Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Staff Report 11.10.21 Item: 5.1 Meeting Date: 11/10/21 ITEM TITLE Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Approval for a one-story, 120 bed acute psychiatric hospital on a 10.5-acre site in the Eastlake II Planned Community BC-4 Zone, known as the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital. Location: 830 and 831 Showroom Place Environmental Notice: Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0001) has been prepared. Recommended Action Conduct a public hearing and: A) Consider a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR20-0001/SCH 2021030087) and approving Conditional Use Permit CUP19-0010 to allow the use of a one- story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital (Attachment 1); and B) Consider a resolution approving Design Review Permit DR19-0012 for the construction of a one-story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital (Attachment 2). SUMMARY The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital, known as the Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital (“EBHH” or the “Project”), on a 10.5-acre site, consisting of two parcels that are under one ownership (Attachment 3, Locator Map). The use consists of specific medical and ancillary services which include in- and out-patient behavioral 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. Site amenities include associated parking and open space with exterior activity areas, a patio with shade canopy, walking paths, a recreation lawn and associated building security. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Director of Development Services has caused the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), EIR20-0001. Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 2 HOUSING IMPACT STATEMENT The proposed Project is located within the Eastlake II Planned Community BC-4 Zone, which is an Industrial land use designation and zoning. This zone does not allow housing and no housing is proposed as part of this Project. DISCUSSION On May 20, 2019, Eastlake Behavioral Health, LLC, submitted an application for a Design Review (DR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a one-story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital on a 10.5-acre site at 830 and 831 Showroom Place (the “Project Site”), known as EBHH. An acute psychiatric hospital is a psychiatric health facility that is licensed to provide acute psychiatric inpatient hospital services. These services reflect a highly therapeutic level of care, designed to meet the mental health needs of patients who greatly benefit from a structured and safe environment. Such care consists of therapeutic group programming throughout the patient’s stay, seeing a psychiatrist, being supervised by licensed, trained staff on a daily basis, and provided 24-hour nursing care in an acute setting. The Project will be a collaborative enterprise between Acadia Healthcare and Scripps Health organization. The EBHH will be operated under a joint management committee with project ownership apportioned 80% to Acadia Healthcare and 20% to Scripps Health. The joint management committee will be shared evenly between the two organizations. Project Description The proposed Project consists of the construction and operation of a one story, 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital on a 10.5-acre site in the Eastlake II Planned Community BC-4 Zone. The use would consists of specific medical and ancillary services to include in- and out-patient behavioral 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. Site amenities include associated parking and open space with exterior activity areas, a patio with shade canopy, walking paths, a recreation lawn and associated building security measures. Onsite security measures include the following: an eight-foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall with art painting or tile along the front, side, and rear property line; 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 onsite 24 hours a day to monitor the facility and the surrounding premises. A 12-foot concrete wall with colored finish surrounds the courtyards on either side of the main entrance. (Attachment 4, Project Plans). The 10.5-acre Project Site is located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the urbanized northeast portion of the City. The Project Site is a flat, vacant lot that has been previously graded. The site is comprised of two lots totaling 10.5-acres at the end of the cul-de-sac on Showroom Place. Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 3 The existing and surrounding land uses are as follows: Table 1 – Existing & Surrounding Land Uses General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Site: Limited Industrial BC4-Business Center Vacant South: Limited Industrial BC4-Business Center Amazon Delivery Van Parking Lot Commercial Retail VC5-Village Center District at Eastlake Commercial Center North: Limited Industrial BC4-Business Center Private Open Space Residential Low Medium SF3- Res. Single-Family Single-Family Residential East: Open Space OS- Open Space Private Open Space Residential Low Medium RP2- Res. Single-Family Single-Family Residential West: Limited Industrial BC1-Business Center Venture Commerce Center-Eastlake Compliance with Development Standards The proposed Project meets all applicable parking, setback, and building height requirements, as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 – Development Standards Table Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 595-710-11-00, 595-710-12-00 Current Zoning: Business Center (BC4) General Plan Designation: Limited Industrial (IL) Lot Area: 10.5-acres PARKING REQUIRED: 1.5 spaces per bed- 120 beds Total: 180 spaces PARKING PROPOSED: Accessible Van Spaces: 2 spaces Accessible Spaces: 18 spaces Regular Spaces: 166 Total: 186 spaces Open Space Required: Not Applicable Open Space Proposed: Not Applicable SETBACKS/HEIGHT REQUIRED: Front: 25 feet Side: 15 feet Rear: 10 feet Height: 35 feet/76 feet with DR approval SETBACKS/HEIGHT PROPOSED: Front: 255 feet Side: 41 feet & 46 feet Rear: 81 feet Height: 29 feet Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 4 Conditional Use Permit In accordance with CVMC Chapter 19.54, and the Eastlake II Planned Community District BC-4 zone, a CUP is required for the Project. The following describes and analyzes the proposed use of the Project Site, staff’s proposed conditions on such uses and required findings for approval. Land Use Compatibility The Project Site is located within the Eastlake Business Park at the end of the cul-de-sac at 830 and 831 Showroom Place. The Project Site sits adjacent to the District at Eastlake with commercial uses such as restaurants and family-oriented businesses, providing play areas for adults and children, most of which also require CUPs to operate. Current 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). Open space and single-family residential properties are located to the north and east. There is a manufactured slope that extends along the northern and eastern boundaries of the property separating the Project Site from existing single-family residences. The slopes range from 20- feet in height on the northern edge to 60-feet on the eastern edge. The slopes are currently heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs. At the foot of both manufactured slopes are where the existing single-family residential properties are located. All residences have rear fencing and the Project proposes an eight- foot high Concrete Masonry Unit wall around the entire perimeter of the property. There is no significant grade separation between the Project Site and the District at Eastlake commercial center. The proposed use complies with the General Plan policy of providing adequate commercial and industrial uses for the Chula Vista community through the attraction of industries and businesses that contribute to the diversification and stabilization of the local economy. Additionally, through the construction and operation of the proposed hospital, an additional 150 higher-wage jobs would be added to the local economy. Currently, the Project Site is vacant and was previously graded in 2002. The commercial use is appropriate for this site and allowed under the Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA), Business Center 4 (BC-4) zone. Approval of the Project requires compliance with all applicable codes and regulations, and all conditions must be satisfied prior to the final building inspection or occupancy. Zoning Standards The Project Site’s zoning allows for a hospital use with a CUP in the Eastlake Business Park. This is consistent with the requirements of the BC-4 district regulations and the CVMC. Because there is not a separate land use classification for psychiatric hospitals in the CVMC, this project is being processed as any other type of hospital use would be through a CUP. The Eastlake Business Park is envisioned to accommodate both industrial and commercial uses. Over time, as fewer industrial uses were proposed, more commercial, child-oriented uses were allowed within the Eastlake Business Park, most uses requiring the approval of a CUP. While there is a residential neighborhood nearby to the north, it is separated from the property by both topography and infrastructure such as trees and a Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 5 concrete swale at the top of slope, and there is no legal direct access between the property and the adjacent residential neighborhood. It is common for behavior health facilities, such as Acadia’s facilities in other parts of California, to be located near homes, schools, houses of worship, and other businesses. In San Diego County, Aurora Behavior Health in Ranch Bernardo, Bayview Behavioral Health Hospital in Chula Vista, and Sharp Mesa Vista in Kearny Mesa are all located in commercial areas and are all in close proximity to residences, school, and parks. Patient Facilities and Services The proposed Project consists of a one-story building, approximately 97,050 square-feet in size. The 120 proposed patient beds would be located within six distinct nursing units, as described below:  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) 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 out-patient 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. The Project would provide both in-patient and intensive out-patient 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. Security The Project includes a security plan which addresses security of patients, staff, and the surrounding community. Onsite security measures include the following: an eight-foot CMU wall with art painting or tile along the front, side, and rear property line; 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; and controlled access in and out to the facility and between units to encourage safety. Security personnel will be onsite 24 hours a day to monitor the facility and the surrounding premises. A 12-foot concrete wall with colored finish surrounds the courtyards on either side of the main entrance. These are all conditions included in the CUP. Additionally, as part of their Operational Profile, the Applicant will provide patient checks at a minimum of every 15 minutes. Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 6 Acadia Healthcare’s other facilities located in Riverside and San Jose are both located in commercial areas and are in close proximity to residents, schools, and family-oriented business, childcare centers, and houses of worship. According to the applicant, both facilities have positive relationships with their neighbors. Recently, the City of Riverside Planning Commission approved an expansion to the Pacific Grove Behavior Health Hospital located in Riverside and removed the original condition of approval for onsite security, since it was determined that it was no longer needed. The City of Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) has reviewed the proposed Project, including the Operational Profile. CVPD’s staff lead for behavioral health needs presented several questions on the Operational Profile to Acadia Healthcare. Specifically, CVPD was concerned about discharge procedures for the homeless, in-patient 911 calls, and “elopements”, defined as patients leaving the facility without permission or authorization. Acadia Healthcare provided satisfactory responses to CVPD’s comments and addressed their concerns by stating all patients, whether homeless or not, discharged from the facility would be “provided with arranged transportation to a specific, safe post- treatment care location.” Further, if such a place is not possible, then discharge is likely not appropriate for the individual. Acadia Healthcare also confirmed that patients of the facility would not have access to their cell phones and if found to be abusive of the community phone, their phone privileges would be revoked during their stay. Finally, Acadia Healthcare differentiated the planned facility from residential foster care facilities which cannot offer locked, secure facilities for their residents. The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital will be a secured facility and as such, the prevalence of elopements indicative of non-secure facilities should not arise with this Project. Accordingly, CVPD is supportive of the project. 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 will 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. Traffic A Transportation Impact Analysis dated June 16, 2020, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG 2020), analyzed the potential traffic impacts of the Project. The study reviewed the existing traffic conditions and evaluated the effect of potential impacts related to the traffic generated by the Project. The study provided an analysis of impacts measured by Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT), which is the metric required by Senate Bill 743 and the current way transportation impacts analysis are conducted for purposes of CEQA. 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. Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 7 With respect to the proposed Project, “VMT per employees” is the efficiency metric used for the evaluation. In general, the traffic analysis presents the Project VMT per employee, and compares it to the regional VMT per employee to determine if the former is higher, equal to, or lower than the latter. The Project’s VMT per employees is 21.35, which is less than the regional baseline VMT per employee at 25.90 and the significance threshold level (85% of Regional Average VMT per Employees) at 22.02. Therefore, the Project’s VMT is less than significant and will not create a transportation impact. The Project includes the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Harold Place and Fenton Street. Additionally, the Project includes a condition to provide a fair share contribution 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 will allow the Project to be consistent with relevant plans, policies, and programs relating to transportation. The Project would not result in a conflict with applicable plans, policies, or programs relating to Transportation, including the City General Plan or CVMC. The City received numerous communications from the public expressing concerns regarding the existing traffic within the Eastlake area and whether the Project will potentially result in increased traffic. Reviewing the Project’s details and the Transportation Impact Analysis, it has been determined the traffic generated by this Project will not be significant. Residents were also concerned with the lack of transportation options: the nearest bus stop is one mile from the site and the nearest major highway is a toll road. The Project will also include the provision of a shuttle service to pick up and drop off patients from and to the nearest public transit stop and be conditioned on the provision of shuttle service to public transportation sites and/or other facilities. This condition will be part of the project’s CUP. Operational Profile/Hours of Operation Hours of operation for the Project will be 24-hours per day, seven days per week, 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-hour shifts. 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. (Attachment 5) This is a condition included in the CUP. Environmental Impact Report FEIR 20-0001 CEQA Section 21002 requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identify the significant effects of a project on the environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid these effects. EIR20-0001, was prepared and assigned a State Clearinghouse identification number (SCH No. 2021030087) to analyze such impacts of the Project (Attachment 6). The following required public review periods were provided:  Notice of Preparation pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines (August 31, 2020 – September 29, 2020); and Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 8  Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR (April 27, 2021 – June 10, 2021). Due to the nature of the Project, the comment period was extended to June 25, 2021 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, EIR20-0001 was prepared and after full analysis concluded that the Project will result in less than significant effects on the environment in the following categories: Land Use, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy, Geology, Greenhouse Gas, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, Noise, Public Services, Transportation, Public Utilities, and Wildfire. Additionally, the EIR concluded that the Project will have no effect on Agriculture, Biology, Cultural Resources, Mineral Resources, and Population and Housing. The City concurs with the conclusions reached in the EIR and finds that the Project will not result in any significant impacts, and therefore, no mitigation measures are required, and the preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is not required. Although the preparation of a MMRP is not required, the City has prepared CEQA Findings of Fact in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Approximately 431 comments were received during the public review period. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City has independently evaluated the comments and prepared written responses. No new or previously undisclosed, significant environmental issues were raised by the public review comments. The Response to Comments are included on page RTC-1 of Attachment 6 Environmental Impact Report EIR20-0001. The associated Findings of Fact are also included in Attachment 6 along with the EIR Appendices. Design Review In accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.14.582(A), Design Review (DR) approval is required for the Project. The following describes the Project’s consistency and compliance with the Chula Vista Design Manual (CVDM). Building, Facade and Roof Articulation Heights and setbacks within the same building should be varied, and wall planes should be staggered both horizontally and vertically in order to create pockets of light and shadow and provide visual relief from monotonous, uninterrupted expanses of wall (CVDM p. IV-9). The maximum height allowed in the BC-4 Zone is 35 feet. The proposed height of the building is 29 feet. By providing a variety of different roof heights and sloped angles, building pop-outs, canopies, and columns to create visual interest, the exterior of the building includes both vertical and horizontal enhanced features to avoid the appearance of a monolithic structure. Additional materials proposed consist of stone accent, metal panels and canopies, and a variety of different stucco colors and glass storefronts. Materials/Colors Colors should be used to articulate entries or other architectural features. Variations in shade and Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 9 tone can be used to enhance form and heighten interest. (CVDM p. IV-10) The building elevations consist of several design features designed to enhance the form and heighten interest. The building consists of one primary stucco color, a “Cream Puff” color with accent colors through the exterior elevation for the building pop-outs, wainscot, and architectural features. A stone accent material will be used for a wall adjacent to the main entrance. The roof is flat with a large metal canopy with columns located at the main entrance. The large metal canopy is sloped at an angle and protrudes out with a circular shape to accentuate the main entrance of the building. Smaller metal canopies are also provided above windows, doorways, and other areas around the building. Additional materials proposed consist of seven different glass and storefront colors to provide architectural interest. Landscaping All areas not covered by structures, drives, parking or hardscape should be appropriately and professionally landscaped. Landscaping should generally constitute of no less than 15 percent of the gross site area…” (CVDM p. II-27). The proposed landscaping will consist of 164,206 square-feet of trees, shrubs and ground cover to enhance the Project Site and landscaped islands within the parking lot. Landscaping is included along the Project perimeter, composed of shrubs and screening trees which will serve to soften views of the Project site from nearby areas. All proposed outdoor open space areas including exterior activity areas, private courtyard garden, flexible recreation lawn, and staff’s patio area will be landscaped. Several trees have been added adjacent to the property lines to buffer these uses from the adjacent properties. Enhanced pavement will be provided in the front of the main entrance and within the traffic circle. Landscaping would cover 36 percent of the site, which exceeds the minimum 15 percent as stipulated within the guidelines of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Trash Enclosures & Recycling Plans and specifications should be reviewed with the City’s Conservation Coordinator in order to ensure compatibility with current refuse and recycling collection practices and to ensure compliance with applicable waste management requirements. (CVDM p. IV-7) Staff has reviewed the Project plans and approves of the proposed location and size of the trash enclosures. Community Engagement Neighborhood Meeting On September 26, 2019, a neighborhood meeting was held at the Montevalle Community Center from 6:00 to 8:00 pm where surrounding commercial/industrial site owners and residents of nearby communities attended. Many in attendance expressed their opposition to the subject site being Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 10 developed for the construction and use of the EBHH facility. Neighborhood safety was the main issue of concern during this meeting. The comments provided by attendees expressed concern over the following additional issues: potential for patients being discharged without transportation; the site serving as a police drop-off location which would bring large numbers of patients from outside the area; lack of security; lack of a solid perimeter wall around the property; and the close proximity of the Project to nearby single-family homes to the north and east of the site. Several attendees were concerned that the Project could negatively impact the children-oriented businesses located within the Eastlake Business District, which are located in close proximity to the Project Site. These businesses include the following: 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) are 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. Approximately 200 people attended the neighborhood meeting and a total of 130 comments were received. Representatives for the Project have reviewed the comments received and have provided responses. Attachment 7 is a summary of the comments as well as the response. Based on the comments received, the applicant prepared an Operational Profile document describing in detail, the operations of the proposed Project, and addressed many of the questions/concerns that were raised by the public at the neighborhood meeting (Attachment 5). At staff’s request, the applicant also launched an informational website (www.eastlakebehavioralhospitalfacts.com), which provided an overview of the Project, answers to frequently asked questions, and allowed interested persons to sign up for an e-newsletter. To date approximately 193 have signed up for the newsletter. Other Comments Received During staff’s review of the Project, a total of 261 additional comments were received from residents, business owners, and/or interested parties, separate from the September 26, 2019 neighborhood meeting comments. Seven of the additional comments were in favor of the Project and 254 were opposed to the Project (Attachment 8). Additionally, a change.org webpage was established in opposition to the Project. Included on the change.org webpage was a petition allowing visitors to voice their opposing against the Project. To date the webpage petition contains approximately 5,187 signatures. Comments Received in Support of Project Below is a brief summary of the letters and e-mails in support of the Project. Scripps Health/Acadia Healthcare Commenters noted that the partnership between Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare will bring a much-needed public health resource to the community. Mental Health Crisis/Stereotypes Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 11 Commenters stated their support for mental healthcare in general and the need for greater availability to these services in the community. Commenters also remarked how San Diego was in need of greater mental health care identifying improved services and additional inpatient care as a public health issue that needs to be addressed. While it is noted that the Project will not solve this problem on its own, the commenters feel it will make a significant stride forward to meeting a community need. This facility is supported due to its ability to bring the number of beds in the South County to approximately 90% of the current need. Benefit to the Community Commenters stated that the Project will create professional jobs in the South County, citing that approximately 100 jobs which will be created during construction. Once the hospital is open, it will also employ 150 people with more than $20 million in annual wages/salaries/benefits coming to the community. Comments in support also mentioned how the hospital will benefit existing local businesses. Supporters also believe as a teaching hospital, the Project will also serve as a resource to train future doctors, nurses, and medical technicians. Comments Received in Opposition to Project Below is a summary of the primary issues raised in the opposition letters and e-mails received from local associations, community leaders, business owners, and residents. Acadia Healthcare Comments stated concern with Acadia Healthcare as the operator of the Project due to lawsuits that have been filed against the company alleging regulatory compliance issues, billing fraud, negligence, wrongful death, sexual assault, and abuse/neglect of patients. Several news articles and reports were provided with information regarding these allegations. The comments also expressed concern with Acadia Healthcare being an unsuitable partner for Scripps Health and having an 80% ownership stake in the Project. Safety Concerns Comments received raised concerns related to public health and safety. These comments centered on the potential risk to those who live, work, play, go to schools, and care for individuals in the community adjacent to the Project Site. There are schools and children’s activity centers in the Eastlake II Planned Community near the proposed Project. Allowing the Project to be sited near these types of facilities is seen by many of the commenters to be both unsafe and irresponsible. Residents suggested the Project be relocated to a more remote location, away from residents, schools, and parks. Some suggestions included a location south of Main Street, nearer the detention facility in Otay Mesa, in downtown San Diego, or adjacent to Scripps Mercy Hospital in Hillcrest. Commenters expressed concern with the Project not being sited adjacent to an existing acute care hospital or other supportive services. It was suggested that the Project should be co-located with or in immediate proximity to an established medical/surgical hospital or related acute care treatment center. Overall, the commenters questioned the location of the Project site for a facility such as EBHH due to the surrounding family-oriented facilities and services, as well as the proximity to the single-family neighborhood adjacent to the site. Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 12 Traffic Many of the comments expressed concern related to the traffic in Eastlake and how the Project could exacerbate the issue. Concern was also expressed over the limited public transit available to patients, employees, and/or visitors to EBHH and accessibility to the site only via a toll road. It was noted the nearest bus stop is one mile away from the Project Site. Discharge Procedures/Elopement Concern was expressed over how patients would be discharged from the Project Site and how this could affect the neighborhood. The concern was focused on the possibility that patients may refuse treatment and leave the facility of their own accord, as well as discharged patients choosing to loiter near the facility, increasing the local homelessness population, resulting in public drunkenness, and/or committing crimes in the neighborhood. Several news articles and reports were provided with information related to incidents that have occurred around other similar healthcare facilities. Concern was expressed over the possibility of patients leaving the facility without permission or authorization (elopement) or without completing treatment and refusing transportation. Some residents expressed concern over their own experiences of living near other psychiatric facilities, where residents were attacked on the streets. Security Commenters expressed concern over the Project’s impact on police resources. There is concern over police coverage issues and an increased impact on the emergency 911 system. Commenters expressed concern the Project will increase the need for emergency calls and services due to the patient release procedures and elopement risk, and that emergency response times to the Eastlake area would be reduced. Additionally, commenters remarked in the event of a medical emergency, the nearest hospital is over five miles away. Standards for Approval/Staff Recommendation Chapter 19.14 of the CVMC establishes the standards of approval for granting a CUP and Design Review Approval. Conditional Use Permit As to the CUP, CVMC Section 19.14.080 provides that, “After the public hearing…the Planning Commission…may, by resolution, grant a conditional use permit if it finds from the evidence presented at said hearing that all of the following facts exist: A) That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community; B) That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; C) That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this title for such use; D) That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency; E) That the proposed conditional use, if located in the coastal zone, is consistent with the certified local coastal program and is consistent with the intent of the zoning district.” Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 13 The following discussion summarizes what City staff views as an appropriate and lawful basis for making the findings required for issuance of the requested CUP. Finding A – Particular Location Necessary or Desirable The Project Site provides a desirable location for the Project needs. It is located on two parcels within the Eastlake II planned community at the end of the cul-de-sac at 830 and 831 Showroom Place. The two relatively flat, vacant parcels have been mass graded with a developable area that contains existing infrastructure (i.e., sewer, water, utilities). Concerns regarding proximity to residential use are mitigated by the fact that there is an approximate 20- to 60-foot grade differential between the Project Site and the residential properties which are all located below the Project at the base of an existing, manufactured, and heavily vegetated slope. In addition, all residences have rear fences and the Project site will have an eight-foot CMU wall around the entire perimeter of the property. There is no significant grade separation between the Project Site and the District at Eastlake, an adjacent business park with both commercial and industrial uses. The proposed use of an acute psychiatric hospital provides a desirable acute care option to the residents of Chula Vista and the region in a location within the Eastlake Business Park that can be easily accessed by surrounding transportation infrastructure. The proposed location is easily accessible by the SR125 freeway to the west and nearby major thoroughfares such as Proctor Valley Road to the north and Otay Lakes Road to the south. The proposed Project would also be consistent with the vision of the Eastlake Business Park in having a diverse base of industries for the residents of Chula Vista. A large Project Site is necessary to accommodate the proposed use and is compatible with the surrounding uses found in the District at Eastlake. Sitting adjacent to the District at Eastlake, the Project Site would add to the business park’s envisioned, diverse mixture of industrial and commercial tenants, many of which also require CUPs to operate in the Eastlake Business Park. The proposed Project would also provide needed jobs during and after construction as well as serve as a specialized medical care facility in the community contributing to the general well-being of the Chula Vista community. Not only will the hospital provide an acute psychiatric care option for the residents, it will also provide approximately 100 jobs during construction and provide 150 permanent jobs, contributing to the economic well-being of the community. Finding B – Use Not to be Detrimental or Injurious The proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, including but not limited to matters of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, and hazards or excessive concentrations of traffic, all as evidenced in the Project EIR. A limited amount of noise and dust is to be expected in association with construction activities, but Conditions of Approval and the City’s performance standards offset and mitigate for such impacts. Finding C – Compliance with Regulations and Conditions Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 14 CVMC Title 19 provides limited additional regulations for the permitting of Hospitals. The Project meets all applicable requirements (setbacks, height restrictions, and off-street parking and loading facilities). Finding D – General Plan Consistency The proposed use is in compliance with the General Plan policy of providing adequate commercial and industrial uses for the Chula Vista community through the attraction of industries and businesses that contribute to the diversification and stabilization of the local economy. The commercial use is appropriate for this site and allowed under the Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA), Business Center 4 (BC-4) zone. Finding E – Coastal Zone Not applicable. Limits on City Discretion Arising from Federal ADA and Fair Housing Rules. The City has land use discretion on the classification and utilization of land within its jurisdiction. There are, however, limitations on that discretion. Land use decisions must be made utilizing objective, nondiscriminatory criteria and cannot be utilized to discriminate against protected classes of individuals. Decisions cannot be made on more specious grounds such as the reputation of an applicant or the population the applicant serves. Criteria must be reasonably related to the land use impacts of the proposed Project and not on other criteria that would be considered discriminatory to federally protected populations. Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, disability discrimination is prohibited in all activities of local government entities, including zoning decisions. The City is a public entity under the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and subject to the ADA’s nondiscrimination mandate. This nondiscrimination mandate requires the City to provide equal services, programs, and activities to entities that serve individuals with disabilities and to ensure that the City’s zoning decisions do not discriminate against individuals with disabilities and entities associated with them. The U. S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division is authorized to investigate allegations of discrimination and to file a civil action if the Attorney General finds a violation of the ADA. Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131- 12134, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, the Department of Justice issued regulations reflecting the ADA’s nondiscrimination mandate. The ADA and its regulatory provisions prevent the City from, among other things: (1) denying an individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from any aid, benefit, or service; (2) affording an individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from an aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others; (3) providing different or separate aids, benefits, or services to individuals with disabilities (unless necessary to provide such individuals with aids, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others); or (4) limiting individuals with disabilities in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others. Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 15 The City is further prohibited from utilizing criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating against individuals with disabilities, or applying eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered. See 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(4); City of Ocean Springs v. Psycamore LLC, 124 So. 3d 658 (Miss. 2013). Additionally, both Title II of the ADA and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. §3601) protect the rights of both providers and clients of residential treatment programs and prohibits the exclusion or otherwise denial of equal services, programs, or activities to an individual or entity because of the known (actual or perceived) disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity has a known relationship or association. See 28 C.F.R. 35.108(f)(1). In conclusion, both statutory law and case law prevent the City from applying its zoning in a manner to discriminate against individuals with disabilities and entities associated with them. Design Review Approval As to the Design Review Approval, CVMC Section 19.14.582(B) provides that “The Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny such plans. The Planning commission shall base its findings and actions on the design review provisions of the affected design manuals of the City.” As described above, the Project is consistent with the applicable design standards for building, facade and roof articulation; materials and colors; landscaping; and trash enclosures & recycling. Conclusion/Recommendation Based on the above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the EIR and approve the Project based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Planning Commission Resolutions. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commission members and has found no property holdings within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Consequently, this item does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18705.2(a)(11), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100, et seq.). Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any Planning Commission member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. FISCAL IMPACT All processing costs are borne by the applicant, resulting in no net fiscal impact to the General Fund or the Development Services Fund. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Date: November 10, 2021 Page No. 16 1. EIR20-0001/CUP19-0010 PC Resolution 2. DR19-0012 PC Resolution 3. Locator Map 4. Project Plans 5. Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital Operational Profile 6. Environmental Impact Report EIR20-0001, Appendices, and associated CEQA Findings 7. Neighborhood Meeting Public Comments Summary and Response Matrix 8. Public Comments 9. Disclosure Statement Staff Contact: Stan Donn, Senior Planner, Development Services Tiffany Allen, Director of Development Services