quality impacts by minimizing site disturbance during construction.
LONG-TERM POST CONSTRUCTION USES
The project would construct 270,274 square feet of new impervious surfaces throughout
the project site, including sidewalks, parking areas, and a new structure. Allowing the
permanent development of impervious surfaces could increase runoff and potentially
result in new or the worsening of existing erosion due to increase volume and velocity of
storm water runoff. State and local regulations including the NPDES and the BMPDM
require the development of a hydromodification management plan. The project’s
SWQMP identifies the inclusion of two biofiltration basins as structural BMPs and
hydromodification which would assist in the reduction of storm water flow volume and
velocity. Specifically, the project would continue to drain to the south where the two
detention basins would temporarily store the increased runoff, allowing saturation, before
release and slowing increased project runoff. As analyzed by the Drainage Study
prepared for the project (see Appendix G), and shown in Table 5.8-1, the project would
decrease peak runoff volumes and flow rate compared to the existing.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-12
TABLE 5.8-1
PEAK FLOW AT DETENTION BASINS
(cfs)
Existing
Condition
Proposed Condition
Before Detention
Proposed Condition
After Detention
Basin 1
13.4 24.5 10.7
Basin 2
10.8 17.6 7.8
SOURCE: Drainage Study (see Appendix G).
cfs = cubic feet per second
Therefore, under post-development conditions, the detention basins, would allow the
project to decrease runoff volumes that would increase as a result of the new impervious
areas. The proposed detention basins are designed for placement to catch the existing
southern drainage flows and are adequately sized to store all the excessive runoff.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the construction and operation of the project could result in the alteration of
drainage patterns in a manner which could result in substantial erosion or siltation, on- or
off-site. The project would adhere to all relevant regulations, including County policies
intended to reduce adverse effects associated with excessive erosion or siltation. The
project would include the two on-site detention basins implementing City policies relating
to storm water and drainage flows and ensuring compliance with federal and state
permits. The project’s impact on drainage patterns relating to erosion and siltation would
be less than significant.
Result in Increasing the Rate of Surface Runoff in a Manner that would cause Flooding
The project site is not located in an area identified as being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area as delineated on Figure 9-8: Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Map
of the City’s General Plan (Chula Vista 2005a). As described above, the project would
maintain the existing drainage pattern, and runoff would be released at a rate less than
the existing. The project’s impact on drainage patterns relating to flooding would be less
than significant.
Result in Exceedance of Storm Water System
Generally, drainage facilities including storm drains, culverts, inlets, channels, curbs,
roads, or other such structures are designed to prevent flooding by collecting storm
water runoff and directing flows to either the natural drainage course and/or away from
urban development. The City’s GMP establishes the requirement for new development
to be designed to ensure adequate drainage facilities (see also CVMC
Section 19.09.040). If drainage facilities are not adequately designed, built, or properly
maintained, new runoff could exceed the capacity of the existing storm water system. As
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-13
discussed above, implementation of the project, including the development of new
imperious surfaces could have the potential to substantially alter drainages and
hydrology, during construction and post-construction activities, which would potentially
increase volume and velocity of storm water runoff.
The City and its servicing districts strive to maintain existing public facilities to meet
current and future demand, and to comply with federal, state, and local requirements
(City’s PFS Element Section 3.1.1). The project site is being developed as part of a
master planned community in accordance with the Eastlake II General Development
Plan (GDP). The project is an allowed use pursuant to the relevant planning documents
including the Eastlake II GDP and Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning
Area Plan that allows hospital uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore,
construction of the project has been anticipated which increases the City and service
district’s ability to schedule and construct needed improvements.
The project would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies, including
GM 1.1 and PFS 1.4, which assures that new developments do not overload existing
facilities. Specifically, as previously discussed, the project would be required to minimize
its storm water impacts and provide necessary on-site and off-site improvements to
storm water runoff and drainage facilities. The project includes site design, source
control, and structural pollutant control measures, including two biofiltration basins which
would reduce runoff volume and velocity. Additionally, the project has developed a
comprehensive drainage plan. As shown in Figure 3-11, runoff is maintained in its
southern flow and directed into the two detention basins which would temporarily store
runoff, allowing saturation, before release, thereby and slowing increased project runoff.
Drainage flow would be reduced compared to the existing (see Table 5.8-1). The project
storm water runoff would be transferred from the site to the existing 24-inch storm drain
line located within the cul-de-sac at the terminus of Showplace Drive. No increase in
pipe size or any off-site storm water facilities would be required. Overall, impacts
associated with the exceedance of storm water drainage system capacity would be less
than significant.
Result in Impeding or Redirecting Flood Flows
As previously discussed, the project has been designed to be in compliance with all
relevant regulations, and would comply with the City’s General Plan PFS and GM
Elements. Through site design, source control and structural pollutant control measures,
the project would maintain the existing southerly drainage flow, result in a reduction in
storm water peak flows existing the site compared to the existing conditions, and would
temporarily store runoff within two biofiltration basins, allowing saturation, before release
into the City’s storm drain system. Through regulatory compliance, and maximizing use
of feasible BMPs, the project’s impacts associated with impeding or redirecting flood
flows would be less than significant.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.8-14
Threshold 4: Release Pollutants due to Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones
The project site is not located in an area identified as having a potential for flooding as
delineated on Figure 9-8: Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Map of the City’s General
Plan (Chula Vista 2005a). Additionally, the project site is located approximately 14 miles
east of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, no impact related to flood hazards, tsunamis, or
seiche zones would occur.
Threshold 5: Conflict with Implementation of a Water Quality Control or Sustainable
Groundwater Management Plan
As described above, the project would comply with the CVMC, JRMP, and BMPDM
through implementation of the construction BMPs and post-construction BMPs
documented in the SWQMP prepared for the project. As additionally described above,
the project would not involve pumping of ground water, nor would the project’s
foundation excavations extend below the ground water table. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with a water quality control plan or a sustainable groundwater
management plan.
5.8.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Project construction and operation would not violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, alter existing drainage patterns resulting in erosion or siltation,
increased rates of runoff, exceed storm water capacity, or impede flood flows. The
project includes construction, site design, source control, and structural pollutant control
measures, including two biofiltration basins located on the southern boundary of the
project site. Storm water runoff flows would be slowed, treated, and released to the
City’s storm water system which has adequate capacity to support the project runoff.
The project would adhere to all federal, regional, and local water quality control plans to
ensure that the project complies with the MS4 Permit and all relevant regulations. No
groundwater would be affected, nor is the project site located within a flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones. All project impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality
would be less than significant.
5.8.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-1
5.9 Noise
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential noise
impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital project (project). The discussion is based on the Noise Analysis (Appendix H)
prepared for the project by RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON 2019).
5.9.1 Existing Conditions
5.9.1.1 Existing Ambient Noise
Existing noise levels on and in the vicinity of the project site are described in Appendix H.
Noise measurements were taken to obtain typical ambient noise levels at the project site
and in the vicinity. A total of three 15-minute ground-floor measurements (5 feet above the
ground) were taken. Measurements were made on and in the vicinity of the project site,
as described below. The locations of the measurements are shown on Figure 5.9-1.
Measurement 1 was located at the northeast corner of the project site, approximately
400 feet west of Hunte Parkway and 200 feet northwest of Yosemite Drive. Noise levels
were measured for 15 minutes. The main noise source at this location was vehicle traffic
on Yosemite Drive. Secondary sources of noise included activities at Eastlake Middle
School, and airplanes. Vehicle traffic on Yosemite Drive was counted during the
measurement period. The average measured noise level was 52.4 A-weighted decibels
one-hour equivalent noise level [dB(A) Leq].
Measurement 2 was located near the northern project boundary, approximately 130 feet
south of River Rock Road. Noise levels were measured for 15 minutes. The main noise
source at this location was vehicle traffic on River Rock Road and airplanes. Secondary
sources of noise included activities at Eastlake Middle School. Vehicle traffic on River
Rock Road was counted during the measurement period. The average measured noise
level was 48.8 dB(A) Leq.
Measurement 3 was located at the southern project boundary at the end of the Showroom
Place cul-de-sac. Noise levels were measured for 15 minutes. The main noise source at
this location was vehicle traffic on Showroom Place. Secondary sources of noise included
a vacuum, an intercom at Eastlake Middle School, and airplanes. Vehicle traffic on
Showroom Place was counted during the measurement period. The average measured
noise level was 46.4 dB(A) Leq.
FIGURE 5.9-1
Noise Measurement Locations
!(
!(
!(
3
1
2
!(
!(
!(
3
1
2
Image Source: Nearmap (Flown May 2020)
0 200Feet [
Project Boundary
!(Measurement Locations
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig5.9-1_EIR.mxd 9/22/2020 lrb
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-3
5.9.2 Regulatory Setting
5.9.2.1 State
California Green Building Standards Code – Environmental Comfort
For nonresidential structures, Title 24, Chapter 12, Section 1207.5 refers to 2019
California Green Building Standards, Chapter 5 – Nonresidential Mandatory Measures,
Division 5.5 – Environmental Quality, Section 5.507 – Environmental Comfort,
Subsection 5.507.4 – Acoustical Control. Pursuant to these standards, all nonresidential
building construction shall employ building assemblies and components that achieve a
composite sound transmission class rating of at least 50 or shall otherwise demonstrate
that exterior noise shall not result in interior noise environment where noise levels exceed
50 dB(A) Leq in occupied areas during any hour of operation (California Code of
Regulations 2019).
5.9.2.2 Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Environmental Element of the City of Chula Vista (City) General Plan contains
applicable noise/land use compatibility guidelines, which are shown in Table 5.9-1. As
shown, noise sensitive uses such as the project are considered compatible when located
in areas where exterior noise levels are 65 CNEL or less (City of Chula Vista 2005a). The
project would be considered a “similar use considered noise sensitive” and proposes
outdoor use areas. For the project, the City applies this exterior noise level standard at the
proposed exterior use areas which include the six proposed exterior activity areas and the
staff outdoor area.
TABLE 5.9-1
EXTERIOR LAND USE/NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
Land Use
CNEL
50 55 60 65 70 75
Residential
Schools, Libraries, Daycare Facilities, Convalescent Homes, Outdoor
Use Areas, and Other Similar Uses Considered Noise Sensitive
Neighborhood Parks, Playgrounds
Offices and Professional
Places of Worship (excluding outdoor use areas)
Golf Courses
Retail and Wholesale Commercial, Restaurants, Movie Theaters
Industrial, Manufacturing
The following objectives and policies found in the Environmental Element are relevant to
the project:
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-4
OBJECTIVE E 21
Protect people from excessive noise through careful land use planning and the
incorporation of appropriate mitigation techniques.
Policy EE 21.1: Apply the exterior land use-noise compatibility guidelines contained in
Table 9-2 of this Environmental Element to new development where applicable and in light
of project-specific considerations.
Policy EE 21.2: Where applicable, the assessment and mitigation of interior noise levels
shall adhere to the applicable requirements of the California Building Code with local
amendments and other applicable established City standards.
Policy EE 21.3: Promote the use of available technologies in building construction to
improve noise attenuation capacities.
OBJECTIVE E 22
Protect the community from the effects of transportation noise.
Policy EE 22.5: Require projects to construct appropriate mitigation measures in order to
attenuate existing and projected traffic noise levels in accordance with applicable
standards, including the exterior land use/noise compatibility guidelines contained in Table
9-2 of this Environmental Element.
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
The City of Chula Municipal Code (CVMC) Title 19, Chapter 19.68, et seq. (Noise Control
Ordinance) establishes noise criteria to prevent noise and vibration that may jeopardize
the health or welfare of the City’s citizens or degrade their quality of life.
ON-SITE GENERATED NOISE
CVMC Section 19.68.030 defines exterior noise standards for various receiving land uses.
Receiving land uses from the project include primarily residential and commercial uses.
The noise standards are not to be exceeded at the portion of a property used for a
particular land use. For nuisance noise, the noise standards cannot be exceeded at any
time. Examples of nuisance noise provided in the Noise Control Ordinance include pets in
residential neighborhoods, private parties of limited duration, sound amplifiers and musical
instruments, and any activities in commercial areas other than permitted uses. For
environmental noise, the Leq in any one hour cannot exceed the noise standards. These
standards are shown in Table 5.9-2. The noise standards in Table 5.9-2 do not apply to
construction activities.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-5
TABLE 5.9-2
CITY OF CHULA VISTA EXTERIOR NOISE LIMITS
Receiving Land Use Category
Noise Level [dB(A)]1,2,3
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
(Weekdays)
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
(Weekdays)
10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
(Weekends)
8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
(Weekends)
All residential (except multiple dwelling) 45 55
Multiple dwelling residential 50 60
Commercial 60 65
Light Industry – I-R and I-L zone 70 70
Heavy Industry – I zone 80 80
SOURCE: CVMC Section 19.68.030.
1 Environmental Noise – One-hour equivalent in any hour; Nuisance Noise – not to be exceeded any time
2 According to CVMC Section 19,68,030(b)(2), if the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible
sound such as a whine, screech or hum, or contains a repetitive impulsive noise such as hammering or
riveting, the standard limits shall be reduced by 5 decibels.
3 If the measured ambient level, measured when the alleged noise violation source is not operating,
exceeds the standard noise limit, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be the ambient noise level.
Section 19.68.060(A) states that “Warning devices necessary for the protection of public
safety, as, for example, police, fire and ambulance sirens, and train horns, are exempted
from the provisions of this title.”
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Construction noise is regulated by CVMC Section 17.24.040, which prohibits construction
and building work in residential zones that would cause noises disturbing to the peace,
comfort, and quiet enjoyment of property of any person residing or working in the vicinity
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday.
5.9.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to noise would be
significant if the project would:
1. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
2. Generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.
3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan,
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the area
to excessive noise levels.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-6
5.9.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Ambient Noise Levels
The determination of whether an impact would occur is based on the application of the
analysis methodology set forth in Section 4.0 of the Noise Report prepared for the project
(see Appendix H). As detailed therein, specific modeling was applied to determine whether
construction, traffic, and on-site generated noise associated with the project would result
in impacts above the identified thresholds.
Construction Noise
Construction equipment with a diesel engine typically generates maximum noise levels
from 70 and 95 dB(A) maximum sound level (Lmax) at a distance of 50 feet (Federal
Highway Administration [FHWA] 2006). Table 5.9-3 summarizes typical construction
equipment noise levels.
TABLE 5.9-3
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Equipment
Noise Level at 50 Feet
[dB(A) Leq]
Typical Duty
Cycle
Auger Drill Rig 85 20%
Backhoe 80 40%
Blasting 94 1%
Chain Saw 85 20%
Clam Shovel 93 20%
Compactor (ground) 80 20%
Compressor (air) 80 40%
Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40%
Concrete Pump 82 20%
Concrete Saw 90 20%
Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 20%
Dozer 85 40%
Dump Truck 84 40%
Excavator 85 40%
Front End Loader 80 40%
Generator (25 kilovolt amps or less) 70 50%
Generator (more than 25 kilovolt amps) 82 50%
Grader 85 40%
Hydra Break Ram 90 10%
Impact Pile Driver (diesel or drop) 95 20%
In situ Soil Sampling Rig 84 20%
Jackhammer 85 20%
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 20%
Paver 85 50%
Pneumatic Tools 85 50%
Pumps 77 50%
Rock Drill 85 20%
Roller 74 40%
Scraper 85 40%
Tractor 84 40%
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-7
TABLE 5.9-3
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Equipment
Noise Level at 50 Feet
[dB(A) Leq]
Typical Duty
Cycle
Vacuum Excavator (vac-truck) 85 40%
Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 20%
Vibratory Pile Driver 95 20%
SOURCE: FHWA 2006.
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels one-hour equivalent noise level
Average construction noise levels were calculated for the simultaneous operation of three
common pieces of construction equipment from Table 5.9-3: backhoe, excavator, and
loader. The usage factors were applied to the maximum noise level at 50 feet for each
piece of equipment, and then noise levels were added logarithmically. Hourly average
noise levels would be approximately 85 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet from the center of construction
activity when assessing three pieces of common construction equipment working
simultaneously. However, construction noise is considered a point source and would
attenuate at approximately 6 dB(A) for every doubling of distance. To reflect the nature of
grading and construction activities, equipment was modeled as an area source distributed
over the project footprint. Noise levels were modeled at a series of 20 receivers located at
the adjacent uses. The results are summarized in Table 5.9-4. Modeled receiver locations
and construction noise contours are shown in Figure 5.9-2.
As shown in Table 5.9-4, construction noise levels would range from 56 to 68 dB(A) Leq at
the adjacent uses.
TABLE 5.9-4
CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Receiver Land Use
Noise Level
[dB(A) Leq]
1 Residential 57
2 Residential 58
3 Residential 57
4 Residential 56
5 Residential 56
6 Residential 58
7 Residential 61
8 Residential 58
9 Residential 57
10 Residential 59
11 Residential 59
12 Residential 58
13 Residential 58
14 Commercial 62
15 Commercial 63
16 Commercial 63
17 Commercial 60
18 Commercial 57
19 Boat/RV Storage 68
20 Commercial 68
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels one-hour equivalent noise level
FIGURE 5.9-2
Construction Noise Contours
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
1
2
3
4
567
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
1
2
3
4
567
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
Image Source: Nearmap (Flown May 2020)
Project Boundary
!(Construction Receivers
Construction Noise
60 dB(A) Leq
65 dB(A) Leq
70 dB(A) Leq
75 dB(A) Leq
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig5.9-2_EIR.mxd 9/22/2020 lrb
0 200Feet [
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-9
Although existing adjacent residences would be exposed to construction noise levels that
could be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary. Additionally,
construction activities would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday,
as specified in the CVMC. Because construction activities associated with the project
would comply with the applicable City zoning regulations for construction, temporary
increases in noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant.
Traffic Noise (On-Site Impacts)
The main sources of vehicle traffic noise on the project site are Hunte Parkway, Fenton
Street, Showroom Place, Yosemite Drive, and River Rock Road. Traffic parameters
associated with these roads are shown in Table 5.9-5. The total project trip generation of
2,400 average daily traffic (ADT) was used to model vehicle traffic noise from Showroom
Place (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 2020).
TABLE 5.9-5
TRAFFIC PARAMETERS
Roadway
Average
Daily Traffic
Speed
(mph)
Vehicle Mix
(percent)
Autos
Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Buses Motorcycles
Hunte Parkway 22,800 45 95 2 1 1 1
Fenton Street 24,800 35 95 2 1 1 1
Showroom Place 2,400 25 95 2 1 1 1
Yosemite Drive 1,200 25 95 2 1 1 1
River Rock Road 1,200 25 95 2 1 1 1
mph = miles per hour
The exterior noise level standard for the project’s noise sensitive uses is 65 CNEL. To
determine whether this standard would be met at the project’s exterior use areas, which
include the six proposed exterior activity areas and the staff outdoor area, on-site traffic
noise level contours were developed. These contours take into account shielding provided
by the proposed building and grading, but do not take in to account shielding due to
adjacent buildings and are therefore conservative. Future vehicle traffic noise-level
contours are shown in Figure 5.9-3. As shown in Table 5.9-6, noise levels at the exterior
activity areas and the staff outdoor area would range from 31 to 45 CNEL. These noise
levels at the exterior use areas would be compatible with the City’s standard of 65 CNEL.
FIGURE 5.9-3
Vehicle Traffic Noise Contours
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
1
2 3
4567
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
1
2 3
4567
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Image Source: Nearmap (Flown May 2020)
0 250Feet [Project Boundary
Site Plan Lines
!(Receivers
Vehicle Traffic Noise
40 CNEL
45 CNEL
50 CNEL
55 CNEL
60 CNEL
65 CNEL
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig5.9-3_EIR.mxd 9/22/2020 lrb
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-11
Exterior noise levels at the building façade are projected to range from 38 to 51 CNEL.
The interior noise level standard is 50 CNEL. When windows are open, standard
construction techniques provide a 10 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction (FHWA
2011). Based on these standards, interior noise levels would be reduced to 41 CNEL or
less. These interior noise levels would be compatible with the City’s standard of 50 CNEL
and would be less than significant.
TABLE 5.9-6
FUTURE VEHICLE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Receiver Location
Exterior Noise Level
(CNEL)
1 Staff Outdoor Area 41
2 Exterior Activity Area 34
3 Exterior Activity Area 40
4 Exterior Activity Area 45
5 Exterior Activity Area 32
6 Exterior Activity Area 31
7 Exterior Activity Area 36
8 Building Façade 39
9 Building Façade 41
10 Building Façade 50
11 Building Façade 50
12 Building Façade 48
13 Building Façade 51
14 Building Façade 40
15 Building Façade 38
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Off-Site Traffic Noise
The additional vehicle trips associated with the project would increase noise levels on
nearby roadways. A noise increase of 3 dB or more would be considered significant
because 3 dB is the level at which an increase in noise is perceptible to a person. Traffic
noise levels were calculated based on the anticipated future total ADT volumes on each
roadway segment. Existing and future (year 2035) traffic volumes with and without the
project were obtained from the project traffic impact analysis (Linscott, Law & Greenspan,
Engineers 2020). Table 5.9-7 summarizes the future traffic volumes for the area roadway
segments.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-12
TABLE 5.9-7
FUTURE VEHICLE TRAFFIC PARAMETERS
Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic
Speed
(mph) Existing
Existing
+ Project Year 2035
Year 2035
+ Project
Otay Lakes Road
State Route 125 Northbound Ramps
to Eastlake Parkway 43,234 44,842 57,500 59,108 50
Eastlake Parkway to Lane Avenue 29,726 30,950 39,100 40,324 50
Lane Avenue to Fenton Street 19,207 20,431 29,200 30,424 50
Fenton Street to Hunte Parkway 18,747 19,131 29,200 29,584 50
East Hunte Parkway 10,674 10,722 29,300 29,348 50
Eastlake Parkway
Fenton Street to Otay Lakes Road 23,249 23,825 27,500 28,076 40
Fenton Street
Lane Avenue to Showroom Place 8,202 8,994 12,000 12,792 34
Showroom Place to Otay Lakes Road 6,256 7,864 10,200 11,808 34
Hunte Parkway
Otay Lakes Road to Clubhouse Drive 14,911 15,079 19,400 19,568 45
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 2020.
mph = miles per hour
Table 5.9-8 shows a conservative assessment of traffic noise levels based on the existing,
existing plus project, year 2035, and year 2035 plus project noise levels generated by
traffic. Modeled noise levels do not account for shielding provided by intervening barriers
and structures. Table 5.9-8 also summarizes the direct and cumulative traffic noise level
increases due to the project. As shown, direct off-site noise level increases due to the
project would be 1 dB or less. Therefore, direct off-site noise impacts associated with the
project traffic would be less than significant.
TABLE 5.9-8
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT AND AMBIENT NOISE INCREASES
(CNEL)
Roadway Segment Existing
Existing
+ Project
Direct
Increase
Year
2035
Year 2035
+ Project
Direct
Increase
Cumulative
Increase
Over Existing
Otay Lakes Road
State Route 125 Northbound
Ramps to Eastlake Parkway 77 77 <1 78 78 <1 1
Eastlake Parkway to Lane Avenue 75 75 <1 75 76 1 1
Lane Avenue to Fenton Street 73 74 1 75 75 <1 2
Fenton Street to Hunte Parkway 73 74 1 75 75 <1 2
East Hunte Parkway 70 70 <1 75 75 <1 5
Eastlake Parkway
Fenton Street to Otay Lakes Road 72 72 <1 72 73 1 1
Fenton Street
Lane Avenue to Showroom Place 66 66 <1 68 68 <1 2
Showroom Place to Otay Lakes
Road 65 66 1 67 68 1 3
Hunte Parkway
Otay Lakes Road to Clubhouse
Drive 71 71 <1 72 72 <1 1
CNEL = Community noise equivalent level
The total year 2035 plus project increase over the existing condition would range from less
than 1 dB to 5 dB. However, the project’s contribution to the increase over ambient noise
levels would be 1 dB or less. Therefore, the project would result in a less than cumulatively
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-13
considerable off-site noise level increase, and cumulative traffic noise impacts associated
with the project would be less than significant.
On-Site Generated Noise
The primary on-site noise sources from the project would be from heating, ventilating, and
air conditioning equipment, an emergency generator, and truck deliveries and loading
dock activities. Specifications relating to potential on-site noise sources are detailed in
Section 4.3.1 of the Noise Study (see Appendix H). For a worst-case analysis, property
line noise levels due to all noise sources were modeled and compared to the most
restrictive nighttime CVMC limits. Typical noise levels without the continuous operation of
the emergency generator were also modeled. Noise contours on and off-site associated
with the on-site noise sources are shown in Figures 5.9-4a and 5.9-4b. Figure 5.9-4a
shows the noise contours with operation of the emergency generator, and Figure 5.9-4b
shows the noise contours without operation of the emergency generator. As shown in
Table 5.9-9, property line noise levels with and without operation of the emergency
generator are not projected to exceed the applicable residential and commercial CVMC
limits. Therefore, impacts related to on-site generated noise at off-site locations would be
less than significant.
TABLE 5.9-9
HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING NOISE LEVELS
AT ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Receiver Land Use
Noise Level [dB(A) Leq] Noise Ordinance Limit
Daytime/Nighttime
[dB(A) Leq] With Generator
Without
Generator
1 Residential 38 37 55/45
2 Residential 38 37 55/45
3 Residential 35 34 55/45
4 Residential 40 40 55/45
5 Residential 39 39 55/45
6 Residential 39 38 55/45
7 Residential 40 40 55/45
8 Residential 41 40 55/45
9 Residential 43 43 55/45
10 Residential 43 42 55/45
11 Residential 44 41 55/45
12 Residential 45 40 55/45
13 Commercial 49 42 65/60
14 Commercial 54 47 65/60
15 Commercial 54 51 65/60
16 Commercial 50 48 65/60
17 Boat/RV Storage 44 42 --
18 Boat/RV Storage 46 46 --
19 Commercial 45 45 65/60
20 Commercial 40 39 65/60
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels one-hour equivalent noise level
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!d
"6"6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9101112
13
14
15
16
17 18 19 20
FIGURE 5.9-4a
On-Site Generated Noise Contours
with Emergency Generator
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!d
"6"6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9101112
13
14
15
16
17 18 19 20
Image Source: Nearmap (Flown May 2020)
Project Boundary
!(Receivers
Site Plan Lines
Noise Sources
!d Emergency Generator
!HVAC
"6 Loading Docks
Delivery Trucks
On-Site Noise
40 dB(A) Leq
45 dB(A) Leq
50 dB(A) Leq
55 dB(A) Leq
60 dB(A) Leq
65 dB(A) Leq
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig5.9-4a_EIR.mxd 9/22/2020 lrb
0 150Feet [
FIGURE 5.9-4b
On-Site Generated Noise Contours
without Emergency Generator
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
"6"6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9101112
13
14
15
16
17 18 19 20
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
"6"6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9101112
13
14
15
16
17 18 19 20
Image Source: Nearmap (Flown May 2020)
Project Boundary
!(Receivers
Site Plan Lines
Noise Sources
!HVAC
"6 Loading Docks
Delivery Trucks
On-Site Noise
40 dB(A) Leq
45 dB(A) Leq
50 dB(A) Leq
55 dB(A) Leq
60 dB(A) Leq
65 dB(A) Leq
M:\JOBS5\9434\common_gis\fig5.9-4b_EIR.mxd 9/22/2020 lrb
0 150Feet [
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-16
Threshold 2: Ground Borne Vibration and Ground Borne Noise Levels
Vibration consists of energy waves transmitted through solid material (California
Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013). Ground borne vibration propagates from the
source through the ground to adjacent buildings by surface waves. Vibration energy spreads
out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease with
distance away from the source. Ground borne vibration is measured by its peak particle
velocity (PPV). The PPV is normally described in inches per second (in/sec). Human
reaction to vibration is dependent on the environment the receiver is in as well as individual
sensitivity. As example, vibration outdoors is rarely noticeable and generally not considered
annoying. Typically, humans must be inside a structure for vibrations to become noticeable
and/or annoying. Based on several federal studies, the threshold of perception is 0.035 PPV,
with 0.24 in/sec PPV being a distinctly perceptible (Caltrans 2013).
Construction operations have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary
ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations
involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the
ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effects of ground
vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable
vibrations at moderate levels, and damage to nearby structures at the highest levels.
Vibration perception would occur at structures, as people do not perceive vibrations
without vibrating structures.
Project construction equipment used during site grading would have the greatest potential
to generate vibrations that would affect nearby residential land uses. The nearest
residential uses are located at least 100 feet from the project boundary. Large bulldozers
would have the greatest potential to generate vibrations that would affect adjacent
residential land uses. Vibration levels due to large bulldozers would be 0.089 in/sec PPV
at 25 feet (Caltrans 2013). Using the Federal Transit Authority’s recommended procedure
for applying a propagation adjustment to vibration reference levels, the vibration level at
the nearest residential use would be 0.011 in/sec PPV. As construction vibration levels
would be below the distinctly perceptible threshold, ground borne vibration and noise
impacts from construction would be less than significant.
No operational components of the project include significant ground borne noise or
vibration sources and no significant vibrations sources currently exist, or are planned, in
the project area. Thus, no significant ground borne noise or vibration impacts would occur
with the operation of the project.
Threshold 3: Airports and Airport Land Use Plans
The project site is located 5.1 miles west of John Nichol’s Field Airport and 9.3 miles north
of Brown Field Municipal Airport. John Nichol’s Field Airport does not have an adopted
Airport Land Use Commission Plan (ALUCP) and the project is not located within the
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9 Noise
5.9-17
Brown Field Municipal Airport influence area (Brown Field Municipal Airport ALUCP, San
Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2010). Therefore, the project would not require
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review, nor is it subject to any noise or safety zone
standards. No impacts would occur.
5.9.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Exterior noise levels are predicted to exceed 65 CNEL. Although the existing adjacent
residences would be exposed to construction noise levels that could be heard above
ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary. Additionally, construction activities
would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, as specified in the
CVMC. Because construction activities associated with the project would comply with the
applicable regulation for construction, temporary increases in noise levels from
construction activities would be less than significant. Exterior noise levels at the building
façade are projected to range from 38 to 51 CNEL. The interior noise level standard is
50 CNEL. When windows are open, standard construction techniques provide a 10 dB
exterior-to-interior noise level reduction (FHWA 2011). Based on these standards, interior
noise levels would be reduced to 41 CNEL or less.
Additionally, direct off-site noise level increases due to the project would be 1 dB or less.
Therefore, on- and off-site traffic noise impacts associated with the project traffic would be
less than significant. On-site generated noise levels at the residential property lines would
range from 35 to 45 dB(A) Leq with the generator running and 34 to 43 dB(A) Leq without
the generator running. Noise levels would not exceed the single family residential CVMC
limits. At the commercial property lines, noise levels would range from 40 to 54 dB(A) Leq
with the generator running and 39 to 51 dB(A) Leq without the generator running. Noise
levels would not exceed the commercial CVMC limits. Therefore, all impacts related to
increased noise levels above ambient conditions would be less than significant.
Construction activities associated with the project would comply with the applicable
regulations for construction, including ground borne vibration. Noise impacts from the
project’s generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels
would be less than significant.
The project site is located 5.1 miles west of John Nichol’s Field Airport and 9.3 miles north
of Brown Field Municipal Airport. John Nichol’s Field Airport does not have an adopted
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the project is not located within the Brown Field
Municipal Airport influence area (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2010).
Therefore, the project would not require Airport Land Use Commission review, nor is it
subject to any noise or safety zone standards. No impacts would occur.
5.9.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-1
5.10 Public Services and Recreation
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential impacts to
public services due to implementation of the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project
(project). Public services are those functions that serve residents on a communitywide
basis. These functions include fire protection and emergency services, police protection,
schools, parks, and libraries. Recreation is also included herein as the provision of
adequate recreational facilities is an integral part of the public services and facilities
provided by the City of Chula Vista (City) public services. The analysis within the
following sections is based on information provided by the local service providers on City
websites, findings from other approved planning documents, and technical reports
related to the provision of public services.
5.10.1 Existing Conditions
5.10.1.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Services
The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) provides fire protection, suppression,
and safety services to the City. The CVFD currently maintains 10 fire stations throughout
the City. CVFD responses include medical responses (85 percent), firefighting
responses (10 percent), and hazardous materials, rescues, and public assistance
responses (5 percent).
The project site is within the Engine Coverage Area of Fire Station 8 (CVFD 2012). Fire
Station 8 opened in December 2006. The station is located approximately 0.8 mile
southeast of the project site (1.2 on-road miles) at 1180 Woods Drive. Equipment at Fire
Station 8 includes one Type I Engine, which is staffed with four firefighters and carries
500 gallons of water and various types of hose, along with rescue and emergency
medical equipment (CVFD 2020). Additionally, Fire Station 6 is located approximately
1.0 mile northwest of the project site (1.6 on-road miles) at 605 Mount Miguel Road.
Equipment at Fire Station 6 includes one Type I Engine and one Type III Brush Rig
(CVFD 2020).
5.10.1.2 Police Protection
The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) staff includes 270 sworn officers and
108 civilian employees, and more than 100 volunteers. CVPD Headquarters is located at
315 Fourth Avenue, which is approximately 7.5 miles west of the project site.
Organization is split into Patrol Operations, Investigations, Support Operations, and
Administrative Services divisions. The CVPD average police response times are
summarized in Table 5.10-1.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-2
TABLE 5.10-1
AVERAGE POLICE RESPONSE TIMES (FISCAL YEAR 2020)
Category Time Call Count
Response
Time
Priority 1 – Emergency Calls
Life-threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of
injury (crime or accident); robbery or panic alarms;
urgent cover calls from officers
471 6:14
Priority 2 – Urgent Calls
Misdemeanor in progress; possibility of injury; serious
non-routine calls (domestic violence or other
disturbances with potential for violence)
14,943 14:47
SOURCE: CVPD 2020.
5.10.1.3 Schools
The Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) is a district that provides
kindergarten through sixth grade schooling to approximately 298,000 residents in Chula
Vista, Bonita, Sunnyside, and San Diego. The CVESD serves approximately
29,600 students in 49 elementary schools (CVESD 2020).
The Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) operates middle schools and high
schools, as well as adult and alternative schools in Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National
City, and San Diego.
5.10.1.4 Parks
The City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan inventoried communitywide facilities. As of
January 2018, the citywide parks and recreation system is comprised of a variety of park
types which are categorized as regional (Otay Valley Regional Park), community (9),
neighborhood (38), mini (19), special purpose (14), town square (1), and urban park (1).
Overall acreage of parks is approximately 718 acres (City of Chula Vista 2018).
Additional recreation facilities include community centers (9), gymnasiums (5), aquatic
centers (2), and a senior center. Overall building area of recreation facilities is
approximately 211,000 square feet.
5.10.1.5 Library
The City operates three library facilities: the Civic Center Branch Library, the South
Chula Vista Branch Library, and the Otay Ranch Branch Library. The 2005 Chula Vista
General Plan recognizes that demand for library facilities will continue to increase as the
City’s population grows in the eastern areas of the City through new development, and
that location is the most important reason residents choose to utilize a particular public
library.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-3
5.10.2 Regulatory Setting
5.10.2.1 Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Public Facilities and Services (PFS) Element of the City’s General Plan establishes
objectives to support sufficient levels of fire protection, emergency medical service, and
police services to protect public safety and property; additional objectives support the
development of the library system and parks and recreation system. The following
objective and policies found in the PFS Element are relevant to the project:
OBJECTIVE 5
Maintain sufficient levels of fire protection, emergency medical service and police
services to protect public safety and property.
Policy PFS 5.7: Prior to approval of any discretionary projects, ensure that construction
is phased with provision of police and fire protection services such that services are
provided prior to or concurrent with need.
OBJECTIVE 6
Provide adequate fire and police protection services to newly developing and
redeveloping areas of the City.
Policy PFS 6.1: Continue to require new development and redevelopment projects to
demonstrate adequate access for fire and police vehicles.
OBJECTIVE 9
Develop schools that cultivate and educate people of all ages, that meet the needs of
the workforce and that serve as community centers.
Policy PFS 9.1: Coordinate with local school districts during review of applicable
discretionary approval to provide adequate school facilities, to meet needs generated by
development, and to avoid overcrowding, in accordance with the guidelines and
limitations of Government Code 65996(b).
OBJECTIVE 11
Provide a library system of facilities and programs that meets the needs of Chula Vista
residents of all ages.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-4
Policy PFS 11.1: During review of land use issues requiring discretionary approval,
coordinate with the City of Chula Vista Public Library to provide adequate library facilities
that meet the needs generated by development.
OBJECTIVE 15
Provide new park and recreation facilities for residents City-wide.
Policy PFS 15.1: Continue to pursue a city-wide standard for the provision of developed
parkland for new development projects of three acres per estimated one thousand new
residents.
The Growth Management (GM) Element provides integrated components that create an
overall Growth Management Program (GMP). Specifically, the GM Element provides a
framework for directing new development, redevelopment, and community enhancement
through a set of comprehensive goals, objectives, and policies (City of Chula Vista
2005a). The City’s GMP establishes the basis for Threshold Standards for facilities and
services, including fire and emergency services, libraries, parks and recreation, and
police. The GM Element includes the following objective and policy relevant to the
project:
OBJECTIVE 1
Concurrent public facilities and services.
Policy GM 1.11: Establish the authority to withhold discretionary approvals and
subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with
applicable Threshold Standards.
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Title 17, Section 17.10, Park Lands
Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) establishes requirements for parklands and public
facilities, including regulations for the dedication of land and development improvements
for park and recreation purposes (CVMC Section 17.10.010). The PLDO requires the
dedication of three acres of parkland per 1,000 people or a combination of land
dedication, in-lieu fees, or park development improvements to be offered at the time of
Final Map.
CVMC Title 19, Section 19.09, et seq. (Growth Management Ordinance; GMO)
delineates the City’s Threshold Standards for City facilities and services. The GMO is
intended to implement the policy framework established by the City’s General Plan and
GMP. CVMC Section 19.09.040 identifies the Thresholds Standards for the
maintenance and improvement of the current level of services related to police, fire and
emergency services, libraries, and parks and recreation. CVMC Section 19.09.050
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-5
identifies the Threshold Standard to ensure necessary school sites and infrastructure.
The City Threshold Standards are included in Section 5.10.3.
City of Chula Vista Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment Master Plan
The City updated its Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment Master Plan (FFMP) in
March 2012 and adopted it in January 2014 (CVFD 2012). The plan addresses growth
envisioned through the year 2030 and evaluates the issues and opportunities with
providing Fire and Emergency Medical Services. The plan measures services in three
concepts; distribution measures the distance/location of fire stations, concentration
measures the staffing and equipment deployment at each fire station, and distribution
measures the response time.
City of Chula Vista Library Facilities Master Plan
The purpose of the Chula Vista Public Library Facilities Master Plan (CVLFMP) is to
identify ways to improve library service delivery to the community, particularly to
residents of eastern Chula Vista. The Master Plan was developed in 1998 to make
recommendations for the future development of the Chula Vista Public Library (CVPL)
as surrounding areas continue to grow.
City of Chula Vista Public Library Strategic Facilities Plan
The CVPL Strategic Facilities Plan is intended as a foundation for the City and the library
in planning the future of library facilities in Chula Vista. The CVPL Strategic Facilities
Plan includes goals and objectives for implementing the library’s vision and mission.
These goals include maintaining an excellent and responsive materials collection,
ensuring a high quality of public library services through appropriate planning processes,
ensuring that library programs and services are accessible to the broadest range of
potential users, and increasing the visibility and community awareness of the library, its
services, programs, and funding needs (City of Chula Vista 2011b).
City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan
The City Greenbelt Master Plan provides guidance and continuity for planning open
space and constructing and maintaining the Greenbelt Trail. The Greenbelt Master Plan
addresses existing and potential trail locations, trail and staging area development
standards, maintenance responsibilities and a system of trails and open space that
serve as a unifying element in linking other trails within the central areas of the City.
City of Chula Vista Park & Recreation Master Plan
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is the blueprint for the City’s parks and recreation
system. It defines service demands and establishes goals and policies for the delivery of
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-6
parks and recreation resources. This Master Plan update reflects the expanded 2030
development forecast identified in the City’s General Plan Update.
City of Chula Vista Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
In August 1989, the Chula Vista City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2320 establishing a
Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF), which helps cover the cost of new or
expanding public facilities within the City. The facilities are required to support future
development within the City, and the fee schedule has been adopted in accordance with
Government Code Section 66000. The project would be subject to the payment of the
fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. The PFDIF amount is
determined through evaluation of the need for new facilities as it relates to the level of
service demanded by new development.
5.10.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, impacts related to public services or recreational facilities would be
significant if the project would:
1. Result in substantial adverse physical or other environmental impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection;
ii. Police protection;
iii. Schools;
iv. Parks; and
v. Other public facilities.
2. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated.
3. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
City Threshold Standards relevant to this section, as delineated in CVMC Sections
19.09.040 and 19.09.050, include the following:
• Section 19.09.040B (Fire and Emergency Medical Services) specifically requires
that “properly equipped and staffed fire and medical shall respond to calls
throughout the City within seven minutes in 80% of the cases.”
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-7
• Section 19.09.040A (Police) specifically requires that properly equipped police
units must respond to 81% of Priority 1 emergency calls within seven minutes
30 seconds and maintain an average response time of six minutes or less for
Priority 1 calls. For Priority 2 urgent calls, the police units must respond to all
Priority 2 calls within 12 minutes or less.
• Section 19.09.040C (Libraries) specifically requires that the City not fall below the
citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet of library space adequately equipped and
staffed, per 1,000 population.
• Section 19.09.040D (Parks and Recreation) specifically requires three acres of
public park land, with appropriate facilities, provided per 1,000 residents for new
development, citywide.
• Section 19.09.050B (Schools) specifically require that the City provide the local
school districts with annual residential growth forecasts to allow the districts to
plan for their abilities to accommodate such growth.
5.10.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Public Services
Impacts to fire protection and emergency services, police protection, schools, parks, or
other public services would be significant if a project would conflict with either the CEQA
Guideline thresholds of significance or the City’s efforts to achieve or maintain
performance objectives established by the City’s Threshold Standards. Each subsection
below addresses the project’s effect on public services relative to both standards.
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
For emergency response, the City’s performance objective is that properly equipped and
staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within
seven minutes in at least 80 percent of the cases.
According to the City Growth Management Oversight Commission Annual Reports, the
City achieved its goal of responding to 80 percent of calls within seven minutes for years
2017, 2018, and 2019. As discussed in Section 5.10.1.1, the project site is within the
Engine Coverage Area of Fire Station 8 and is approximately 1.2 on-road miles
northwest of Fire Station 8. In 2019, Fire Station 8 received 1,185 total calls and
responded to 66.6 percent of calls within seven minutes.
Total response time includes dispatch time (call intake and call dispatch), turnout time,
and travel time. Average dispatch time for stations east of Interstate 805 in 2019 was
61 seconds and average turn-out time was 50 seconds (City of Chula Vista 2020c).
Travel time is a function of distance; as indicated in the FFMP, the distance needed for
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-8
the 90th percentile four-minute travel time is 1.5 miles. As the project is within 1.5 miles
of Fire Station 8, the total response time is not anticipated to exceed seven minutes.
Therefore, fire protection response times to the project site are adequate.
As the project would result in additional land use development, it would contribute to
increased demand for emergency response services. The project would promote the
policies and goals of the General Plan. Consistent with City regulations, the project
would be required to pay PFDIF and would thereby be required to contribute its fair
share of the cost of facilities, staffing, and equipment necessary to accommodate
increased demand for emergency response services. Therefore, the project would not
result in increased demand for emergency response services that indirectly requires new
or expanded fire or emergency medical facilities to achieve emergency response. Under
both the CEQA and City standards, project impacts on fire protection and emergency
services would be less than significant.
Police Protection
For police protection services, the City’s Threshold Standards require properly equipped
and staffed police units that shall respond to (1) at least 81 percent of Priority 1 calls
within seven minutes 30 seconds and shall maintain an average response time of six
minutes or less for all Priority 1 calls; and (2) shall respond to Priority 2 calls within
12 minutes or less.
In 2019, the CVPD received 506 Priority 1 calls for service and responded to
approximately 74 percent within seven minutes 30 seconds. The CVPD also received
15,571 Priority 2 calls for service and had an average response time of 12 minutes.
Overall, the CVPD did not achieve performance objectives established by the City’s
Threshold Standards.
As discussed in Section 5.10.1.2, CVPD Headquarters is located at 315 Fourth Avenue,
which is approximately 7.5 miles west of the project site. Response time is not
dependent on distance from headquarters because patrol officers respond to calls for
service from the field rather than a fixed station. As the project would result in additional
land use development, it could contribute to increased demand for police protection
services. Consistent with City regulations, the City’s PFDIF, described previously, would
help cover the cost of new or expanding public facilities within the City, including police
facilities. Although the City requires additional law enforcement staff to meet City
Threshold Standards, the project would be required to pay the PFDIF, which would be
used exclusively for future facility improvements necessary to ensure that the
development contributes its fair share of the cost of police facilities and equipment
determined to be necessary to adequately accommodate new development in the City.
Therefore, the project would not result in increased demand for police protection
services that indirectly requires new or expanded police facilities to achieve response
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-9
times. Under both the CEQA and City standards, project impacts on police protection
and emergency services would be less than significant.
Schools
For schools, the City’s performance objective is that the City shall annually provide the
CVESD and the SUHSD with the City’s annual five-year residential growth forecast and
request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted growth, both citywide
and by subarea.
The project would construct a behavioral health facility and would not construct any
housing. Therefore, the project would not generate any new student enrollment and
would not require new or expanded school facilities. Under both the CEQA and City
standards, project impacts on schools would be less than significant.
Parks/Recreational Facilities
For parks and recreational facilities, the City’s performance objective is provision of three
acres of neighborhood and community park land with appropriate facilities per 1,000
residents east of Interstate 805.
The project site is not located within a designated open space or recreational area. The
project would construct a behavioral health facility and would not construct any housing.
Therefore, the project would not generate any new population and would not require new
or expanded park facilities. Under both the CEQA and City standards, project impacts on
schools would be less than significant.
Other Public Facilities
For libraries, the City’s Threshold Standards require the citywide ratio of 500 gross
square feet of library space, adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 residents shall
be maintained.
The Chula Vista Library Strategic Vision Plan does not identify any library facilities within
the project site (City of Chula Vista 2014) and the project does not propose the
construction of new residential development that would create a demand on the City’s
existing library resources. Therefore, the project would not generate any new population
and would not require new or expanded public library facilities. Under both the CEQA
and City standards, project impacts on library facilities would be less than significant.
Threshold 2: Demands on Parks
As stated above, the project would construct a behavioral health facility on an
undeveloped parcel and would not construct any housing. Therefore, the project would
not generate any new population and would not result in a substantial increase in the
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10 Public Services and Recreation
5.10-10
use of parks that would accelerate their physical deterioration. Impacts would be less
than significant.
Threshold 3: Expansion of Recreational Facilities
The project would construct a behavioral health facility and would not construct any
housing. Therefore, the project would not generate any new population and would not
require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities that would result in
physical impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.10.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The project would not require any new or physically altered facilities. The project would
not result in any new residential uses requiring new or expanded school, recreation, or
library facilities. All impacts related to the need for improved or expanded services would
be less than significant.
5.10.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts related to public services and recreation would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 Transportation
5.11-1
5.11 Transportation
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the project’s impacts
related to transportation that could result from implementation of the Eastlake Behavioral
Health Hospital project (project). Information presented in this section is based on the
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA; Appendix I) prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan,
Engineers (2020).
5.11.1 Existing Conditions
5.11.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is defined as a measure of miles traveled by vehicles within
a specified region and for a specified time period. VMT is a measure of the use and
efficiency of the transportation network, calculated based on individual vehicle trips
generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two-way (round trip) travel
and is estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation
impacts. With respect to the proposed project (hospital uses), “VMT per employee” is the
efficiency metric used for evaluation. In general, the analysis presents the project VMT
per employee, and compares it to a regional VMT per employee to determine if the former
is higher, equal to, or lower than the latter.
5.11.1.2 Roadway Network
The roadway network in the vicinity of the project site includes the following:
Otay Lakes Road is classified as a seven-lane Expressway between State Route 125
(SR-125) and Eastlake Parkway and a six-lane Prime east of Eastlake Parkway in the City
of Chula Vista (City) General Plan. Currently, Telegraph Canyon Road is constructed as
a seven-lane divided roadway from the SR-125 ramps to Eastlake Parkway and a six-lane
divided roadway east of Eastlake Parkway. Bike lanes exist on both sides of the street
and curbside parking is prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 miles per hour (mph). The
General Plan Circulation Plan-East identifies Otay Lakes Road as a 6-Lane Prime
roadway.
Eastlake Parkway is classified as a four-lane Major in the City’s General Plan. Currently,
Eastlake Parkway is constructed as a six-lane divided roadway. Bike lanes exist on both
sides of the street and curbside parking is prohibited. The posted speed limit is 40 mph.
The General Plan Circulation Plan-East identifies Eastlake Parkway as a 4-Lane Major
roadway where it is in proximity to the project site.
Fenton Street is classified as a Class I Collector in the City’s General Plan. Currently,
Fenton Street is constructed as a four-lane undivided roadway between Eastlake Parkway
and Kuhn Drive and a two-lane undivided roadway with a two-way left-turn lane east of
Kuhn Drive. Bike lanes are not provided on either side of the street and curbside parking
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 Transportation
5.11-2
is permitted east of Lane Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. The General Plan
Circulation Plan-East identifies Fenton Street as a Class I Collector roadway where it is in
proximity to the project site.
Hunte Parkway is classified as a four-lane Major in the City’s General Plan. Currently,
Hunte Parkway is constructed as a four-lane divided roadway. On-street parking is
prohibited. The posted speed limit is 45 mph and bike lanes are provided. The General
Plan Circulation Plan-East identifies Hunte Parkway as a 4-Lane Major roadway where it
is in proximity to the project site.
Lane Avenue is classified as a Class I Collector in the City’s General Plan. Currently,
Lane Parkway is constructed as a four-lane undivided roadway with a two-way left-turn
lane. On street parking is prohibited. The posted speed limit is 35 mph and bike lanes are
provided.
Showroom Place is an unclassified roadway in the City’s General Plan. Currently,
Showroom Place is constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway. On-street parking is
generally allowed except between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Bike lanes are not
provided and a posted speed limit was not observed.
5.11.1.3 Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m.) turning
movement counts at the study area intersections and 24-hour average daily traffic (ADT)
volumes along the study area street segments were conducted on Tuesday,
December 18, 2018 while project area schools were in session. Table 5.11-1 provides a
summary of the counted ADTs.
TABLE 5.11-1
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Street Segment ADTa
Otay Lakes Road
SR-125 Northbound Ramps to Eastlake Parkway 43,320
Eastlake Parkway to Lane Avenue 29,730
Lane Avenue to Fenton Street 19,210
Fenton Street to Hunte Parkway 18,750
East of Hunte Parkway 10,670
Eastlake Parkway
Fenton Street to Otay Lakes Road 23,250
Fenton Street
Lane Avenue to Showroom Place 8,200
Showroom Place to Otay Lakes Road 6,260
Hunte Parkway
Otay Lakes Road to Clubhouse Drive 14,910
SOURCE: NDS Traffic Count Firm (see Appendix I).
NOTE: Traffic counts were conducted on December 18, 2018
aAverage daily traffic
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 Transportation
5.11-3
5.11.1.4 Existing Alternative Modes of Transportation
Continuous sidewalks are provided along both sides of all streets in the study area. Class
II bike lanes are located on Otay Lakes Road, Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway.
There are no other bicycle facilities provided along the street segments within the study
area.
Transit service is provided to the area via the Route 709 Bus Route. Route 709 provides
bus service to the area via Eastlake Parkway, with stops provided on Eastlake Parkway
and Clubhouse Drive and Boswell Road and Lane Avenue.
5.11.2 Regulatory Setting
5.11.2.1 State
Caltrans
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) oversees the state’s highway
system. Caltrans is the public agency responsible for designing, building, operating, and
maintaining the state’s highway system, which consists of freeways, highways,
expressways, toll roads, and the area between the roadways and property lines. Caltrans
is also responsible for permitting and regulating the use of state roadways. Caltrans’
construction practices require temporary traffic control planning during activities that
interfere with the normal function of a roadway.
5.11.2.2 Regional
2050 Regional Transportation Plan
The SANDAG San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan is an update of the Regional
Comprehensive Plan and the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), combined into one document. The Regional Plan
includes an SCS, in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 375. The SCS aims to create
sustainable, mixed-use communities conducive to public transit, walking, and biking by
focusing future growth in the previously developed, western portion of the region along the
major existing transit and transportation corridors. The Regional Plan has a horizon year
of 2050, and forecasts regional growth and the construction of transportation projects over
this time period.
5.11.2.3 Local
City of Chula Vista Transportation Study Guidelines
The City Council adopted the Transportation Study Guidelines (TSG) in June 2020 to
comply with SB 743 requirements and provide guidance on preparing transportation
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 Transportation
5.11-4
impact studies for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. The
guidelines provide criteria to evaluate projects for consistency related to the City’s
transportation goals, policies, and plans. The TSG establishes procedures for analyzing
and documenting VMT impacts (TSG; City of Chula Vista 2020d). The City VMT
thresholds of significance are included in Section 5.11.3.
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Land Use and Transportation (LUT) Element of the City General Plan focuses on the
development of “a sustainable circulation/mobility system that provides transportation
choices and is well-integrated with the City’s land uses” (City of Chula Vista 2005a, page
LUT-85). Specifically, Objective 21 addresses the need to maintain adequate roadway
capacity to support new development.
OBJECTIVE LUT 21
Continue efforts to develop and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system with
adequate roadway capacity to serve future residents, while preserving the unique
character and integrity of recognized communities within the City.
The Growth Management (GM) Element provides integrated components that create an
overall Growth Management Program (GMP). Specifically, the GM Element provides a
framework for directing new development, redevelopment, and community enhancement
through a set of comprehensive goals, objectives, and policies (City of Chula Vista 2005a).
The City’s GMP establishes the basis for Threshold Standards for facilities and services,
including traffic. The GM Element includes the following objective and policy relevant to
the project:
OBJECTIVE 1
Concurrent public facilities and services.
Policy GM 1.11: Establish the authority to withhold discretionary approvals and
subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with
applicable Threshold Standards.
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Title 19, Section 19.09.040 (Growth
Management Ordinance [GMO]) delineates the City’s Threshold Standards for City
facilities and services. The GMO is intended to implement the policy framework
established by the City’s General Plan and GMP. CVMC Section 19.09.040 identifies the
Threshold Standards for the maintenance and improvement of the current level of services
related to traffic. CVMC Section 19.09.040G identifies the Thresholds Standards for the
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 Transportation
5.11-5
maintenance of a safe and efficient street system for all modes of transportation. The City
Threshold Standard is included in Section 5.11.3.
5.11.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to transportation
would be significant if the project would:
1. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)1;
3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
4. Result in inadequate emergency access.
The City Threshold Standard relevant to this section, as delineated in CVMC
Section 19.09.040 included the following:
• Section 19.09.040G (Traffic) specifically requires the maintenance of the following
level of service (LOS) on City streets:
1. Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) for Non-Urban Streets: City-wide. Those
Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) roadway segments classified as other than
Urban Streets in the “Land Use and Transportation Element” of the City’s
General Plan shall maintain LOS C or better as measured by observed average
travel speed on those signalized arterial segments; except, that during peak
hours, a LOS D can occur for no more than two hours of the day.
2. Urban Street Level of Service (ULOS): Those TMP roadway segments
classified as Urban Streets in the Land Use and Transportation Element of the
City’s General Plan shall maintain LOS D or better, as measured by observed
or predicted average travel speed, except that during peak hours, LOS E can
occur for no more than two hours per day.
It is important to note that the consideration of LOS as identified in the City Threshold
Standard is no longer the metric for identifying a significant impact under CEQA.
1CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), effective July 1, 2020, provides direction for considering a
project’s transportation impacts as they relate to VMT.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 Transportation
5.11-6
Within the TSG, the City provides thresholds of significance related to the CEQA VMT
analysis that are applied after a project undergoes a screening process to determine
whether the project can be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. A project
that meets at least one of the screening criteria below is presumed to have a less than
significant VMT impact due to project characteristics and/or location.2 Screening criterion
3 applies to the proposed project:
1. Small Residential and Employment Projects: projects generating 200 or less daily
vehicle trips;
2. Projects Located in a Transit-Accessible Area: projects located in a transit priority
area (TPA) or half-mile walkshed of an existing stop along a high-quality transit
corridor;
3. Projects Located in a VMT-Efficient Area: a VMT-efficient area is any area within
the City with an average VMT per capita or VMT per employee below the
thresholds as compared to the baseline regional average for the census tract it is
located within;
4. Locally Serving Retail Projects: local serving retail projects less than 125,000
square feet, and that would serve the local community;
5. Local Serving Public Facilities and Community Purpose Facilities: public facilities
that serve the surrounding community or public facilities that are passive uses;
6. Redevelopment Projects with Greater VMT Efficiency: a redevelopment project;
7. Affordable Housing: any portion of a project that is composed of deed-restricted
affordable housing units if the project meets the following conditions:
a. Infill project
b. Close to transit
c. Parking does not exceed CVMC.
Projects that do not meet the above screening criteria must include a detailed evaluation
of the VMT produced by the project. The significant thresholds and specific VMT metrics
used to measure VMT are determined by land use and detailed in Section 3.3 of the City
TSG.
2City staff may, in its discretion, require project applicants to provide evidence that the presumption
is in fact applicable in a given case, and may ultimately determine the presumption is not
applicable. Thus, screening will be determined at the City’s discretion on a case-by-case basis
(TSG Section 3.3; City of CV 2020).
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 Transportation
5.11-7
5.11.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Conflicts with Applicable Plans
Applicable plans, policies, and regulations are discussed in Section 5.11.2, Regulatory
Setting. As detailed in the following paragraphs, the project would be consistent with
transportation-related plans, ordinances, and policies, including the City’s Threshold
Standards.
State
Caltrans oversees the state’s highway system. Caltrans’ construction practices require
temporary traffic control planning during activities that interfere with the normal function of
a roadway. The project would be required to comply with Caltrans requirements to ensure
the maintenance of traffic flow during construction. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with state regulations relating to circulation.
Regional
SANDAG’s San Diego Forward aims to create sustainable land patterns conducive to
public transit, walking, and biking by focusing future growth in previously developed areas
along the major existing transit and transportation corridors. The project, while not
proposing residential uses, would be located within a developed portion of this City,
accessible by public transportation, close to regional freeways, and away from
environmentally sensitive resources. Therefore, the project would be consistent with
SANDAG’s mobility planning policies.
Local
The City’s LUT Element includes objectives, goals, and policies focused on improved
mobility. The following project vicinity roadways are identified on the General Plan
Circulation Plan-East: Otay Lake Road, Eastlake Parkway, Fenton Street, and Hunte
Parkway. LUT Objective LUT 21 sets a standard for the maintenance of an efficient
transportation system with adequate roadway capacity to serve future residents, while
preserving the unique character and integrity of recognized communities within the City.
To meet this objective, the City conducts periodic analyses of the existing circulation
system to verify that acceptable levels of service are provided on circulation corridors, as
well as individual signalized intersections, as part of a comprehensive growth
management program (LUT Policy 21.2).
The City’s Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) issues an annual report
to determine whether established Threshold Standards, as identified in CVMC
Section 19.09.040 are being met. The Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1, 2018-
June 30, 2019) was issued on January 30, 2020. The report reviews all 11 service topics
for which Threshold Standards are identified. With respect to traffic, the report did identify
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 Transportation
5.11-8
non-compliance; however, the non-complaint roadways are not those within the project
vicinity.
The project includes road improvements to ensure adequate traffic flow would continue
consistent with General Plan policies and Threshold Standards. Specifically, the project
would commit funding to the installation of a traffic signal the intersection of Harold
Place/Fenton Street. Additionally, the project includes provision of a fair share towards the
construction of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) modules to all signalized
intersections along Otay Lakes Road between Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway.
These traffic signal improvements are project features and expressed as part of the project
description (see Chapter 3.0). As detailed in Table 15.1 and Appendix J of the TIA (see
Appendix I), operation of traffic signals at these intersections would ensure consistency
with City policies and Threshold Standards.
Overall, impacts relating to program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation
system would be less than significant.
Threshold 2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)
SB 743 was approved by the California legislature in September 2013, requiring changes
to the CEQA methodology, specifically directing the OPR to develop alternative metrics to
the use of vehicular LOS for evaluating transportation projects. As discussed under
Threshold 1, OPR published the Technical Advisory providing recommendations for the
preparation of transportation impact analyses under SB 743, suggesting a VMT analysis
to replace LOS as the primary measure of transportation impacts under CEQA.
Initial Screening
The TIA prepared for the project (see Appendix I) follows the guidelines contained within
the City’s TSG. The City’s screening procedures include preliminary screening criteria to
determine if a project is screened out from detailed VMT analysis. If a project meets
screening criteria for CEQA VMT analysis, a detailed CEQA VMT analysis would not be
required. This approach is generally consistent with the procedures outlined in the OPR
Technical Advisory.
As detailed under Section 5.11.3, prior to any detailed project specific VMT analysis, the
City adopted OPR’s allowance for the use of screening criteria to identify if a project would
result in a less than significant impact. Specifically, the City allows projects located in a
VMT-efficient area to be screened out of the requirement for a detailed transportation VMT
analysis. A SANDAG VMT Screening Map was prepared for the project and is shown in
Figure 5.11-1. This figure shows that the VMT per employee at this location is 21.35 miles,
which is 82.43 percent of the regional average (25.90 miles). Because the project would
result in a VMT per employee that is more than 15 percent below the regional VMT, the
impact would be considered less than significant. The findings of the initial screening are
summarized further in Table 5.11-2.
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR\Figure5.11-1 09/22/20 lb
Map Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
FIGURE 5.11-1
SANDAG WMT Screen-Line
Map for Project Site
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 Transportation
5.11-10
TABLE 5.11-2
PROJECT VMT FINDINGS
Scenario
Regional
Baseline VMT
per Employee
Significance Threshold
(85% of Regional Average
VMT per Employee)
Project
VMT per
Employee
Transportation
Impact?
(Over Threshold?)
Employee VMT
per capita 25.90 22.02 21.35 No
SOURCE: City of Chula Vista VMT Screening Tool (May 2020); see Appendix I.
Based on the screening review, the project would be screened out of the requirement for
a detailed VMT analysis, and the project is considered as resulting in a less than significant
VMT impact without conducting a detailed study.
Thresholds 3: Hazards due to a Design Features
The project does not include any features that would substantially increase hazards. No
off-site improvements are proposed that would change the design or alignment of existing
area roadways. Changes to the existing circulation system would be limited to the project
commitment of funds for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Harold
Place/Fenton Street. This improvement would not increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature or incompatible uses.
Threshold 4: Emergency Access
As described above, changes to the existing circulation system would be limited to the
project commitment of funds for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Harold Place/Fenton Street that would not physically interfere with emergency access.
Therefore, the project would not interfere with any emergency access.
5.11.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The project would not result in a conflict with applicable plans, policies, or programs
relating to Transportation, including the City’s General Plan or CVMC. the
The project would be screened out of the requirement to prepare a detailed VMT analysis
based on the SANDAG Screening Map prepared for the project. Therefore, the project
would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b), and impacts would be less than significant.
The project does not include any design features or incompatible uses that would increase
hazards, nor would the project interfere with emergency access. Impacts would be less
than significant.
5.11.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-1
5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses public utilities that
would serve the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital (project) and evaluates potential
impacts due to implementation of the project. Public utilities evaluated in this section
include water, sewer, and solid waste facilities. Information presented in this section is
based on information provided by the local service providers on City websites, and
findings from approved planning documents. Additionally, discussion is summarized
from the Sewer Study (Appendix J) prepared by K&S Engineering, Inc. (2019c).
5.12.1 Existing Conditions
5.12.1.1 Water
Water imported to the San Diego region comes from two primary sources, the Colorado
River through the 240-mile Colorado River Aqueduct, and the State Water Project from
northern California through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the 444-mile-
long California Aqueduct. These sources deliver water to the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California (MWD), which then distributes water supplies to water agencies
throughout the southern California region including the San Diego County Water
Authority (SDCWA). The SDCWA is composed of 23 member agencies and receives
purchased water by gravity through two aqueducts containing five large-diameter
pipelines. These pipelines then supply water to member water agencies, including the
Otay Water District (OWD), which serves the project area.
5.12.1.2 Wastewater
Sanitary sewer service for the project would be provided by the City of Chula Vista
(City). The City operates and maintains its own sanitary collection system that ultimately
connects to the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater (METRO) system. All
wastewater generated by the project would eventually be conveyed to the METRO
system via the South Metro Interceptor. METRO provides wastewater conveyance,
treatment, and disposal services for the City and 14 other participating agencies in
accordance with the terms of a multi-agency agreement (METRO Agreement).
The City collects a capacity fee from new developments to fund the purchase of METRO
capacity. Development cannot occur without adequate sewer capacity as determined by
the City Engineer. Developers typically pay the sewer capacity fee at building permit
issuance; however, as the project is a hospital, Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development has jurisdiction over the building permits. Therefore, sewer capacity fees
would be collected by the City at issuance of the grading permit. The City currently has
capacity rights in the METRO system (comprised of conveyance, treatment, and
disposal facilities) equal to 20.864 million gallons per day (mgd) based on the recent
capacity allocation of 1.021 mgd from the South Bay Water Reclamation Facility.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-2
The project area lies completely within the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin. Wastewater
in the Telegraph Canyon Road sewer pipe flows westerly to an existing connection to
the South Metro Interceptor located just west of Interstate 5. The South Metro
Interceptor, a regional transmission facility owned, operated, and maintained by the City
of San Diego, conveys flows north to the Point Loma Treatment Plant.
5.12.1.3 Solid Waste
The City Public Works Department and Environmental Services Division oversees waste
management for residences and businesses in accordance with the goals of the adopted
General Plan and Assembly Bill (AB) 341. The current solid waste and recycling service
provider for the City is Republic Services. Existing solid waste disposal facilities in the
area include the Otay Landfill and several recycling facilities in proximity to the landfill.
The Otay Landfill accepts approximately 98 percent of the non-hazardous municipal
waste collected in the City. The Otay Landfill is expected to be in operation until 2028
based upon current waste generation rates. Currently, the Sycamore Landfill is proposed
to take the place of the Otay Landfill as the City’s primary landfill when the Otay Landfill
closes.
Recyclable mixed debris is processed at either the Otay Landfill run by Republic
Services or the EDCO Construction and Demolition (C&D) facility in Lemon Grove. The
City Environmental Services Division offers bulky item collection, construction and
demolition debris, electronic waste, hazardous waste, composting, reuse, sharps waste
disposal, universal waste, yard waste, and special services programs and services.
Chula Vista’s CLEAN business program promotes businesses which implement solid
waste reduction measures and practices. The program also promotes energy
conservation, water conservation, and pollution prevention measures implemented by
businesses.
5.12.2 Regulatory Setting
5.12.2.1 State
Title 24, Part 11 – California Green Building Standards
The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, took
effect January 1, 2020, instituting mandatory minimum environmental performance
standards for all ground-up new construction of commercial and low-rise residential
occupancies. It includes both mandatory requirements and additional voluntary
environmental performance standards. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum
mandatory requirements and may also adopt the Green Building Standards with
amendments for stricter requirements.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-3
California Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation
Enacted by AB 341 and signed into law May 2012, the regulation addresses recycling
requirements for businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of commercial solid
waste per week and multi-family residential dwellings with five or more units regardless
of the amount of waste they generate. Businesses can utilize a number of actions to
reuse recycle, compost, or otherwise divert commercial solid waste from disposal.
AB 341 also requires local jurisdictions to implement a mandatory commercial recycling
program that includes education, outreach, and monitoring to ensure businesses are
meeting recycling requirements.
California Integrated Waste Management Act
Enacted by AB 939 and signed into law in 1990, the California Integrated Waste
Management Act (IWMA) established an integrated system of solid waste management in
the state whereby each city and county was required to develop and implement plans
consistent with the mandated diversion rates of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by
2000. Under IWMA, the County prepared a Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan
addressing the capacity of existing and proposed disposal sites. The act further requires
each city to prepare and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, a
Household Hazardous Waste Element, and a Non-Disposal Facility Element to describe
any new solid waste facilities and expansions of existing solid waste facilities needed to
implement the jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element.
5.12.2.2 Regional
San Diego County Water Authority 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
On April 29, 2016, the SDCWA Board of Directors adopted its final 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP; SDCWA 2016). The 2015 UWMP components include:
baseline demand forecasts under normal weather, dry weather and climate change
scenarios; conservation savings estimates and net water demand projections; a water
supply assessment; supply reliability analysis; and scenario planning. The Water
Authority's 2015 UWMP estimates that future water demands will be about 12 percent
lower in 2035 compared to projections in the 2010 plan. Preparation of an update to the
2015 UWMP is currently in process.
Otay Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update
The requirements for the 2015 UWMP call for projections of water demands for low‐
income customers. The OWD reviewed the housing elements from the City of Chula
Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego’s General Plans, which forecast
projections to 2030. Demands for the projected low‐income housing projects were
estimated using the OWD’s planning demand criteria in its 2015 Master Plan for high
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-4
density multi‐family residential units. Projected water demands were then distributed
equally throughout 2015 and 2040. These demands have been assumed as part of the
general growth within the OWD and have been included in the OWD’s potable water
demand projections.
Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan
The Water Resources Master Plan Update (WRMP) identifies the capital facilities
needed to provide an adequate, reliable, flexible, and cost-effective potable and recycled
water system for the delivery of OWD, City of San Diego, SDCWA, and/or MWD water
supply to meet approved land use development plans and growth projections within the
planning area consistent with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
forecasts through 2030. The proposed potable and recycled facilities, as well as
expansions to existing facilities, are identified as being able to meet the projected
customer demands for anticipated development through 2030. As presented in the
WRMP, supply options for the OWD area include water conservation, groundwater
development, desalination, recycled water, additional imported water alternatives, and
regional water banking and transfers.
5.12.2.3 Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Public Facilities and Services (PFS) Element of the City’s General Plan establishes
the City's plan to provide and maintain infrastructure and public facilities for future
growth. Public facilities collectively refer to utilities, such as: water; sewer; drainage;
power; and telecommunications services. The following objective and policies found in
the PFS Element are relevant to the project:
OBJECTIVE PFS 1
Ensure adequate and reliable water, sewer and drainage service and facilities.
Policy PFS 1.4: For new development, require on-site detention of storm water flows
such that, where practical, existing downstream structures will not be overloaded. Slow
runoff and maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.
OBJECTIVE PFS 2
Increase efficiencies in water use, wastewater generation and its re-use, and handling of
storm water runoff throughout the city through use of alternative technologies.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-5
OBJECTIVE PFS 3
Ensure a long-term water supply to meet the needs of existing and future uses in Chula
Vista.
OBJECTIVE PFS 24
Promote state-of-the-art telecommunication services throughout Chula Vista.
OBJECTIVE PFS 25
Efficiently handle solid waste disposal throughout the city.
Policy PFS 25.1: Plan for adequate systems and facilities to manage the City's solid
waste generation, treatment, and disposal.
Policy PFS 25.3: Participate in interjurisdictional efforts to maintain available landfill
capacity in San Diego County.
In addition, the Environmental Element of the General Plan promotes solid waste
reduction strategies though recycling and waste reduction incentives. Specifically, the
following objective would be relevant to the project.
OBJECTIVE E 8
Minimize the amount of solid waste generated within the General Plan area that requires
landfill disposal.
The Growth Management (GM) Element of the General Plan provides integrated
components that create an overall Growth Management Program (GMP). Specifically,
the GM Element seeks to ensure public facilities and services are available to residents
and visitors of the City concurrent with development. The City’s GMP establishes the
basis for Threshold Standards for City facilities and services, including water and sewer.
The GM Element includes the following objective and policies found to be relevant to the
project:
OBJECTIVE 1
Concurrent public facilities and services.
Policy GM 1.11: Establish the authority to withhold discretionary approvals and
subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with
applicable Threshold Standards.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-6
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.09, et seq. (Growth Management
Ordinance; GMO) delineates the City’s Threshold Standards for City facilities and
services. The GMO is intended to implement the policy framework established by the
City’s General Plan and GMP. CVMC Section 19.09.040 identifies the Threshold
Standards for the maintenance and improvement of the current level of services related
to sewer. CVMC Section 19.09.050 identifies the Threshold Standard to ensure
adequate storage, treatment, and transmission of water. The City Threshold Standards
are included in Section 5.12.3.
City of Chula Vista Green Building Standards
The Green Building Standards (GBS) ordinance (Ordinance No. 3470) was adopted by
the City Council and became effective January 1, 2020. This represents adoption of
CALGreen, 2019 Edition, known as the California Code of Regulations. Through
adherence to the GBS ordinance, new residential and non-residential construction,
additions, remodels, and improvements would benefit from enhanced energy efficiency,
pollutant controls, interior moisture control, improved indoor air quality and exhaust,
indoor water conservation, storm water management, and construction waste reduction
and recycling.
City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance
The City‘s Landscape Manual includes requirements and standards for landscape areas
throughout the City and identifies the need for water conservation practices to be
implemented in the form of xeriscape landscaping and drought-tolerant plant materials.
Chapter 20.12 of the CVMC, known as the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance,
requires new construction and rehabilitated landscapes to conform to applicable
landscape design plans to ensure smart water use in terms of plantings, irrigation,
conservation, and other landscape related matters.
City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan
The City’s Wastewater Master Plan provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of
the City’s existing wastewater collection system based on future growth projections
through year 2050. The Wastewater Master Plan is also intended to identify facility
improvements necessary to support the City’s growth.
City of Chula Vista Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
Effective July 2008, the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling (C&DD)
Ordinance requires construction and demolition projects to divert their debris form landfill
disposal. One hundred percent of inert material (such as concrete, rock and landscape
debris, etc.) and a minimum of 50 percent of all other materials (carpets, drywall,
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-7
cabinets, etc.) shall be recycled and/or reused for certain projects. The C&DD Ordinance
is designed as a means of achieving compliance with CALGreen.
City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual
Section 3 of the Subdivision Manual provides general design criteria and engineering
requirements for the construction of storm drain and sewer systems.
5.12.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, impacts to utilities and services would be significant if the project would:
1. Require or result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
2. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
4. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals.
5. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulation related to solid waste.
City Threshold Standards relevant to this section, as delineated in CVMC Sections
19.09.040 and 19.09.050, include the following:
• Section 19.09.040E (Sewer) specifically requires that existing and projected
facility sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City engineering standards
for the current system and for budgeted improvements, as set forth in the
Subdivision Manual.
• Section 19.09.040F (Drainage) specifically requires that storm water flows and
volumes shall not exceed city engineering standards and shall comply with
current local, state and federal regulations.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-8
• Section 19.09.050C (Water) specifically requires that adequate water supply
must be available to serve new development. Therefore, developers shall provide
the City with a service availability letter from the appropriate water district for
each project.
5.12.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Need for Construction or Expansion of Service Facilities
The project would be required to adhere to all relevant City General Plan and regulatory
requirements to ensure the provision of adequate and reliable water, sewer and
drainage service (General Plan Objective PFS 1). The project site is being developed as
part of a master planned community in accordance with the Eastlake II General
Development Plan (GDP). The project is an allowed use pursuant to the relevant
planning documents including the Eastlake II GDP and Business Center II Supplemental
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan that allows hospital uses subject to a Conditional
Use Permit. Therefore, construction of the project has been anticipated which has
allowed the City and service district’s the ability to schedule and construct needed
improvements.
Water Facilities
The project would connect to an existing 12-inch water line located within the cul-de-sac
at the terminus of Showroom Place. The 2015 OWD UWMP is based on SANDAG’s
2050 Regional Growth Projections which include the City’s 2005 General Plan Update.
Therefore, the water demand projections are based on land uses within the OWD
service area including the project. The OWD 2015 UWMP concludes that in average
precipitation years, OWD has sufficient water to meet its customers’ needs through
2035, based on continued commitment to conservation programs. The project would be
consistent with the City’s General Plan and the OWD 2015 UWMP. Therefore, the
project would not require the expansion of water lines. Impacts related to water facilities
would be less than significant.
Sewer Facilities
As stated in the Sewer Study prepared for the project (see Appendix J), the project site
is located in the Telegraph Canyon Basin. The project would connect to an existing 8-
inch sewer main located within the cul-de-sac at the terminus of Showroom Place. The
wastewater outflow for the project is estimated to be approximately 26,050 gallons per
day (gpd). This is based on an estimated sewage flow rate of 2,500 gpd per acre as
defined in the City’s Subdivision Manual – Sewer Design Criteria. Since the needs of the
project have been accounted for within the City’s planning documents, there is sufficient
capacity for the estimated wastewater from the project, and consistent with the City’s
Threshold Standards, the project would meet City engineering standards and would be
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-9
within projected facility sewage flows. Impacts related to sewer facility capacity would be
less than significant.
Storm Water Facilities
The project would construct two on-site storm water runoff detention and biofiltration
basins to manage runoff, located along the southern border of the site, adjacent to the
project’s driveway entrance. Storm water would be transferred from the on-site basins to
the existing 24-inch storm drain line located within the cul-de-sac at the terminus of
Showplace Drive. As detailed in Section 5.8.3 (Threshold 3), the project includes site
design, source control, and structural pollutant control measures. Consistent with
General Plan Policy PFS 1.4, runoff would be maintained in its southern flow and
directed into the two detention basins which would temporarily store runoff, allowing
saturation, before release, thereby slowing increased project runoff (see Figure 3-11).
Drainage flow would be reduced compared to the existing (see Table 5.8-1). No increase
in pipe size or any off-site storm water facilities would be required, and consistent with
the City’s Threshold Standards, project storm water flows and volumes would not
exceed City engineering standards. Impacts related to storm water facility capacity
would be less than significant.
Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The project would connect to existing facilities for electric power and natural gas through
SDG&E. Telecommunications for the project would be served by existing facilities. As
such, the project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded
facilities for electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. Impacts would be less
than significant.
Threshold 2: Insufficient Water Supplies
The project would be required to adhere to all relevant City General Plan and regulatory
requirements to ensure a long-term water supply to meet the needs of the project
demands (General Plan Objective PFS 3).
The project would be served by the OWD. The OWD is completely dependent on
imported water provided by the SDCWA. The OWD receives all of its potable water
supply from the SDCWA’s Pipeline Number 4 of the Second San Diego Aqueduct.
The 2015 OWD UWMP is based on SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Growth Projections
which include the City’s 2005 General Plan Update. Therefore, the water demand
projections are based on land uses within the OWD service area including the project.
The OWD 2015 UWMP concludes that in average precipitation years, OWD has
sufficient water to meet its customers’ needs through 2040, based on continued
commitment to conservation programs.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-10
In order to determine existing OWD infrastructure is sufficient to serve the project, the
project would require a will serve letter from OWD which specifies that water availability
will be subject to all District requirements in effect at the time of project implementation
and ongoing operation.
Additionally, the project would be subject to 2013 Title 24 Part 11 standards, known as
CALGreen, which requires indoor water use efficiency. The project would be also subject
to all OWD water conservation requirements and restrictions that are implemented to
manage water supplies in accordance with the OWD’s UWMP. As the project is
consistent with land uses evaluated during preparation of the OWD 2015 UWMP and
would be subject to all OWD imposed water conservation requirements, new or
expanded supplies would not be required to meet the project needs. Additionally, the
project would be consistent with the City’s Threshold Standards requiring adequate
water supplies be available to serve the project from existing and planned supplies.
Impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
Threshold 3: Inadequate Wastewater Treatment Capacity to Serve Demand
As stated in the Sewer Study prepared for the project (see Appendix J), the project site
is located in the Telegraph Canyon Basin. The project would connect to the existing 8-
inch sewer main. The wastewater outflow for the project is estimated to be
approximately 26,050 gpd. This is based on an estimated sewage flow rate of 2,500 gpd
per acre as defined in the City Subdivision Manual – Sewer Design Criteria. Since the
needs of the project have been accounted for within the City’s planning documents, the
project would be consistent with the City’s Threshold Standards requiring the project to
meet City engineering standards and be within projected facility sewage flows. Impacts
related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.
Threshold 4 and 5: Solid Waste Capacity and Regulatory Compliance
The project would be required to adhere to all relevant City General Plan and regulatory
requirements to ensure efficient handling of solid waste that requires landfill disposal
(General Plan Objective PFS 25).
The project would contain 120 beds. As calculated using the Integrated Waste
Management Plan, estimates of yearly hospital solid waste generation per bed per year,
the project would generate an additional 160.8 tons of solid waste per year of operation
(City of Chula Vista 2016).
The General Plan PFS Element addresses current and future solid waste disposal
facility needs. The City has an exclusive franchise agreement with Pacific Waste
Services for the removal, conveyance, and disposal of any non-recyclable waste. The
agreement includes a number of programs and incentives to maximize recycling and
other forms of landfill diversion. Pacific Waste's parent company, Allied, owns and
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-11
operates the Otay Landfill, where most of the solid waste generated in the City is
disposed of (City of Chula Vista 2005a). According to the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery Solid Waste Information System, the Otay Landfill
has 24,514,904 cubic yards of remaining capacity as of March 31, 2012, and is
anticipated to be operational until 2028 (CalRecycle 2015b). Upon its scheduled closing
in 2028, waste would be transferred to the Sycamore Canyon Landfill.
Implementation of solid waste reduction policies of the General Plan and requirements of
CVMC Section 8.25 would minimize the project’s solid waste generation. Adherence to
General Plan Policies PFS 25.1 and PFS 25.3 would ensure the efficient handling of
solid waste disposal throughout the City, encourage the reduction of waste generation,
and promote waste diversion from landfills. Additionally, CVMC Section 8.25.095
requires construction and demolition debris recycling including submittal of construction
and demolition waste management report forms that demonstrate how the applicant
would comply with diversion requirements. Based on project compliance and
implementation of General Plan policies and CVMC requirements, solid waste would be
diverted from the landfill to the maximum extent feasible. Additionally, there is adequate
remaining capacity at the Otay Landfill to accommodate the projected waste disposal
needs of the project. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.
5.12.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities
for water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications. Impacts would be less than significant.
Sufficient water supplies are planned for and would be available to serve the project
based on land use consistency with water use assumptions used in the OWD UWMP.
As the project would not require new or expanded water supplied, impacts would be less
than significant.
The wastewater outflow for the project is estimated to be approximately 26,050 gpd. This
is based on an estimated sewage flow rate of 2,500 gpd per acre as defined in the City
Subdivision Manual – Sewer Design Criteria. The Sewer Capacity Study (see
Appendix J) prepared for the project identifies project requirements to meet City
Engineering standards for sewer. Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact related to wastewater capacity.
The Otay Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected increase in
waste disposal needs. Additionally, upon its scheduled closing in 2028, waste would be
transferred to the Sycamore Canyon Landfill. Therefore, impacts associated with
insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs
would be less than significant.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.12-12
5.12.6 Mitigation Measures
All impacts related to public utilities would be less than significant. No mitigation
measures would be required.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13 Wildfire
5.13-1
5.13 Wildfire
This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzes potential impacts
related to wildfire that could result from implementation of the Eastlake Behavioral
Health Hospital (project).
5.13.1 Existing Conditions
5.13.1.1 Wildfire Hazards
Threat from wildfire hazards is determined based on a number of factors, including fuel
loading (vegetation); topography; climatic conditions, such as wind, humidity, and
temperature; and the proximity of structures and urban development to fire hazards.
Wildland fire hazards are most pronounced in wildland-urban interface areas, or where
urban development is located close to open space areas where vegetation can serve as
fuel. Generally, the periods of greatest risk for wildland fire are the late summer and
early fall when vegetation is at its driest. Human activity, including residential and
agricultural burning, campfires, and the use of fireworks can all trigger fires. Natural
causes such as lightning strikes may also start fires.
The project site is not mapped within any wildfire hazard areas as designated by
California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE) (Figure 5.13-1).
5.13.1.2 Disaster Preparedness
The City of Chula Vista (City) Fire Department provides safety and education about fire
prevention and disaster preparedness in the case of a wildfire or other natural disaster.
Key to the City’s disaster protection awareness is the “Ready, Set, Go!” program which
explains how to be prepared, practice safety, and evacuate timely
(https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/fire-department/emergency-
management/disaster-preparedness).
5.13.2 Regulatory Setting
5.13.2.1 State
California Wildland-Urban Interface Code
On September 20, 2005, the California Building Standards Commission approved the
Office of the State Fire Marshal’s emergency regulations amending the California
Building Code (CBC) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 2). Section
701A of the CBC includes regulations addressing materials and construction methods
for exterior wildfire exposure and applies to new buildings located in State Responsibility
Areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Response Areas.
FIGURE 5.13-1
Wildfire Hazards Map
0 6000Feet
Map Source: Ninyo & Moore, 2003
NGeneral Plan Area
Wildfire hazard areas*
Very high hazard
Very high fire hazard severity zone.
*Areas potentially subject to risk of wildfires, as indicated and designated
by California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CDF, 1999).
High hazard
Wildland areas that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards.
Undetermined hazard
Wildland areas, that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards,
however are not under the jurisdiction of the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Prevention (1999).M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\EIR\fig5.13-1.ai 09/24/20
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13 Wildfire
5.13-3
California Fire Code
The 2016 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24, Part 9) establishes regulations to
safeguard against the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and
existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes
requirements intended to provide safety for and assistance to firefighters and emergency
responders during emergency operations. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the
construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use
and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or
structure throughout California. The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-
resistance-rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler
systems, fire services features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress,
fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland-urban interface areas.
5.13.2.2 Local
San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
The County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and Unified Disaster Council
administer the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), a
countywide plan to identify risks and minimize damage from natural and man-made
disasters (County of San Diego 2010). The primary goals of the plan include efforts to
promote and provide compliance with applicable regulatory requirements (including
through the promulgation/enhancement of local requirements for participating agencies
including the City), increase public awareness and understanding of hazard-related
issues, and foster inter-jurisdictional coordination. In April 2011, the Chula Vista City
Council approved Resolution 2011-067, which adopted the 2010 San Diego County
MJHMP as the official Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City.
The OES also administers the County Unified San Diego County Emergency Services
Organization and County of San Diego Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan
(County of San Diego 2018), which addresses emergency issues including evacuation
and provides guidance for responding to major emergencies and disasters. Specifically,
Annex Q (Evacuation) of the plan notes that: “Primary evacuation routes consist of major
interstates, highways, and prime arterials within San Diego County …,” with identified
primary evacuation routes in the project site vicinity including State Route 125.
Community Emergency Response Team Program
The City provides a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program that
offers training to citizens for effective and efficient response to emergency situations
without placing themselves or others in unnecessary danger. Specifically, CERT training
includes guidance on managing utilities, putting out small fires, providing basic
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13 Wildfire
5.13-4
emergency medical aid, search and rescue operations, volunteer organization, and
collection of disaster information to support first responders.
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Environmental Element of the City’s General Plan identifies fire risk zones
throughout the City and provides direction to reduce hazards associated with such risk.
The objectives and policy within the Environmental Element relevant to the project
includes the following:
OBJECTIVE E 16
Minimize the risk of injury and property damage associated with wildland fire hazards.
Policy E 16: Implement brush management programs that are consistent with the Chula
Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan and the City's
Urban-Wildland Interface Code, within urban development and open space interface
areas in order to reduce potential wildland fire hazards.
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
The Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC), Title 15, Chapter 15.36 (Fire Code) formally
adopts the California Fire Code, 2019 Edition, as the fire code for the City. CVMC
Chapter 15.38, et seq., also known as the Urban-Wildland Fire Interface Code
establishes regulations mitigating the hazard to life and property from intrusion of fire
from wildland fire exposures, fire exposures from adjacent structures and prevention of
structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels (CVMC Section 15.38.010).
CVMC Title 19, Chapter 19.09, et seq. (Growth Management Ordinance; GMO)
delineates the City’s Threshold Standards for City facilities and services. The GMO is
intended to implement the policy framework established by the City’s General Plan and
GMP. CVMC Section 19.09.040 identifies the Threshold Standards for the maintenance
and improvement of the current level of services related to fire and emergency services.
The City Threshold Standards are included in Section 5.13.3.
5.13.3 Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, impacts related to wildfire would be significant if the project would:
1. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13 Wildfire
5.13-5
3. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment.
4. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes.
City Threshold Standards relevant to this section, as delineated in CVMC Sections
19.09.040 and 19.09.050, include the following:
• Section 19.09.040B (Fire and Emergency Medical Services) specifically requires
that “properly equipped and staffed fire and medical shall respond to calls
throughout the City within seven minutes in 80% of the cases.”
5.13.4 Impacts
Threshold 1: Emergency Response Plans
As shown in Figure 5.13-1, the project site is not located within any wildfire hazard area
and proposed changes to the existing circulation system would be limited to
improvements to the driveway accessing the project site off of Showroom Place. This
driveway would not affect the existing roadway network. Similarly, the Local Mobility
Analysis portion of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (see Appendix I)
identified the project’s inclusion of a traffic signal at the intersection of Harold
Place/Fenton Street. This improvement would not physically interfere with emergency
response or evacuation.
The City is a participating agency in a number of related local and State plans including
the MHMP and CERT. The project would not interfere with local and regional emergency
response and evacuation plans as it would not obstruct any existing roadways or
designated evacuation routes. Likewise, due to the project’s proximity to local fire
stations, City response times would continue to be maintained (see Section 5.10 of this
EIR). Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 2: Pollutants from Wildfire
The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard, particularly within areas adjacent to
open space or within close proximity to wildland fuels. Fire-related pollutants (i.e.,
smoke, embers, and water runoff) could be exacerbated if new construction is not fire
risk prepared. The project would be required to comply with the City’s Fire Code and
Urban Wildland-Urban Interface Code for all construction and design details relating to
building materials, interior safety devices, and brush management to ensure that wildfire
risks are not exacerbated. For example, the landscaped slopes to the north and east of
5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13 Wildfire
5.13-6
the project site would be set back from the building. The project would not change the
allowable land uses within the project site and it would not increase residential uses that
could affect the number of homes at fire risk. However, the project could increase the
number of persons that would be located within the project site and potentially subject to
potential wildfire hazards. The project would adhere to all fire standards, including
project and evacuation plans being reviewed by the City Fire Department to ensure that
construction of the project would not exacerbate fire risk and/or lead to possible
increased exposure to fire-related pollutants. Upon approval by the Fire Department,
impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 3: Infrastructure Improvements
As described in Threshold 1, the project would only require the construction of a single
traffic signal at the intersection of Harold Place/Fenton Street. All utility improvements
would occur on-site and connect to existing lines. Therefore, the project would not
exacerbate fire risk related to infrastructure improvements. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Threshold 4: Flooding or Landslides
As detailed in Section 5.8 of this EIR, impacts related to flooding and changes to
drainage patterns were found to be less than significant. The project includes on-site
hydromodification that would reduce runoff compared to the existing conditions and
utilize the City’s existing storm drain system. Landscaped slopes would be maintained to
ensure soil erosion and runoff are avoided and the project would not be subject to
downstream flooding. Therefore, the project would not result in post-fire flooding,
landslides, or drainage changes. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.13.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The project would not require change to the local circulation or infrastructure that would
impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans. Additionally, the project would be reviewed by the Fire
Department to ensure compliance with all regulations and requirements to protect off-
site exposure and exacerbation of fire risks. The project would not change drainage
patterns nor leave soils exposed in a manner that would result in post-fire flooding or
slope instability. All impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant.
5.13.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
6.0 Cumulative Impacts
6-1
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15130(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires
a discussion of cumulative impacts of a project “when the project’s incremental effect is
cumulatively considerable.” Cumulatively considerable, as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15065(c), “means that the incremental effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” According to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15130, the discussion of cumulative effects “need not be provided in
as great detail as is provided the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion
should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.”
According to Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative
effects is to be on either (a) “a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those impacts outside the control
of the agency,” or (b) “a summary of projections contained in an adopted plan or related
planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or
certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the
cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available
to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency.”
Cumulative impact discussions for each environmental topic area are provided below. As
established in the CEQA Guidelines, related projects consist of “closely related past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects that would likely result in
similar impacts and are located in the same geographic area.” (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15355). There is a Sharp Hospital located approximately six miles east, in eastern
Chula Vista; however, this existing hospital is far enough away to not be affected nor affect
project impact. The project is located within an area which is substantially built out, but
where additional growth could occur, mostly as infill projects. The project, itself, would not
cause or contribute to the current growth trends. For this reason, the list of projects
method was not used, rather to address cumulative impacts in a more regional scope;
planning and previous environmental documents were used in this analysis.
6.1 Plans Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis
This cumulative analysis relies on local and regional plans and associated CEQA
documents to serve as the basis for the analysis of potential cumulative effects of the
project. The following regional and local planning documents used in this analysis include:
the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Regional Air Quality Strategy
(RAQS), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Comprehensive
Plan (RCP), Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin, Regional Water Facilities
Master Plan, the City of Chua Vista’s (City’s) General Plan, General Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report, Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP) and Business
Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and Mitigated Negative
6.0 Cumulative Impacts
6-2
Declaration, Eastlake II GDP and Eastlake I SPA Amendments. These plans are
discussed throughout Chapter 5.0, Environmental Analysis, and are incorporated by
reference in the appropriate sections of the cumulative analysis below.
6.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
6.2.1 Land Use
The project is surrounded by existing development and infrastructure and would not
physically divide the surrounding community, but would rather provide infill development
on a vacant parcel surrounded by existing commercial, residential, and transportation
facilities. Specifically, the project site sits within designated commercial use space and the
proposed land use is consistent with land use patterns that are established in relevant
planning documents including the City’s General Plan, Eastlake II GDP and Business
Center II Supplemental SPA Plan. Pursuant to City regulations, the project would require
approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Design Review to ensure the project
design adheres to all development standards and design requirements. As discussed in
the Local Mobility Analysis prepared as part of the project TIA for the project (see
Appendix I), the project would not result in a degradation of the level of service on project
area roadways in conflict with City policies and plans related to the maintenance of
adequate roadway capacity. Extension of public utilities would not be required; the project
would connect to existing pipelines for water and wastewater which are adequate to
support the project. Overall, the project would be consistent with adopted plans and
planning documents and would result in a less than significant contribution to cumulative
land use impacts.
6.2.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
The cumulative study area associated with aesthetics impacts is the geographic area from
which a project is likely to be seen, based on topography and land use patterns. As
described in Section 5.2, the project would not result in any significant impacts related to
aesthetics. The project site is flat and does not contain any trees, rock outcroppings, or
historic buildings and is not visible from a state scenic highway. The project would not
substantially alter a scenic vista because there are no officially designated scenic vistas
in the immediate project vicinity and major landforms are not visible from the project site.
The project site does contain views of the foothills of the San Miguel Mountains to the
north. The proposed structure would be a single story and project landscape would be
primarily shrubs, groundcover, and grasses, which would continue to allow such views
from within the project site. Likewise, the project would not result in changes to landform,
and proposed landscaping along with the architectural design of the building (muted colors
of stucco, with earth-toned glass and metal accents) would provide for an aesthetically
pleasing view of the project site, consistent with the business park. The project would
include increased setbacks and heavy landscaping along the eastern and northern project
boundaries to buffer the project site from residential uses as required by the Eastlake II
6.0 Cumulative Impacts
6-3
GDP/Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan and to ensure the project’s visual
character is complimentary of its surrounding neighborhood. Approval of the project would
require design review to further ensure the project adheres to all regulations and policies
relating to visual character and aesthetics.
The project would be consistent with the character of the Business Center itself, in terms
of the size and scale of the proposed structure. Interior lighting would be dimmed at night
and exterior glass would be treated with anti-reflective materials to ensure no new light
and glare is produced during day or nighttime that would affect the surrounding
neighborhoods. Overall, because the project would be consistent with adopted plans and
planning documents and would require approval of a Design Review Permit, it would result
in a less than significant contribution to cumulative land form and aesthetics impacts.
6.2.3 Air Quality
Regional air quality impacts within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) are managed by the
SDAPCD through the development and implementation of the San Diego RAQS. The
growth projections used by the SDAPCD to develop the RAQS emissions budgets are
based on the population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed in General Plans
and used by SANDAG in the development of the regional transportation plans and
sustainable communities strategy. If individual projects are not consistent with anticipated
growth a conflict with the RAQs would be identified. As multiple projects within the area
conflict with the RAQs they would collectively contribute to a cumulative obstruction to the
implementation of the plan. Alternatively, projects that propose development that is
consistent with the growth anticipated by SANDAG’s growth projections and/or the
General Plan would not conflict with the RAQS and would not contribute to a cumulative
impact.
Section 5.3.4 (Threshold 1) evaluated whether the project would be consistent with the
RAQS. It was determined that because the project would be consistent with the City’s
General Plan, the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC), and the Eastlake II GDP/Business
Center II Supplemental SPA Plan, the project would be consistent with the growth
projections anticipated by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and,
therefore, be consistent with the RAQS.
Additionally, construction and operation of the project would generate emissions less than
applicable SDAPCD significance thresholds (see Tables 5.3-3 and 5.3-4). Therefore, the
project would not individually obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the RAQS,
and implementation of the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to
air quality; impacts would be less than significant.
6.0 Cumulative Impacts
6-4
6.2.4 Energy
The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 is the California Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (also known as the California
Energy Code). Additionally, the California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as
CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, institutes mandatory minimum environmental
performance standards for all ground-up new construction of non-residential and
residential structures. These regulations were developed to reduce energy use on a
regional level, and all future projects are required to comply with these requirements. As
described in Section 5.4 (Threshold 1), the project would not result in the use of excessive
amounts of fuel or other forms of energy during construction or operation. Additionally, the
project would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of 2019 CALGreen
and the 2019 California Energy Code. Therefore, because the project would comply with
regulations and policies that would reduce impacts associated with energy use to less
than significant, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than
significant.
6.2.5 Geology and Soils
Potential impacts related to seismic hazards would be specific to the project site.
Compliance with City regulations, the California Building Code, and adherence to the
grading and site preparation recommendations contained within the project-specific
Geotechnical Evaluation (see Appendix D) would ensure that the project would not expose
people or structures to seismic hazards. Compliance with the City’s General Construction
Permit and specific best management practices (BMPs) outlined in the project’s Storm
Water Quality Management Plan (SWMQP; see Appendix E) would further ensure that
impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil during both construction and
operation would be less than significant. Additionally, the project would not grade into
highly sensitive geologic formations that could result in impacts to sensitive
paleontological resources. Therefore, because the project would adhere to all general
regulatory requirements and project-specific recommendations that would reduce impacts
associated with geology and soils to less than significant, and the project would not result
in the loss of paleontological resources, the project’s contribution to any cumulative
impacts would be less than significant.
6.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project would result in a total of 2,986 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MT
CO2E) annually. Emissions are projected to be less than the 3,000 MT CO2E screening
level. By emitting less than 3,000 MT CO2E, the project’s contribution of GHGs to
cumulative statewide emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Additionally, the project would not conflict with any local or state plan, policy, or regulation
aimed at reducing GHG emissions from land use and development. Therefore, the
6.0 Cumulative Impacts
6-5
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than
significant.
6.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Department of
Environmental Health, and the California Medical Waste Management Act for handling of
hazardous and medical waste materials. The project is not listed as a hazardous materials
site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No known or suspected
recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs, or Historical RECs were
identified on the project site or adjacent properties. The project site is not located within
two miles of a public airport (or within an airport land use plan), or within the vicinity of a
private airstrip. There are three schools located within the vicinity of the project: Salt Creek
Elementary School, Kid Ventures Montessori Academy, and Eastlake Middle School.
These schools are located approximately 1.2 miles southeast, 0.2 mile south, and
1.5 miles east, respectively, of the project site. Kid Ventures Montessori Academy is
located within one-quarter mile of the project and while the project may handle some
amount of hazardous materials related to hospital uses, federal and state regulations
require adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transportation, and disposal,
of hazardous materials. The project would be designed in accordance with applicable
safety standards and would adhere to all City of Chula Vista Fire Department
requirements. Therefore, through implementation of all regulatory standards would ensure
that the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous
materials would be less than significant.
6.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
The project would not violate water quality standards, deplete groundwater resources,
alter drainage patterns, release pollutants due to natural disasters, or conflict with Water
Quality Control or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans. Project construction
activities would comply with all regulatory requirements outlined in the CVMC, as well as
the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program, and the BMP Design Manual.
These planning documents include strategies for development projects to implement to
avoid impacts to water quality. The project, like all City projects, would adhere to the
requirements therein to minimize disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or
prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff. The cumulative effect of
implementing these documents would be improved water quality.
The BMPs for the project have been designed to preclude potential hydrology impacts as
required by state and local regulations. The project includes two biofiltration basins, as
structural BMPs and hydromodification, which would decrease runoff volumes from
existing conditions and assist in the reduction of storm water flow volume and velocity.
6.0 Cumulative Impacts
6-6
Overall, the project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local water quality
standards and planning documents. Therefore, implementation of project design features
would ensure that the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to hydrology and
water quality would be less than significant.
6.2.9 Noise
Project construction noise levels would range from 56 to 68 A-weighted decibels average
sound level [dB(A) Leq] at adjacent uses (see Table 5.9-4), which could be heard above
ambient conditions. However, construction noise would be temporary and would cease
upon project completion. The project’s compliance with the CVMC Chapter 17.24.040
would ensure that construction would only occur during allowable days/hours. Therefore,
compliance with regulatory standards would ensure that the project’s contribution to
cumulative noise impacts during construction would be less than significant. Because
construction activities associated with the project would comply with the applicable
regulations for construction, cumulative groundborne vibration and noise impacts from
construction would likewise be less than significant.
The project would increase traffic volumes on local roadways. However, the project would
not substantially alter the vehicle classifications mix on local or regional roadways, nor
would the project alter the speed on an existing roadway or create a new roadway. As
shown in Table 5.9-6, noise levels at the proposed exterior activity areas and the staff
outdoor area would range from 31 to 45 community noise equivalent level (CNEL), which
would be compatible with the City’s standard of 65 CNEL. Therefore, the project would not
contribute to cumulative noise impacts associated with on-site traffic noise. With respect
to off-site traffic noise, Table 5.9-8 summarizes cumulative traffic noise level increases
due to the project. The total year 2035 plus project increase over the existing condition
would range from less than 1 dB to 5 dB. However, the project’s contribution to the
increase over ambient noise levels would be 1 dB or less. Therefore, the project would
result in a less than cumulatively considerable off-site noise level increase, and cumulative
traffic noise impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.
The project’s on-site operational noise generation would adhere to City standards relating
to property line noise impacts. As shown in Table 5.9-9, property line noise levels with and
without operation of the proposed emergency generator are not projected to exceed the
applicable residential and commercial CVMC limits. Therefore, the project would not
contribution to cumulative noise impacts associated with on-site noise generation.
6.2.10 Public Services and Recreation
Implementation of the project would result in an incremental increase in demand for public
services, including fire protection and emergency services, and police protection. The
project would not increase the residential population, and therefore would not increase the
demand for parks, recreational facilities, schools, or libraries. The project site is located
6.0 Cumulative Impacts
6-7
approximately one mile from two fire stations: Fire Station 8 and Fire Station 6. It is
anticipated that fire response time to the project site would fall within the City’s Threshold
Standards of seven minutes, and there would not be a need to physically alter or construct
a facility. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a cumulatively significant impact relative
to physical impacts associated with the provision of fire protection/emergency medical
services would be less than significant.
The project site is located less than eight miles from the Chula Vista Police Department
(CVPD) Headquarters. Overall, the CVPD has not achieved performance objectives
established by the City’s Threshold Standards and implementation of the project could
contribute to increased demand for police protection. Consistent with the City’s General
Plan, the project would be required to pay a Public Facilities Development Impact Fee,
which would be used exclusively for future facility improvements necessary to ensure that
the development contributes its fair share of the cost of police facilities and equipment
determined to be necessary to adequately accommodate new development in the City.
Through compliance with the General Plan, it is ensued that the project’s contribution to a
cumulatively significant impact relative to physical impacts associated with the provision
of police protection would be less than significant.
6.2.11 Transportation
The project prepared a Local Mobility Analysis (LMA; see Appendix I) to identify project
effects on the roadway operations in the project study area and recommend project
improvements to address noted deficiencies as a means to ensue consistency with City
policies and plans related to the maintenance of adequate roadway capacity (i.e., General
Plan LUT Objective 21). A cumulative project effect is one in which project trips contribute
to a cause or add to an already deficient intersection or roadway. Criteria for determining
such an effect is detailed in Section 7.0 of the project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA; see
Appendix I).
The LMA studied two cumulative scenarios: Near-Term (study horizon year 2025) and
Long-Term (study horizon year 2035). Based on the City substantial effect criteria, the
LMA found that under both cumulative scenarios, the project would affect traffic flow at the
following intersections:
• Harold Place/Fenton Street
• Eastlake Parkway/Otay Lakes Road
• Hunte Parkway/Otay Lakes Road
• Eastlake Parkway/Fenton Street
As detailed in the project description, the project would commit funds to the installation of
a traffic signal at Harold Place/Fenton Street, and provide a fair share towards the
provision of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) modules to all signalized intersections
along Otay Lakes Road between Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. The installation
6.0 Cumulative Impacts
6-8
of the ATSC would allow traffic to flow at an acceptable level resulting in the project’s
consistency with local mobility plans, including the General Plan’s requirement that roads
operate at an acceptable level.
A SANDAG Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Map was prepared for the project (see
Figure 5.11-1). The map represents a cumulative analysis. The OPR Transportation
Technical Advisory notes that the threshold for determination of a significant transportation
VMT impact occurs at or above 85 percent of the regional VMT mean. As shown in
Figure 5.11-1 and Table 5.11-3, the project is at 21.35 percent of the regional mean.
Therefore, the project would be screened out of the requirement for a detailed VMT
analysis and would not result in cumulative impacts related to VMT. Therefore, the
project’s contribution to the cumulative impacts related to transportation and circulation
would be less than significant.
6.2.12 Utilities and Service Systems
The project site is served by adequate wastewater, water, and storm water systems. The
project would connect to the existing underground sewer, water and storm water pipelines
located within the cul-de-sac at the terminus of Showroom Place. Solid waste would be
diverted and recycled consistent with the CVMC, with remaining waste sent to the Otay
Landfill.
Cumulative impacts could occur if the project’s utility and service demands in combination
with other cumulative projects would exceed that anticipated in regional and local planning
documents. The project is consistent with the Eastlake II GDP and is an allowed use
subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, construction of the project has been
anticipated and provided for in the City’s General Plan, Otay Water District Urban Water
Management Plan, the City’s Wastewater Master Plan, and other relevant planning
documents. Therefore, the utility needs of the project have been anticipated and would
not affect the availability to the project site. As no new or expanded sources of water
supply would need to be developed to meet regional demands, and no new facilities would
need to be constructed, the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact related
to water supply would be less than significant.
6.2.13 Wildfire
The project would not interfere with emergency response plans, exacerbate wildfire risks
resulting in the release of pollutants or the installation of new infrastructure, nor expose
people to flooding or landslides from post-fire instability. Project design requires review
and approval by the Chula Vista Fire Department and compliance with regulatory
standards related to emergency access, treatment of brush and brush management,
preservation of drainage flows and floodplain safety. Inclusion of these design features
would ensure that the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to wildfire would
be less than significant.
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-1
7.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
In order to fully evaluate the environmental effects of proposed projects, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates that alternatives to a proposed project be
analyzed. Section 15127.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of “a range
of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project” and the evaluation of the comparative
merits of the alternatives. The alternatives discussion is intended to “focus on alternatives
to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any
significant effects of the project,” even if these alternatives impeded to some degree the
attainment of the project objectives.
As discussed in Chapter 5.0 of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), no significant
effects were identified as a result of implementation of the Eastlake Behavioral Health
Hospital project (project). Therefore, to adhere to the CEQA Guidelines in developing the
alternatives to be addressed, consideration was given to whether there are any
alternatives that would incrementally reduce any potential significant impacts while
meeting the basic objectives of the project. For example, it was determined that the project
would generate 2,986 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2E) annually, which
is less than the 3,000 MT CO2E residential/commercial screening threshold and therefore,
a less than significant impact. Thus, the alternatives analysis herein focuses on whether
there is a project that achieves the objectives while generating less than 2,986 MT CO2E.
While such an alternative would also result in a less than significant impact, it would result
in incrementally lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to the project. All
alternatives are also compared with their ability to meet project objectives.
As identified in Chapter 3.0, the project contains the following primary objectives:
• Provide quality, safe, cost-effective, socially responsible health care services that
focus on behavioral health.
• Construct a behavioral healthcare facility compliant with the state’s Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development seismic safety regulations, right
sized for the growth of patient volumes.
• Provide ancillary services including dietary services, on-site pharmacy, and
outdoor activities.
• Facilitate a responsible partnership between Scripps and Acadia healthcare to
provide expert, specialized care in behavioral health.
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-2
Locate a facility at a site that best serves the needs of the community including:
o Location in an area underserved by inpatient beds (based on
recommendations from the California Hospital Association that there be
50 inpatient behavioral health beds for every 100,000 population);
o Proximity to major road network;
o Appropriate size (10+ undeveloped acres) to construct a one-story facility; and
o Zoning that allows for a hospital use.
This chapter addresses alternatives considered but rejected, a No Project/Medical Office
Building Alternative, and a Reduced Intensity Alternative. Each major issue area included
in the impact analysis for the project has also been given consideration in the alternatives
impact analyses. An impact comparison of the project and the alternatives is shown in
Table 7-1.
TABLE 7-1
COMPARISON OF PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS SUMMARY
Environmental Issue Area Project
No Project/Medical Office
Building Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
Land Use LS Same as the project
(LS)
Same as the project
(LS)
Landform Alteration/ Aesthetics LS Greater than the project
(LS)
Same as the project
(LS)
Air Quality LS Greater than the project
(LS)
Less than the project
(LS)
Energy LS Greater than the project
(LS)
Less than the project
(SM)
Geology and Soils LS Same as the project
(LS)
Same as the project
(LS)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LS Greater than the project
(SM)*
Less than the project
(LS)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LS Same as the project
(LS)
Same as the project
(LS)
Hydrology and Water Quality LS Same as the project
(LS)
Same as the project
(LS)
Noise LS Greater than the project
(SMLS)*
Same as the project
(LS)
Public Services and Recreation LS Same as the project
(LS)
Same as the project
(LS)
Transportation LS Same as the project
(LS)
Same as the project
(LS)
Utilities and Service Systems LS Same as the project
(LS)
Less than the project
(LS)
Wildfire LS Same as the project
(LS)
Same as the project
(LS)
NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; SM = significant and mitigated
*Impacts could remain significant and unmitigated. See subsection 7.2.6.
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-3
As required under Section 15127.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR must identify
the environmentally superior alternative. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, if the No
Project Alternative is determined to be the most environmentally superior alternative then
another alternative must be identified as the environmentally superior alternative.
Section 7.4 discusses the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
7.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
This subsection of the EIR is provided consistent with CEQA Guidelines which state that
the EIR need examine in detail only a reasonable range of alternatives that the lead
agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.
Further, the EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency
but were rejected and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s
determination. Among factors used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in
the EIR is failure to meet most of the basic project objectives or inability to avoid significant
environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(c)). Consistent with the requirement to
address a “reasonable range” of alternatives, another consideration for excluding an
alternative from further study includes similarity to other alternatives that are addressed in
detail.
7.1.1 Alternate Location Alternative
According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6)(f)(2)(A):
The key question and first step in (alternative location) analysis is whether
any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially
lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.
A number of alternative sites were considered in an attempt to meet the required criteria,
as identified in the project objectives. None of the alternative sites were located at any
closer proximity to major road networks, nor could accommodate the size of the structure
or could be developed without a conditional use permit. The project site was selected, in
addition to meeting the siting criteria, because it provides a flat graded area which would
avoid additional site clearing, excavation, grading and compaction.
7.2 No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative
CEQA requires the inclusion of a No Project Alternative to allow decision makers to
compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3), the discussion of the No Project
Alternative proceeds along one of two lines:
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-4
(B) If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a
development project on identifiable property, the “no project” alternative is
the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the
discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property
remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would
occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under
consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the
proposal of some other project, this “no project” consequence should be
discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means “no build”
wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where
failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing
environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of
the project’s non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial
assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical
environment.
(C) After defining the no project alternative …, the lead agency should
proceed to analyze the impacts of the no project alternative by projecting
what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the
project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with
available infrastructure and community services.
In this analysis, the No Project/Medical Office Alternative would be the examination of
what could occur on the project site under existing plans and policies consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C). Specifically, the No Project/Medical Office
Building Alternative assumes the construction of a medical office building which could be
developed on the project site by-right under the existing zoning regulations. Based on the
existing development and zoning regulations, a No Project/Medical Office Building
Alternative could consist of two structures: one three-story structure and the other a two-
story structure totaling approximately 150,000 square feet. This total square footage is
approximately 60,000 square feet greater than the project, representing a 40 percent
increase is development.
In order to meet the parking requirements, the No Project Alternative would also need to
include a parking structure (i.e., three stories) along with surface parking to accommodate
approximately 800 parking spaces. A preliminary conceptual site plan of the No
Project/Medical Office Alternative is illustrated in Figure 7-1. As shown, the medical
buildings could be located along the north and eastern perimeters, with landscaping as
required by the Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP)/Business Center II
Supplemental SPA Plan.
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\Figure7-1.ai 11/19/20 lbMap Source: SWA ArchitectsFIGURE 7-1No Project/Medical Office Alternative Conceptual Site Plan
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-6
A comparative analysis of the impacts associated with this alternative and the project is
provided below.
7.2.1 Land Use
The No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative does not include any features that
would have the potential to physically divide an established community and would not
conflict with any policies of the General Plan, Eastlake II GDP, Business Center II
Supplemental Sectional Planning Area Plan, Municipal Code/Planned Communities
District Zones or Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. This alternative
would be allowed by-right (no requirement for a Conditional Use Permit) assuming
conformance with all development regulations including building setbacks, landscaping,
and architectural design. Therefore, land use impacts under the No Project/Medical Office
Building Alternative would be less than significant, the same compared to the project.
7.2.2 Landform Alteration/ Aesthetics
The No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative could require the construction of two
buildings totaling approximately 150,000 square feet. As shown in Figure 7-2, Building #1
would be a two-story structure located in the northern portion of the project site; Building
#2 would be a three-story structure located along the project site’s eastern perimeter. The
placement of these medical buildings on a currently vacant lot would, like the project, result
in a change to the visual character of the project site. Consistent with City development
standards and regulations, this alternative would likely be designed using muted colors
and earth toned accents and would be consistent with the existing pattern of development,
which includes taller structures and like the project, the impacts would be less than
significant. However as shown in Figure 7-2, due to the increased size and mass
(approximately 40 percent greater than the project), the placement and height of the
structures under this alternative, would be visible to downslope neighbors and could result
in the impairment of views throughout the project site. Additionally, although lighting, for
security, construction, and operation would conform to regulations relating to lumens,
orientation, and anti-reflective materials; lighting under this alternative could be visible to
northern and eastern residences. Overall, while impacts to scenic vistas, scenic
resources, visual character, and lighting under the No Project/Medical Office Building
Alternative would be less than significant, they would be greater compared to the project.
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\Figure7-2.ai 11/19/20 lbMap Source: SWA ArchitectsFIGURE 7-2No Project/Medical OfficeAlternative Site Sections
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-8
7.2.3 Air Quality
Like the project, the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be consistent
with the General Plan land use designation and would not result in growth in population
beyond that anticipated by the General Plan. The No Project/Medical Office Building
Alternative would construct two buildings totaling approximately 150,000 square feet,
which is approximately 60,000 square feet bigger than the project. As shown in Table 7-2,
the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative could result in the generation of 7,809
average daily traffic (ADT), which is approximately 75 percent greater than the number of
ADTs generated under the project.
TABLE 7-2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY: MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
Land Use Quantity
Daily Trip Ends
(ADT) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate* Volume
%
of
ADT
In:Out
Split
Volume
% of
ADT
In:Out
Split
Volume
In Out Total In Out Total
Medical Office
Building 156,171 50/KSF 7.809 6% 80:20 375 94 469 11% 30:70 258 601 859
TOTAL 7.809 375 94 469 258 601 859
*Rate is based on SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002.
Based on the size and generation of ADTs, it would be concluded that both construction
and operational emissions of air quality pollutants would be greater compared to the
project.
7.2.4 Energy
Like the project, the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would not conflict with
or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Due to the
increased size of the facility, however, the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative
would result in incrementally greater short-term and long-term energy use, than the
project.
7.2.5 Geology and Soils
Although the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would result in the construction
of a larger facility overall and greater intensity related to ADT, potential impacts related to
geology and soils would be the same. Compliance with City regulations, the California
Building Code, and adherence to the grading and site preparation recommendations
presented in the geotechnical investigation would ensure that the No Project/Medical
Office Building Alternative would not expose people or structures to seismic hazards or
unstable soils. Similarly, compliance with the General Construction Permit and Best
Management Practices outlined in the required Storm Water Quality Management Plan
would ensure that impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than
significant. Overall, impacts related to geology and soils would be the same compared to
the project.
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-9
7.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative building area would be approximately
60,000 square feet bigger than the project and would generate approximately 75 percent
more traffic. Thus, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction and operation
would be incrementally greater compared to the project. As discussed in Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would generate 2,986 MT CO2E of GHGs
annually, which would be less than the 3,000 MT CO2E screening threshold. Given that
the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would generate 75 percent more traffic,
it is likely that GHG emissions associated with the No Project/Medical Office Building
Alternative would exceed the 3,000 MT CO2E screening threshold and result in potentially
significant GHG impacts. The alternative would be required to include mitigation measures
to reduce on-site GHG emissions including, but not limited to: transportation demand
management program; electric vehicle parking; shuttles; increased building energy
efficiency measures; installation of solar panels; and/or measures to reduce water
consumption. Should these measures fail to reduce GHG emissions to below 3,000 MT
CO2E, the alternative may be able to purchase off-site carbon credits as a means to
reduced GHG impacts to less than significant levels; otherwise, impacts could remain
significant and unmitigated. Impacts would, therefore, be greater than the project.
7.2.7 Hazards
Similar to the project, the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would comply with
all applicable regulations and local plans for handling of hazardous materials, which would
ensure that this alternative would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Additionally, if required by state law, this alternative would prepare and comply with a
Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Risk Management Program The No
Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be consistent with local regulations
requiring the provision of emergency access and would be able to comply with local
emergency response and emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials would be the same compared to the project.
7.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
The No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would construct a building area which
would be approximately 60,000 square feet bigger than the project; however, new
impervious surfaces would be similar due to the design of the structures. Consistent with
City regulations and General Plan policies, the No Project/Medical Office Building
Alternative would include measures to ensure that potentially polluted runoff is avoided to
the greatest amount feasible during both project construction and operation. Additionally,
the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be required to comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local water quality standards through adherence to the City’s
Municipal Code, Jurisdictional Runoff Management Programs, and City’s Best
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-10
Management Practices Design Manual, as well as a project-specific Storm Water Quality
Management Plan prepared to reduce impacts related to water quality to a level less than
significant. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality under the
Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be the same compared to the project.
7.2.9 Noise
Construction of the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would require similar
types and amounts of construction equipment as the project, thus, construction noise
impacts would be the same compared to the project Once operational, noise sources
associated with the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be similar to the
project, and would include vehicle traffic, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment, emergency generators, and truck deliveries. The No Project/Medical Office
Building Alternative proposes a greater amount of building area, therefore, the required
HVAC capacity would be greater compared to the project. However, with proper
screening, it is not anticipated that the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would
result in noise levels that exceed the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) noise level
limits. In regards to traffic, because the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative
would generate approximately 75 percent more traffic than the project, traffic noise in the
vicinity of the project site would be incrementally greater than the project. While it is likely
that noise levels associated with the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would
remain less than significant, they would be incrementally greater compared to the project.
7.2.10 Public Services and Recreation
The demand for public services and recreation would be substantially the same under the
No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative. As with the project, the No Project/Medical
Office Building Alternative would not require any new or physically altered fire or
emergency medical facilities, police facilities, or park and recreation facilities. Impacts
would be the same compared to the project.
7.2.11 Traffic and Circulation
As shown in Table 7-2, the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would generate
7,809 ADT, approximately 75 percent more traffic than the project. Notwithstanding this
increase, the Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be screened out of the
requirement to prepare a detailed Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) because consistent with
the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines it would result in a VMT per employee that would be
below the regional VMT analysis.
This alternative generates significantly more trips; it would be expected to result in
increased changes to local mobility compared to the project. Additional road
improvements would be included as part of the alternative’s project description to ensure
compliance with acceptable traffic movement under the City’s local mobility plans.
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-11
Therefore, transportation impacts (consistency with plans and VMT) would be the same
compared to the project.
7.2.12 Utilities and Service Systems
Like the project, No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would implement recycling
programs to meet state and local waste reduction goals. Therefore, impacts associated
with utilities and services under this alternative would be the same compared to the
project.
7.2.13 Wildfire
The No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be located in the same location
as the project and, therefore, would be subject to the same level of fire risk from
surrounding areas. Likewise, the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be
subject to the same fire protection requirements as the project. Therefore, impacts
associated with wildfire would be the same compared to the project.
7.2.14 Conclusions
All impacts associated with the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be less
than significant, except for GHG which would be potentially significant. The alternative
would be required to include mitigation measures to ensure GHG levels are reduced to less
than significant levels. Notwithstanding the finding that all impacts would be less than
significant, compared to the project, the issue areas of landform/aesthetics, air quality,
energy, air quality, energy, GHG, and noise would be incrementally greater compared to the
project. Although the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would meet the primary
project objectives, Overall, this alternative is rejected as infeasible because it fails to meet
any of the project objectives.would result in impacts greater than the proposed project,
including potentially significant and unmitigable impacts related to GHG.
7.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would construct a reduced size behavioral health
hospital that would accommodate 50 percent less patient beds, for a total of 60 beds. A
conceptual site plan of the Reduced Intensity Alternative is illustrated in Figure 7-3. All
amenities and operational features would remain the same; however, doctor/nurse staffing
and administration would be reduced proportionally. The aesthetic of the structure, exterior
recreational areas, landscaping, and security measures would also remain the same as
the project. This alternative would also include the commitment of funding for the
construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Harold Place/Fenton Street and
provision of a fair share towards the construction of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC)
modules to all signalized intersections along Otay Lakes Road between Eastlake Parkway
and Hunte Parkway (see Section 7.3.12).
M:\JOBS5\9434\env\graphics\Figure7-3.ai 11/20/20 lbMap Source: SWA ArchitectsFIGURE 7-3Reduced Intensity AlternativeConceptual Site Plan
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-13
As detailed throughout Chapter 5.0, the project would not result in any significant impacts.
The comparative analysis of the Reduced Intensity Alternative is included herein to satisfy
CEQA Guidelines Section 15127.6; however, this alternative would result in the same level
of impacts and would not serve to reduce any significant impacts.
7.3.1 Land Use
The Reduced Intensity Alternative does not include any features that would have the
potential to physically divide an established community and would not conflict with any
policies of the General Plan, Eastlake II GDP, Business Center II Supplemental Sectional
Planning Area Plan, Municipal Code/Planned Communities District Zones or Multiple
Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. Specifically, this alternative would conform
to all building setbacks, landscaping, architectural design, and development regulations
including the planting of perimeter shrubs and screening trees along the northern and
eastern property edges. Like the project, the Reduced Development Alternative would
also require processing of Conditional Use and Design Review Permits. Therefore, with
the alternative conforming to all permit conditions and findings, land use impacts of the
Reduced Intensity Alternative would be the same compared to the project.
7.3.2 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the size of the proposed behavioral health
hospital and serve 50 percent less patients; however, because the structure would be
placed on a currently vacant lot, it would result in the same change to the visual character
of the project site. Like the project, this alternative designed using the same aesthetic of
muted colors and earth-toned accents and would be consistent with the existing pattern
of development. Lighting, for security, construction, and operation would conform to
regulations relating to lumens, orientation, and anti-reflective materials. Under this
alternative, the behavioral health hospital would also be a single-story structure which
would allow continued views through the project site. Overall, impacts to scenic vistas,
scenic resources, visual character, and lighting under the Reduced Intensity Alternative
would be the same compared to the project.
7.3.3 Air Quality
Like the project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be consistent with the General
Plan land use designation and would not result in growth in population beyond that
anticipated by the General Plan. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would construct a
building that would be approximately 26,000 square feet less than the proposed building,
and would generate approximately 1,200 ADT, which is half of the traffic that would be
generated by the project. Emissions of air quality pollutants, including ozone precursors
from construction and operational activities would not exceed the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards or California Ambient Air Quality Standards or contribute to existing
violations. This alternative would result in short-term air quality impacts similar to, but less
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-14
than the project, since grading and construction activities would be slightly reduced due
to the smaller footprint. Likewise, this alternative would result in a reduced level of traffic-
related emissions due to the decrease in trips associated with the reduced size of the
facility. Overall, like the project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have less than
significant construction and operational emissions levels; however, emissions would be
incrementally less than the project.
7.3.4 Energy
Like the project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Due to the reduced size of
the facility, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in similar short-term and long-
term energy use, but incrementally less than, the project. Therefore, like the project, the
Reduced Intensity Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to energy
use; however, energy use would be incrementally less than the project.
7.3.5 Geology and Soils
Although the Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the development size and
intensity compared to the project, potential impacts related to geology and soils would be
the same. Compliance with City regulations, the California Building Code, and adherence
to the grading and site preparation recommendations presented in the geotechnical
investigation would ensure that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not expose people
or structures to seismic hazards or unstable soils. Similarly, compliance with the General
Construction Permit and Best Management Practices outlined in the required Storm Water
Quality Management Plan would ensure that impacts related to soil erosion and the loss
of topsoil would be less than significant. Overall, impacts related to geology and soils
would be the same compared to the project.
7.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Like the project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct a
state or local GHG reduction plan. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would construct a
building that would be approximately 26,000 square feet less than the proposed building,
and would generate 1,200 ADT which is half of the traffic that would be generated by the
project. Due to the reduced size of the facility, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would
result in GHG emissions that would be incrementally less than the project. Therefore, like
the project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have less than significant impacts
associated with GHG emissions; however, emissions would be incrementally less than the
project.
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-15
7.3.7 Hazards
Similar to the project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would comply with all applicable
regulations and local plans for handling of hazardous materials, which would ensure that
this alternative would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Additionally, this
alternative would be required to prepare and comply with a Hazardous Materials Business
Plan and Risk Management Program consistent with local and state law. The project site
is not listed as a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5, nor located within two miles of a public airport (or within an Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan) or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Reduced Intensity
Alternative would provide similar emergency access and would be able to comply with
local emergency response and emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts related
to hazards and hazardous materials would be the same compared to the project.
7.3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Although the Reduced Intensity Alternative would construct a smaller structure it would
result in new impervious surfaces throughout the project site increasing storm water runoff
entering downstream water bodies. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would design
measures to ensure that potentially polluted runoff is avoided to the greatest amount
feasible during both project construction and operation. The Reduced Intensity Alternative
would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local water quality
standards through adherence to the City’s Municipal Code, Jurisdictional Runoff
Management Programs, and the City’s Best Management Practices Design Manual, as
well as a project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared to reduce
impacts related to water quality to a level less than significant. Overall, impacts related to
hydrology and water quality under the Reduced Development Alternative would be less
than significant, the same compared to the project.
7.3.9 Noise
Construction of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would require similar types and amounts
of construction equipment as the project; thus, construction noise impacts would be the
same as the project and would be less than significant. Once operational, noise impacts
under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be reduced compared to those of the
project. The noise sources associated with this alternative would be the same as the
project; however, due to the decrease in building size and traffic generation, noise levels
associated with the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be incrementally less compared
to the project. As with the project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not result in
noise levels that exceed CVMC noise level limits or result in a significant increase in
ambient noise levels. Overall, noise impacts under the Reduced Intensity Alternative
would be the same compared to the project.
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-16
7.3.10 Public Services and Recreation
Although the development intensity would decrease under this alternative, the demand for
public services and recreation would be substantially the same. As with the project, the
Reduced Intensity Alternative would not require any new or physically altered fire or
emergency medical facilities, police facilities, or park and recreation facilities. Impacts
would be the same compared to the project.
7.3.11 Traffic and Circulation
Like the project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be screened out of the
requirement to prepare a detailed VMT analysis because even with the reduced facility
size, it would result in a VMT per employee that would be below the regional VMT analysis.
With respect, this alternative’s effect on the City’s local mobility plans, while the Reduced
Intensity Alternative would result in fewer trips on local roads compared to the project, it
is likely that this alternative coupled with buildout under existing plans would require the
alternative to include the commitment of funds for the signalization of the intersection at
Harold Place/Fenton Street as a project feature, as well as the provision of a fair share
towards the construction of ATSC modules to all signalized intersections along Otay Lakes
Road between Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. Transportation impacts
(consistency with plans and VMT) would be the same compared to the project.
7.3.12 Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce demands on
wastewater treatment and water supply compared to the project due to reduced
development intensity. As with the project, this alternative would implement recycling
programs to meet state and local waste reduction goals. Overall, like the project, the
Reduced Intensity Alternative would have less than significant impacts associated with
utilities and services; however, demands would be incrementally less than the project.
7.3.13 Wildfire
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be located in the same location as the project
and, therefore, would be subject to the same level of fire risk from surrounding areas.
Likewise, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be subject to the same fire protection
requirements as the project. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire under the
Reduced Intensity Alternative would be the same compared to the project.
7.3.14 Conclusions
Like the project, impacts associated with the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be less
than significant; however, due to the reduced size of the facility impacts associated with
the issue areas of air quality, energy, GHG, and utilities and services systems would be
7.0 Project Alternatives
7-17
incrementally less compared to the project. All other impacts under the Reduced Intensity
Alternative would be the same compared to the project. However, this alternative is
rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the objectives of the project as it would
including the ability to not serve the regional needs of the community of by providing the
needed inpatient beds.
7.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced environmental impacts
compared to the project and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative.
This alternative, however, fails to meet the primary objectives of the project as it would not
provide a behavioral health hospital that would satisfy the inpatient bed requirements of
the community.
8.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
8-1
8.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15128, this
section describes the environmental issue areas that were determined during preliminary
project review not to be significant, and are therefore not discussed in detail in the
environmental impact report.
8.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
8.1.1 Agricultural Resources
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
identifies that the project site is Urban and Built-Up Land. The project site does not
include lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide or Local Importance pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program maps prepared by the California Resources Agency (California Department of
Conservation 2016).
As the project site does not contain any agricultural resources, no agricultural resources
including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local
Importance would be converted to a non-agricultural use.
The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. There are no lands under Williamson
Act Contract within the City of Chula Vista (City; City of Chula Vista 2005a). As such, the
project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract.
8.1.2 Forestry Resources
Forest land is defined as “land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species,
including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one
or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity,
water quality, recreation, and other public benefits” (California Public Resources Code,
Section 12220(g)). Timberland is defined as “land, other than land owned by the federal
government and land designated by the board as experimental forestland, which is
available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to
produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees” (California Public
Resources Code, Section 4526). A Timberland Production Zone is defined as “an area
which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used
for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible
uses, as defined in subdivision” (California Public Resources Code, Section 51104(g)).
The project site is not zoned for timberland production and trees make up less than
10 percent of the land cover. Therefore, the site does not support any forestry resources
8.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
8-2
or forest lands as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Project
implementation would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest
use.
8.2 Biological Resources
The project site is mapped Developed/Urban Land per the Chula Vista Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan and does not include any habitat
conservation areas. As the project site has been previously graded in an urbanized
environment, it does not include any mature and/or protected trees, riparian habitat,
wetland habitat, migratory wildlife corridors, wildlife nursery sites, or any other sensitive
natural community. As the project site does not include any habitats or wildlife, the
project would result in no impacts to biological resources. The project’s potential to
conflict with provisions of local policies, ordinances, or conservation plans intended to
protect biological resources would be less than significant.
8.3 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The term "historic resources" applies to any such resource that is at least 50 years old
and is either listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the California Register of
Historical Resources. The project site is vacant within the approved Business Center II
Supplemental Specific Planning Area (SPA) and the immediately adjacent structures
were all constructed between 2000 and 2006. No historical structures occur on or
immediately adjacent to the project site.
Project site excavations are anticipated for subgrade preparation associated with the
shallow foundations required for the proposed single-story slab on grade construction for
the project. Recommendations from the Geotechnical Evaluation indicate that the project
would require remedial grading of up to eight feet of depth below building foundations to
remove and replace the existing fill (see Appendix D). As the project site has been
previously graded and fill soils have already been placed on the site, the project would
not impact human remains. Additionally, as the project site has already been graded fill
soils have already been placed on the project site. As such, the project would not
impact cultural or tribal cultural resources.
8.4 Mineral Resources
Mineral resources in the City are described in the Environmental Element of the City’s
General Plan. Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) are delineated in Figure 9-4: MRZ-2
Area Map of the City’s General Plan (City of Chula Vista 2005a). Mineral resources
located within the City include sand, gravel, crushed rock resources, known collectively
as construction aggregate. The project site is not located within an MRZ nor is it located
on or within any areas containing mineral resources as indicated in the City’s General
Plan. Additionally, the project site is not currently being used for mineral resource
8.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
8-3
extraction. The project site is located within an urbanized area. Given these factors, the
project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of future value to the region and the residents of the state.
8.5 Population and Housing
The project site is located in an urbanized area and proposes development consistent
with the density envisioned by the City’s General Plan or the Business Center II
Supplemental SPA Plan. As such, the project is not anticipated to induce substantial
unplanned population growth. The project does not include removal or addition of
housing; as such, there would be no displacement of housing or people necessitating
the construction of new housing.
9.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/Irreversible Changes
9-1
9.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS/IRREVERSIBLE
CHANGES
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15126.2(b) and
15126.2(c) require that the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, as well as any
significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from project
implementation, be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
9.1 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided if the Project
Is Implemented
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), any significant unavoidable
impacts of a project, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to
below a level of significance despite the applicant’s willingness to implement all feasible
mitigation measures, must be identified in the EIR. As discussed throughout Chapter 5.0
and in Chapter 6.0 of this EIR, the project would not result in a significant direct or
cumulative impact that cannot be avoided.
9.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Result if the Project Is
Implemented
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c):
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases
of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such
resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts
and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvements
which provide access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit
future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result
from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable
commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such
current consumption is justified.
Non-renewable resources generally include agricultural land; biological, archaeological
and paleontological resources; mineral deposits; water bodies; and some energy
sources. As evaluated in Chapters 5.0 and 6.0 of this EIR, implementation of the project
would not result in significant irreversible impacts to any of the aforementioned
resources areas.
Implementation of the project would require the irreversible consumption of natural
resources and energy. Natural resource consumption would include lumber and other
forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, other metals, and water.
Building materials, while perhaps recyclable in part at some long-term future date, would
for practical purposes be considered permanently consumed. Energy derived from non-
9.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/Irreversible Changes
9-2
renewable sources, such as fossil and nuclear fuels, would be consumed during
construction and operational lighting, heating, cooling, and transportation uses.
To minimize the use of energy, water, and other natural resources, the project would
incorporate sustainable building practices into the project design. The project would
adhere to local regulations and General Plan policies requiring the inclusion of green
building design measures. Additionally, the project has been designed to utilize
recycling, and reduce water and energy use.
10.0 Growth Inducement
10-1
10.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires
that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
Discuss ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly
or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included are projects which
would remove obstacles to population growth (for example, a major
expansion of a waste water treatment plant might allow for more
construction in service areas). Increases in the population might tax
existing community services facilities, requiring construction of new
facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss
the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate
other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either
individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area
is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the
environment.
10.1 Population and Growth Projections
The City of Chula Vista (City) General Plan Update was specifically intended to provide
for the orderly growth of the City, define the limits to that growth, and act as a mechanism
to accommodate and control future growth. Development permitted by land use policy
would provide needed housing for all income levels, create compact and pedestrian-
friendly urban development, and protect natural resources. Implementation of the General
Plan would result in a more inclusive community, maintain a balance between housing
and employment, and foster a stable economic base and diverse employment
opportunities (City of Chula Vista 2005a).
The project would construct a behavioral health hospital within the boundaries of the
Eastlake General Development Plan (GDP). The proposed use is allowed with approval
of a Conditional Use Permit and is consistent with the policies of the GDP and has been
anticipated by the General Plan Update. Therefore, the project would not result in changes
to population growth projections and would not have a growth inducing effect on the City.
10.2 Public Services and Infrastructure
The project is located within the existing Eastlake Business Center surrounding by
commercial and residential uses. It is an infill project that would connect to existing
infrastructure and utilities lines without the need for expansion or extensions. Although the
project would result in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and
emergency medical services, police protection, water demand, wastewater treatment, and
solid waste services, these anticipated increases would not significantly burden existing
10.0 Growth Inducement
10-2
community services facilities or require construction of new facilities that would cause
significant environmental effects (see Sections 5.10 and 5.12).
The project would connect to the existing underground water, storm water, and sewer
pipelines that serve the surrounding area. The project would also construct an on-site
bioretention basin that would adequately reduce volume and convey runoff from the
project site to the existing infrastructure.
Because the project is located in an urbanized area surrounded by existing commercial,
residential, and transportation facilities, project implementation would not remove
obstacles to population growth. Access to the site would be obtained from existing major
roadways and the primary public infrastructure (e.g., water and sewer pipelines) are
already in place and have sufficient capacity to support buildout of the project. Therefore,
the project would not require extension of roads or other infrastructure that could induce
population growth either directly or indirectly.
11.0 References Cited
11-1
11.0 REFERENCES CITED
ASTM International
2016 Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
2008 CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,
January.
2017 California Emissions Estimator model (CalEEMod). User’s Guide Version
2016.3.2. October.
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2000 Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-
Fueled Engines and Vehicles. California Air Resources Board. Stationary
Source Division, Mobile Source Control Division. October.
2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
California Air Resources Board. April.
2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Accessed at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf.
December.
2011 In-Use Off-Road Equipment (Construction, Industrial, Ground Support, and Oil
Drilling) 2011 Inventory Model.
2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework
(2014 Scoping Pan).
2016 Ambient Air Quality Standards. California Air Resources Board. May 4
2017 The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, The Strategy for Achieving
California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, Draft. October 27.
California Code of Regulations
2019 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Chapter 12 Interior Environment, Section 1207, Sound Transmission,
accessed at http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx.
11.0 References Cited
11-2
California Department of Conservation
2016 California Important Farmland Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
2015a AB 341 Report to the Legislature. Publication #DRRR-2015-1538.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1168.
2015b Otay Landfill Solid Waste Facility, Accessed on December 2, 2015. Available at
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/37-AA-0010/Detail/
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2013 Technical Noise Supplement.
California Energy Commission (CEC)
2018 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.
March. Accessed at https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03
/Title_24 _2019_ Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf.
2019 Final Staff Report 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan. CEC-400-
2019-010-SF. November.
California Geological Survey (CGS)
2018 California Earthquake History and Catalogs – Downloadable California
Earthquake Catalogs.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/Earthquakes/earthquake-
catalog.aspx
Chula Vista, City of
1999a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Eastlake II GDP and Eastlake I SPA
Amendments, October 28, 1999.
1999b General Development Plan Eastlake II. Amended 2007.
2000 Chula Vista CO2 Reduction Plan. Adopted November 14, 2000.
2005a City of Chula Vista General Plan, Vision 2020. Adopted December 13, 2005.
Amended March 17, 2020.
2005b Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations.
2005c City of Chula Vista General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report,
December.
11.0 References Cited
11-3
2007 Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for the Eastlake Business
Center II. December.
2008 Climate Change Working Group Measures Implementation Plan. July 2008.
2011a Climate Adaptation Strategies Implementation Plans. May 2011.
2011b Chula Vista Public Library: Strategic Facilities Plan. Chula Vista, California.
April.
2014 Chula Vista Public Library Strategic Vision Plan.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=11716. February.
2015a Jurisdictional Runoff Management Programs. June. Updated January 2018.
2015b BMP Design Manual for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and
Hydromodification Management. Updated March 2019.
2016 Sharp Ocean View Tower Project Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR 15-
0002, SCH No. 2016021010. September
2017a Chula Vista Climate Action Plan. Adopted September 2017.
2017b Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. December.
2018 Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-
services/planning/parks-recreation-master-plan-update. August.
2020a 2016 GHG Emissions Community Inventory Report. Adopted March 2020.
2020b 2016 GHG Emissions Municipal Inventory Report. Adopted March 2020.
2020c City of Chula Vista Transportation Study Guidelines. June.
2020d Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2019. Growth Oversight Committee.
http://lfweblink.chulavistaca.gov:27630/weblink8/0/doc/215869/Page1.aspx
January.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
2020 About our District. https://www.cvesd.org/district. September.
11.0 References Cited
11-4
Chula Vista Fire Department
2012 Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment Master Plan. March.
2020 Apparatus Type Explained. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/fire-
department/apparatus-typing-explained. September.
Chula Vista Police Department
2020 GMOC Response Times. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/police-
department/about-us/gmoc-response-times. September
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
2020 EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/
?myaddress=+showroom+place%2C+chula+vista.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
2006 Roadway Construction Noise Model. FHWA-HEP-05-054, SOT-VNTSC-
FHWA-05-01. Final Report. January.
2011 Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA-HEP-10-
025. December.
Geotechnics, Inc.
2003 As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Eastlake Business Center (Phase 2), Chula
Vista Tract No. 00-02, Chula Vista, California. March.
Hart, Earl W., and William A. Bryant
1997 Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. California Department
of Conservation.
K&S Engineering
2019a Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan for
Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital. August 2.
2019b Drainage Study for Acadia Health Care. February 28.
2019c Sewer Study for Eastlake Behavioral Hospital. December 2.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG)
2020 Transportation Impact Analysis, Acadia Hospital. LLG Ref. 3-18-3022.
June 16.
11.0 References Cited
11-5
Ninyo & Moore
2019 Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Acadia San Diego Medical Facility.
March 6.
RECON Environmental, Inc.
2019 Noise Analysis for the Acadia Behavioral Health Hospital Project, Chula Vista,
California. March 21.
2020a Air Quality Analysis for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital Project, Chula
Vista, California. July 6.
2020b Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital Project,
Chula Vista, California. September 21.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD)
1992 1991/1992 Regional Air Quality Strategies. Air Pollution Control District. June.
2016 2016 Revision of the Regional Air Quality Strategy for San Diego County.
December.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
2015 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October.
https://sdforward.com/pdfs/Final_PDFs/The_Plan_combined.pdf
San Diego, County of
2010 Office of Emergency Services. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.
html. August.
2018 Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. Unified San Diego County
Emergency Services Organization and County of San Diego. September.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
2010 Brown Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
San Diego County Water Authority
2016 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June.
https://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/UWMP2015.pdf.
San Diego Gas & Electric
2011 March 2011 Semi-Annual Compliance Report Pursuant to the California
Renewables Portfolio Standard. Filed March.
11.0 References Cited
11-6
2019 2018 Power Content Label. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
01/2018_PCL_San_Diego_Gas_and_Electric.pdf.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
2016 San Diego Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan. February.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
2009 Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group
14. November 19, 2009.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
2020a Energy Star. http://www.energystar.gov Accessed June 17, 2020.
2020b U.S. EPA State and Local Climate and Energy Program. http://www.epa.gov/
statelocalclimate/index.html. Accessed June 17, 2020.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
2019 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps – Fault Parameters website,
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm.
Western Regional Climate Center
2020 Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0968 and http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca23188.
12.0 Environmental Impact Report Preparation
12-1
12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared by the City of Chula Vista (City).
The City was assisted by RECON Environmental, Inc. The following professional staff
participated in the preparation of the EIR:
City of Chula Vista
Steve Power, AICP, Principal Planner
Stan Donn, AICP, Senior Planer
Caroline Young, Associate Planner/Project Manager
Michael Shirey, Deputy City Attorney III
RECON Environmental, Inc.
Lee Sherwood, Environmental Director
Lori Spar, Senior Project Manager
Jesse Fleming, Senior Technical Specialist
Morgan Weintraub, Environmental Analyst
Stacey Higgins, Senior Production Specialist
Jennifer Gutierrez, Production Specialist
Frank McDermott, GIS Coordinator
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG)
John Boarman, P.E., Principal
Amelia Giacalone, Transportation Planner III
K&S Engineering, Inc.
Kamal Sweis, President
Ninyo & Moore
Kenneth Mansir, Jr., PE GE, Principal Engineer
William Morrison, PE GE, Senior Engineer
Nissa Morton, PG CEG, Project Geologist
SWA Architects
Tina Go, AIA, Principal
Stephen Wen, Principal