Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 7.d.i. - Appendices A- NOP and CommentsNOTICE OF PROJECT SCOPING MEETING BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA has called and will convene a public project scoping meeting as summarized below: PROJECT: Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0001) for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital PURPOSE: Solicit public comment on the type and extent of the environmental analyses to be performed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), such as: Land Use, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Circulation, and Wildlife. DATES: August 31 to September 29, 2020 online (see review and commenting instructions below) The purpose of a public scoping meeting is to inform the public that the lead agency, the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department (DSD), is evaluating a project under CEQA and set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21065 to solicit public comment regarding the type and extent of environmental analyses to be undertaken. At the scoping stage, DSD describes the preliminary concept of the project, and asks for public feedback regarding the scope of the EIR. Under normal circumstances, public scoping meetings are held in a public location in the community near the location of the proposed project. Pursuant to the Governor of the State of California's executive order N-29-20, and in the interest of the public health and safety, the public may participate virtually in this project scoping meeting. HOW TO REVIEW THE PRESENTATION: Members of the public will be able to access a link to watch a pre - recorded presentation via livestream at https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development- services/planning/public-notices/virtual-meetings. The link will remain live from August 31 through September 29, 2020. HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Visit the City’s online eComment portal at: https://chulavista.granicusideas.com/meetings. The interactive scoping meeting will be available for viewing between (August 31) at 8:00 AM through (September 29) 2020 at 5:00 PM. All comments regarding the scope of the EIR must be submitted by September 29, 2020. All comments submitted online will be available to the public and City staff and the applicant using the eComment portal. eComments received after September 29, 2020 will not be considered by the City in determining the scope of the environmental review. If you have difficulty or are unable to submit a comment, please contact Gabriel Innocenzi at ginnocenzi@chulavistaca.gov for assistance. Upon completion of the scoping process, all public comments will be organized and will be considered in the preparation of the draft environmental document. ACCESSIBILITY: Individuals with disabilities are invited to request modifications or accommodations in order to access and/or participate in the scoping process by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov or (619) 691-5041 (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the opening date of the forum. NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A DESIGN REVIEW (DR) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project is located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the City of Chula Vista, in southwestern San Diego County. Specifically, the project site sits north of Fenton Street, west of Hunte Parkway, and east of Lane Avenue, within the Eastlake Business Center. Figure 1 depicts the project’s location. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate an aerial photo of the project area and the proposed site plan, respectively. Figure 4 depicts the proposed grading plan. PROJECT SETTING As shown, the project site itself consists of a relatively flat, graded lot. Residential property to the north and east are downslope approximately 60 feet at the base of an existing manufactured slope. The project site sits within the Eastlake Business Park, which is nearly fully developed with commercial uses and parking. The surroun ding business park uses consist primarily of commercial retail uses. PROJECT BACKGROUND The project site is within the approved Eastlake Business Center II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan which is part of the larger Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP). The SPA plan was approved in 1999 along with an accompanying Tentative Map covering the project site and an Initial Study (IS-00-03) covering the environmental review. The site was graded consistent with the approved Tentative Map (TM) in but has remained vacant since that time. The Business Center II areas surrounding the project site have been developed with a variety of commercial uses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would include construction of a new single-story behavioral health acute psychiatric hospital (the “behavioral health hospital”). The behavioral health hospital will 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, nutrition support, and physical therapy, as well as a gymnasium, cafeteria for inpatients, visitors and staff, and an inpatient pharmacy. The facility will employee 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. The project also includes approximately 25,000 square feet of outdoor activity areas, landscap ing, and 186 parking spaces, including 20 handicap accessible spaces. Access to the site would be taken from a single controlled access point of ingress/egress at the terminus of the Showroom Place cul-de-sac. Landscaping and walls/fencing is proposed 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 yards, and a 8-foot perimeter fence on the east, north, and south borders of the property. On-site security measures 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. The project site has been graded but additional earthwork will be required to accommodate the proposed hospital project. Approximately 61,000 cubic yards of cut and 10,000 cubic yards of fill resulting in an export of 51,000 cubic yards will be required. 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 site design also includes on-site water quality basins. The EIR will include a detailed project description of all component parts of the project. EIR CONTENTS POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT The City has determined that the project may cause significant adverse environmental effects and potentially significant indirect, direct, and cumulative environmental effects. An EIR is, therefore, required in order to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 and 15081. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Environmental Procedures, the environmental impact analysis will describe the environmental setting of the project, identify potential environmental impacts, address the significance of potential impacts, identify mitigation measures to address potentially significant environmental impacts, and determine the significance of impacts after mitigation. The scope of the EIR for the project will be based in part on comments received in response to this NOP and public input received during the public scoping meeting. The EIR will address each of the environmental issues summarized herein. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be prepared to document implementation of the required mitigation measures. For each mitigation measure, the timing of implementation will be identified and tied to a specific project action. Responsible parties will be identified to implement and monitor the satisfaction of each mitigation measure. The following environmental issues will be analyzed in the EIR. Aesthetics With respect to visual character, the project would be constructed on a vacant previously graded lot within an existing business park. The EIR will analyze the potential effects of the proposed new s tructure with respect to whether it would degrade the existing visual character of the project area. The analysis will focus on the project’s effect on the quality of surrounding public views and the potential for the project to obstruct any vistas or scen ic views or to be incompatible with surrounding development in terms of bulk, scale, materials, or style. The analysis will be supported by text and illustrations, as well as architectural elevations, cross sections, architectural renderings, and other graphics as applicable. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas The proposed project would accommodate 120 hospital beds, maintain employees, and permit visitors during certain times of the day resulting in an incremental increase of vehicle-related emissions and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with hospital operations. Construction and operation of the proposed project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment. Likewise, the project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen trations and/or result in other emissions (i.e., odors) that could adversely affect people. Although the new buildings would be constructed to current standards of efficiency, the EIR will analyze potential impacts from construction emissions, operation of the new hospital, and new vehicle emission sources. In addition, the EIR will determine whether the project’s potential air quality impacts would hinder or help the San Diego Air Basin to meet the regional air quality strategies. Project- generated GHG emissions resulting from both construction activities related to the project as well as ongoing operation of the project will be quantified. The analysis will include, but is not limited to, the five primary sources of GHG emissions: vehicular traffic, generation of electricity, natural gas consumption/combustion, solid waste generation, and water usage. Energy Energy resources such as fuel (both gasoline and diesel), electricity, and natural gas would be consumed during construction and operation of the project. Although the new buildings would be constructed to current standards of efficiency, the EIR will analyze whether the proposed project would result in wasteful, ineff icient, or unnecessary energy use. Geology and Soils Although the project site has been previously graded, additional finish grading will be required to construct the proposed project. As such, the EIR will assess potential impacts related to site-specific geologic hazards and soil conditions. The EIR will describe the geologic and subsurface conditions on the project site and discuss the general setting in terms of existing topography, geology (surface and subsurface), tectonics, and soil types. The di scussion will include issues such as the potential for liquefaction, slope instability, and other hazards as well as mitigation (if appropriate) that would reduce the potential for future adverse impacts resulting from on-site soils or geologic hazards. Further, the EIR will discuss the project’s consistency with Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development requirements as well as the Seismic Element of the City’s General Plan. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Based upon a review of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor and Geotracker databases, the project site is not identified as a state or federal contaminated site nor is any such sites located in proximity of the project site. The project site is also not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. However, construction equipment could use hazardous and/or flammable materials, including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants, and project operation could require the transport, handling , or disposal of hazardous materials. The EIR will describe applicable local, state, and federal regulations intended to minimize risk of hazards and hazardous materials release. Construction and operation of the project could result in the routine transpo rt, use, or disposal of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school (private Montessori school located on Showroom Place), as well as other surrounding facilities that accommodate children activities. Therefore, the EIR will analyze whether the project could create a significant impact associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. The EIR will also address whether the project would result in the exposure of people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The project site is located within a High Hazard Area as mapped on the City Wildland Fire Map. The EIR will analyze regulatory compliance and the project’s ability to ensure protection against wildland fire. Hydrology/Water Quality The EIR will provide a discussion and analysis focusing on the project’s impact on the existing drainage patterns, as well as how the project could potentially affect water quality within the project area and downstream. As applicable, the EIR will discuss the need for best management practices and low impact development practices, in order to ensure that hydrology and water quality impacts would be below a level of significance. Land Use and Planning The EIR will support all necessary findings required for the project’s Design Review and Conditional Use permits. The consistency analysis will include a table noting the project’s specific consistency with all relevant land use and planning regulations including, but not limited to the following: General Plan, Municipal Code: Eastlake II SPA Plan; Planned Community District Design Guidelines; City’s Landscape Manual; Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Manual; Chula Vista Shade Tree Policy. Noise The project involves the construction of a new structure within a currently vacant lot resulting in new noise sources associated with traffic and building operation. While the project site is located within a commercial/business park, there are single-family residential uses to the north and east. Accordingly, the EIR will identify and analyze potential noise sources, including construction activities and operational sources (i.e., heating and ventilation units), and provide an analysis of any potential effects and mitigating solutions as appropriate. Transportation, Access, and Parking Construction of the proposed project would intensify the land use within the business park due to the introduction of a medical facility accommodating 120 beds and out-patient services. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, a detailed traffic impact study will be prepared in conjunction with the EIR to evaluate potential transportation impacts associated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The EIR section will summarize the current regulatory related to VMT including Senate Bill 743 which has triggered the assessment of VMT as the standard for impact analysis. The EIR will include an explanation of the methodology used to identify whether the project would cause substantial additional VMT as compared to a threshold VMT (either per capita, per service epopuation, or other appropriate efficiency measures) as described in the traffic impact study. The discussion will focus on VMT, including the project location in relationship to transit, ride share incentives and opportunities. This section of the EIR will also describe any required modifications and/or improvements to the existing circulation system, including City streets, intersections, freeways, and interchanges, as applicable. If the project would result in a significant impact, the study and EIR will describe what measures would be required to mitigate traffic/circulation impacts to below a level of significance. The section will describe the walkability, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity within the project and off-site areas. Utilities The proposed project’s ultimate infrastructure requirements would be determined through preparation of both water and sewer demand studies. The EIR will address and discuss what additional infrastructure improvements (e.g., upsizing piping, installing a new meter, etc.) would be needed, if any. Wildlife The EIR will include a discussion of the project’s potential to result in wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors. Alternatives The EIR will consider a range of project alternatives that may eliminate or reduce significant adverse environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA requires a No Project Alternative to be analyzed in an EIR. A discussion of other alternatives, including alternative locations, that were considered and supporting rationale indicating why they were determined infeasible will also be provided. For each alternative, the EIR will provide a description of the alternative, consideration of the alternative’s feasibility in relationship to the statement of the project objectives, and a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternative versus the impacts as a result of the project. Other Environmental Considerations Other environmental considerations that will be addressed in the EIR include: cumulative impacts (combined environmental effects) associated with related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects; significant irreversible environmental changes; growth-inducing impacts; and effects found not to be significant. NOP ISSUED: AUGUST 31, 2020 NOP REVIEW PERIOD: AUGUST 31, 2020 to SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location Map Figure 2: Project Location on Aerial Photograph Figure 3: Site Plan Figure 4: Figure 5: Grading Plan NOP Recipients Figure 3 Site Plan Figure 4 Grading Plan AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 10124 OLD GROVE ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92131 CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MANAGER 1222 FIRST AVENUE MS501 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 MTDB 1255 IMPERIAL AVENUE #1000 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO AUDUBON SOCIETY 4010 MORENA BLVD #100 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-4547 SUHSD 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA CA 91911 SD COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 4677 OVERLAND AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CALTRANS - DISTRICT 11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BRANCH 4050 TAYLOR STREET MS240 SAN DIEGO CA 92110 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY P.O. BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO CA 95812-2815 SWEETWATER VALLEY CIVIC ASSOC 5732 SWEETWATER ROAD BONITA CA 91902-218 CITY OF SAN DIEGO PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 600B STREET, STE 1000, MS910 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-4502 CA DEPT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE DAVID MAYER 3883 RUFFIN ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 100 HOWE AVENUE SOUTH #100 SACRAMENTO CA 92825 SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR 5510 OVERLAND AVENUE, STE 310 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 MILLENIA REAL ESTATE GROUP TODD GALARNEAU 2750 WOMBLE ROAD, STE 200 SAN DIEGO CA 92106 LAFCO 9335 HAZARD WAY, STE 200 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CVESD 84 EAST J STREET CHULA VISTA CA 91910 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE MICHAEL BECK C/O REBECA CORDOVA CITY OF SAN DIEGO 1200 3RD AVENUE, STE 1501 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COALITION 2727 HOOVER AVENUE, STE 202 NATIONAL CITY CA 91950 DEPT OF WATER RESOURCES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW P.O. BOX 942836 SACRAMENTO CA 94236-0001 HELIX P.O. BOX 15453 SAN DIEGO CA 92175 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPT OF PARKS AND REC 5500 OVERLAND AVE, STE 410 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH SCOTT MORGAN 1400 TENTH STREET ROOM 222 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 SBC - PACIFIC BELL 4220 ARIZONA STREET #200 SAN DIEGO CA 92104-1715 CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MANAGER 1222 FIRST AVENUE, MS 501 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-4230 Figure 5 NOP Recipients CA DEPT OF WATER RESOURCES SOUTHERN OFFICE 770 FAIRMONT AVENUE GLENDALE CA 91203-1035 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PALM SPRINGS - SOUTH COAST OFFICE 1201 BIRD CENTER DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH PLANNING DIRECTOR 825 CORONADO AVENUE IMPERIAL BEACH CA 91932 OTAY RANCH NEW HOMES DENISE SWANSON 1392 E PALOMAR STREET, STE 202 CHULA VISTA CA 91913 CA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1001 “I” STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2828 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 5500 OVERLAND AVE, STE 170 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD SPRING VALLEY CA 91978 CITY OF SAN DIEGO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 9601 RIDGEHAVEN COURT SAN DIEGO CA 92123 GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE P.O. BOX 79222 CORONA CA 92877 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA CA 91912-2328 VALLEY DE ORO COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 3958 LA MESA CA 91944-3958 CHULA VISTA COORDINATING COUNCIL 540 G STREET CHULA VISTA CA 91910 US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ERIC PORTER 2177 SALK AVENUE, STE 250 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CONSERVATION LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION DIVISION 801 K STREET, MS 18-01 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT & FACILITIES 1816 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5510 OVERLAND AVENUE, STE 310 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CALIFORNIA WASTE MANAGEMENT PERMITTING AND INSPECTION 1001 “I” STREET, MS#15 SACRAMENTO CA 95812-4025 CARLSBAD US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2177 SALK AVENUE, STE 250 CARLSBAD CA 92008 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE 900 OTAY LAKES ROAD CHULA VISTA CA 91910 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHIEF OF BRANCH 5900 LA PLACE COURT, STE 100 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF SAN DIEGO - WATER DEPT 600 B STREET #100 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 2370 NORTHSIDE DRIVE SAN DIEGO CA 92108 SOUTHBAY EXPRESSWAY 1129 LA MEDIA ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92154 OTAY MESA CHAMBER OF COMMERECE 9163 SIEMPRE VIVA ROAD I-2 SAN DIEGO CA 92154 OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION P.O. BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO CA 94296-0001 COUNTY DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 5555 OVERLAND AVENUE BLDG #3 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SEMPRA ENERGY 101 ASH STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 PSB 3142 ORCHARD HILL ROAD BONITA CA 91902 COUNTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 5469 KEARNY VILLA ROAD #305 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CROSSROADS II PETER WATRY, PRESIDENT 81 SECOND AVENUE CHULA VISTA CA 91910 CITY OF SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER DEPT 9192 TOPAZ WAY, MS 905 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 BALDWIN AND SONS STEPHEN HASSE 610 W ASH STREET #1500 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 ENDANGERED HABITAT LEAGUE MICHAEL BECK C/O CREST FOODS 1103 LA CRESTA BLVD CREST CA 92021 SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION 1122 BROADWAY, STE 300 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SOUTHBAY IRRIGATION DISTRICT 505 GARRETT AVENUE CHULA VISTA CA 91910 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY INC EIR REVIEW COMMITTE P.O. BOX 81106 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-1106 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD NATIONAL CITY CA 91950 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL REV COORD P.O. BOX 120488 SAN DIEGO CA 92112-0488 CHULA VISTA STAR NEWS ATTN: CITY HALL REPORTER 296 THIRD AVENUE CHULA VISTA CA 91910 SWEETWATER COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP P.O. BOX 460 BONITA CA 91902 SWEETWATER VALLEY CIVIC ASSN P.O. BOX 232 BONITA CA 91902 YOKOHL RANCH COMPANY ALEX ALAGHA 7777 ALVARADO ROAD #615 LA MESA CA 91942 BROWN FIELD OPERATIONS OFFICE 1424 CONTINENTAL STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92154 NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM P.O. BOX 121390 SAN DIEGO CA 92112-1390 PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SERVICE R MITCHEL BEAUCHAMP P.O. BOX 985 NATIONAL CITY CA 91951-1769 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD #1000 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY C/O NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM P.O. BOX 121390 SAN DIEGO CA 92112-1390 SIERRA CLUB SAN DIEGO SECTION 8304 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92111 CITY OF SAN DIEGO REAL ESTATE ASSETS 1424 CONTINENTAL STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92154 CITY OF SAN DIEGO PARKS & RECREATION DEPT 1222 FIRST AVENUE, MS501 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CITY OF SAN DIEGO AIRPORT DIVISION 3750 JOHN J MONTGOMERY DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CAL FIRE SAN DIEGO UNIT ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR 31577 HIGHWAY 94 CAMPO CA 91906 CITY OF SAN DIEGO PARKS & RECREATION DEPT JOEL HYATT 202 C STREET, 5TH FLOOR, MS 5D SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CITY OF SAN DIEGO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: ALYSSA MUTO, DEPUTY DIR 9485 AERO DRIVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1801 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PARKS & RECREATION DEPT CHUCK TUCKER - OVRP STAFF 5500 OVERLAND DRIVE, STE 410 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CITY OF SAN DIEGO TRANSPORTATION DEPT 1222 FIRST AVENUE, MS501 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 THERESA ACERRO CHULA VISTA SOUTHWEST CIVIC ASSN 3730 FESTIVAL COURT CHULA VISTA CA 91913 CROSSROADS II PRESIDENT 262 SECOND AVENUE CHULA VISTA CA 91910 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY CINDY BURRASCANO P.O. BOX 985 NATIONAL CITY CA 91950 SOUTH BAY EXPRESSWAY, L.P. LORENZO GARRIDO 1129 LA MEDIA ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92154 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LISA COHEN 233 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA CA 91910 CITIZENS COORDINATE FOR CENTURY III 5252 BALBOA AVENUE #207 SAN DIEGO CA 92117-7005 HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP INC PATRICK HUNTER 285 BAY BLVD CHULA VISTA CA 91910 SANDAG 401 B STREET #800 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 ENVIRONMENTAL LAND SOLUTIONS JAMES CARTER 2516 LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUE SOUTH COUNTY BUREAU 678 THIRD AVENUE #101 CHULA VISTA CA 91910 OTAY WATER DISTRICT ROBERT SCHOLL, ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD SPRING VALLEY CA 91978 SDG&E 436 H STREET CHULA VISTA CA 91910 SWEETWATER COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP JOHN HAMMOND P.O. BOX 460 BONITA CA 91918 SD ASSN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHARLES BULL 1927 FIFTH AVENUE #200 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-2357 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY RON MOSHER P.O. BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA CA 91912-2328 CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BRANCH 4050 TAYLOR STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92110 SD COUNTY DEPT OF ENVIR HEALTH VOLUNTARY ASST PROGRAM ATTN: NASSER SIONIT P.O. BOX 12961 SAN DIEGO CA 92112 LYNSEY ROBERTS AMERICAN ARCHWAY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST 1100 IRVINE BLVD #85 TUSTIN CA 92780 ROLLING HILLS RANCH COMM ASSN 2300 BOSWELL RD #209 CHULA VISTA, CA 91914 ROLLING HILLS RANCH COMM ASSN & C/O THE WALTERS MGMT CO. 9665 Chesapeake Dr #300 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 ROLLING HILLS RANCH COMM ASSN & C/O THE WALTERS MGMT CO. 2251 San Diego Ave #A250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 SCHWARTZ SEMERDJIAN ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN S. MOOT 101 West Broadway, Suite 810 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 Scoping Meeting/NOP: EIR20-0001 Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital Environmental Impact Report Meeting Time: 09-29-20 17:00 eComments Report Meetings Meeting Time Agenda Items Comments Support Oppose Neutral Scoping Meeting/NOP: EIR20-0001 Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital Environmental Impact Report 09-29-20 17:00 20 272 1 259 4 Sentiments for All Meetings The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment Scoping Meeting/NOP: EIR20-0001 Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital Environmental Impact Report 09-29-20 17:00 Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral PUBLIC COMMENTS 272 1 259 4 Sentiments for All Agenda Items The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment Agenda Item: eComments for PUBLIC COMMENTS Overall Sentiment Elison Lugue Location: Submitted At: 2:11pm 09-29-20 I strongly oppose this proposed location for a behavioral psychiatric hospital. This site lacks the resources needed to support this facility. It poses a threat to the residences and businesses in the area. Richard Wynne Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 11:02am 09-29-20 This facility will be too close to schools and residences Teresita Salganick Location: 91911, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:26am 09-29-20 I wholeheartedly believe our community, city, county, region, State and Country must address a sorely deficient mental health crisis, however, approving a facility such as the one proposed in a purely residential area that has a general deficiency of public transportation and safety services would be an egregious error by the City of Chula Vista. The quality of life for the many residents who purchased homes in this area did not see a mental health facility as part of the SPA plan. It appears to be another misguided action by the City to focus on finances versus its residents. The amount of operational deficiencies by Acacia and safety record is yet another reason that approving this project is highly illogical and misguided. Time to reimagine existing, vacant properties in the City limits that would provide greater efficiencies and overall effectiveness for the services provided for mental health. Placing this facility immediately adjacent to single residence family homes, near schools and off the public transit corridor would look like it appears. - a money grab and disregard for the residents of this City. I fiercely oppose this project. Staci Jimenez Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:25am 09-29-20 We moved to Rolling Hills Ranch/Eastlake from Orange County about a year and a half ago. One of the draws to this community was a safe environment to raise our children. Putting a private mental hospital a stones throw away from where children play, go to school, and frequent all the retail and business in the area really know makes me second guess moving to this community. Crime is already up from all of the people let out from the jails early and now we are suggesting a hospital that when people are released can just walk out the door and into our community with no safety measure. I am beyond upset this was ever an option! M Sadi Erfani Location: Submitted At: 8:54pm 09-28-20 I strongly oppose the placement of a mental health facility in the midst of our neighborhood here in Eastlake. This location is too far from mass transit, police backup, and other necessary healthcare that would require 24 hour availability and access for safe, quality measures. It is an inappropriate site for such a facility in the middle of various schools and local businesses and shops. Cindy Scott Location: Submitted At: 6:44pm 09-28-20 I strongly oppose this. There isn’t a worse place to build a mental health care facility. You’ll bring homeowner property values down. When values go down, businesses close or simply don’t choose to open in our area. All of which hugely influence the tax revenues this city relies on. We don’t have the infrastructure for this facility. Our police and fire departments are already heavily strained with restricted monies. You propose building this facility far too close to a school. School aged children need to feel safe and secure in their school and neighborhood. With building this facility so close to them, you’re depriving them of that security and could do irreparable damage. Lastly, but certain not least, Acadia. This corporation is under review and has had their facilities shut down all over the nation. Why in the world would we, the residents, business owners, and the City of Chula Vista want to partner, and essentially, harbor such a criminal organization?! Francisco Crescini Location: 91913, CHULA VISTA Submitted At: 6:25pm 09-28-20 I oppose. Eastlake community, where residential homes, schools, recreational facilities and shopping center are located is not the place to build a mental facility. It will have a tremendous effect in the quality of life for the Eastlake community and visitors during the construction and daily operation of the facility. And besides, will there be additional services (security, fire, medical) available during normal and emergency (such as: suicide/active shooter, wild fires, etc.) situations? Please, reconsider finding a place away from residential areas and has easy access to freeways to build the facility. Thank you! Jane Grodzicki Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:57pm 09-28-20 I vehemently oppose this project. We have lived in5 homes in the EastLake area over the past 30 yrs. EastLake was developed as a PLANNED community for families with homes, schools, parks & shopping all planned for raising families. We raised our 3 children here and now our daughter is raising her family with my grandchildren here. This is not the place to put at risk individuals releasing them into our neighborhoods. Sirens, crime, police activity and 72 hr hold releases will all be part of our planned family community if this is approved. Certainly a better location can be found! I urge and respectfully request your recondition of this location. Adela Morales Location: 92154 Submitted At: 2:28pm 09-28-20 I oppose Elise Brower Location: 919142419 Submitted At: 1:51pm 09-28-20 I strongly oppose the placement of this Mental facility in this neighborhood. We simply do not have the much- needed resources that would accompany a project like this. Our police, fire and EMT crews are already scarce and adding this hospital would spread them much thinner and take away from the needs of the community. There are no supporting services located anywhere near this proposed setting, the closest emergency rooms are miles away down congested surface streets. There is no straight shot to a freeway for ambulance and no direct public transportation. This facility would be moments from, and within short walking distance to elementary and middle schools, family parks, family-oriented businesses and restaurants. This project sounds like a giant risk to our community. I am very uncomfortable about what I have learned about the company that will oversee this hospital, it seems they have a horrible record of patient and community care. This neighborhood simply is the WRONG choice for this type of a facility. I ask that you please reconsider the location to an area outside of this quiet, family oriented suburb. Tencha Cash Location: 91915 Submitted At: 1:38pm 09-28-20 Totally opposed Eastlake is a family quiet neighborhood, we want to keep it safe for our children Thank you Jeff Rapp Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 12:55pm 09-28-20 As many others have pointed out, this is an ill-advised development for this particular area. My family is not against mental health facilities, but in such a close proximity to residential areas, as well as businesses centered on child and family entertainment (Ninja Factory, Speed Circuit and Family Fun Center, Sky Zone, Play City), coupled with the lack of other medical facilities in the immediate area, the construction of this type of facility in this area would be inauspicious and a detriment to our community. Luis Schaar Location: 91915, Chula vista Submitted At: 12:47pm 09-28-20 Support for mental health is woefully low which contributes to a variety of social impacts to our communities. Centers such as these are vital, but the location of these centers are equally important. With a variety of industrial areas such As in Otay Mesa by the airport being available, there is not a need to place a support center such as this so close to schools and children recreational areas. Please consider all the options to find a more suitable location. S Ow Location: 91914, Chula vista Submitted At: 12:25pm 09-28-20 I love the idea of expanding mental health resources but this is not the area to do it. There’s no public access to that location either so to say it’s being built to expand resources to others is not qualified. I’ve seen the proposed plans by scripps and some things need to be evaluated better. There are schools and many housing communities next to the proposed location. To say that there’s community access to a gym that is utilized by the patients receiving high intensity care is not just a liability but very concerning regarding the true goals of the project. To utilize this area is a big disservice to the Chula Vista community and I highly oppose this project. Kerri Lindgren Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 11:51am 09-28-20 Please find a different location for this!!! We are not opposed to mental health resources but we do not feel this location is in the best interest of our children and the safe community we have worked hard to build. Please explore other areas, closer to main hospitals which would be more appropriate for the needs of these patients. Laura Chan Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:06am 09-28-20 Please find a more suitable place for the mental hospital. Gail Salganick-Erfani Location: Submitted At: 9:51am 09-28-20 Please consider this location to be unacceptable for this type of facility. This is too remote a location from nearby bus or police and other 24 hour medical services. A facility like this should be near a hospital and other medical facilities that has access to services at all hours. The location near schools and businesses used by children is also concerning. Chula Vista needs to think of the future growth of this area and having this type facility will hinder all possible opportunities for this part of San Diego. Do not sacrifice the future for the limited amount promised in the current situation. Paulina Zepeda Location: Submitted At: 9:07am 09-28-20 Hola Pavi, me ayudas comentando en esta pagina. Es para un hospital siquiatrico que quieren poner en mi colonia, es totalmente una colonia de casas pero le pagaron mucho dinero al dueño del terreno. Si puedes poner en los comentarios “I oppose the location of this hospital as in next to a family homes and away of vital services for its patients. I also oppose the partner Acadia.” TRICIA FELDMAN Location: 91915 Submitted At: 8:56am 09-28-20 Oppose! Gloria Smestad Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:47am 09-28-20 As many have stated, this location is not appropriate for a mental health facility of this type. This type of facility requires a larger plat of land. It needs to be incorporated into a well-planned medical enclave, which has direct, 24 hour law enforcement support. We all agree that mental health care and facilities care important, but shoe- horning this into an area of retail, child care, schools and quiet suburban streets is madness. It would be utterly irresponsible of the city of Chula Vista to go forward with this plan, and those responsible would earn the ire of the community for the duration of their public service and/or the facility itself. Do not do this. You may think you can make a quick buck, but your liabilities will increase exponentially. Howie Albis Location: 91915, Chula vista Submitted At: 6:40am 09-28-20 I don’t know where you live but I’m sure you would NOT want it in your neighborhood. This is a place where we moved to raise our family. The safety of the kids and our neighbors are priority one. Jennie Becker Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:16am 09-28-20 Please consider this location to not be acceptable for this type of facility. This is a remote location not near bus or police and other 24 hour medical services. A facility like this should be near a hospital and other medical facilities that get services at all hours. The location near schools and businesses used by children is also concerning. Chula Vista needs to think of the future growth of this area and having this type facility will hinder all possible opportunities for this area. Do not sacrifice the future for the limited amount promised in the current situation. Your residents deserve a long term plan for this area and not just opportunist buying into our community. Genedine Cabrera Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 12:25am 09-28-20 I oppose. Too close to schools, children activities and residences B Webster Location: 91915 Submitted At: 11:28pm 09-27-20 NO. Terribly unsafe for the community. Ariz Rapp Location: 91915 Submitted At: 11:19pm 09-27-20 One thing I have learned from my profession is safety. The psych hospital that is being scoped out for Eastlake is not a safe decision for the community. Although money talks, I think all contractors, buyers and interested parties know the consequences of such a facility near our children/location/family friendly businesses. Having worked with those who are gravely disabled or who are 5150, I can imagine how discharging these patients from the hospital and throwing them in our community is going to be a HUGE concern. Take your hospital, take your money and take your idea of a psych hospital somewhere else. The Eastlake community does not want you here. Laura wistner Location: 91915, Chula vista Submitted At: 10:57pm 09-27-20 This is family community , this location is surrounded by : Schools -3 to 5 After school children businesses Parks and recreation centers There are plenty of other location - outside of Chula Vista to build this institution The company has a terrible track record of horrible reputation . Strongly oppose ! Maritza Bennett Location: Submitted At: 10:41pm 09-27-20 I oppose this mental hospital to be on our community. Cynthia Morales Location: Submitted At: 10:23pm 09-27-20 I oposse de location on Acadia Bristow Teresa Location: 91915-1404, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:29pm 09-27-20 Strongly oppose this hospital. This is a terrible fit for our community. Completely inappropriate place for a psychiatric hospital. This is a suburban neighborhood. Why is this even a question? Come on city leaders Ramiro Barajas Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:09pm 09-27-20 I hardly oppose to new construction in the Eastlake area. I believe that this will cause for the traffic to increase dramatically, along with other problems such as crime rates, more trash,etc. if this construction goes to work I will not think twice before moving out of this community. Desiree Baltazar Location: Submitted At: 9:00pm 09-27-20 I oppose this site. I don’t believe this is an appropriate site for this kind of facility. Acadia is an unreliable company, this facility will increase emergency call volumes and the city doesn’t not enough resources to accommodate, and it threatens the safety of our community. M Luko Location: Submitted At: 8:20pm 09-27-20 I strongly oppose the placement of this facility in a residential community Patrice Milkovich Location: 91915-2538, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:44pm 09-27-20 I wholeheartedly believe our community, city, county, region, State and Country must address a sorely deficient mental health crisis, however, approving a facility such as the one proposed in a purely residential area that has poor / low “walkability” scores and a general deficiency of public transportation and safety services would be an egregious error by the City of Chula Vista. The quality of life for the many residents who purchased homes in this area did not see a mental health facility as part of the SPA plan. It appears to be another misguided action by the City to focus on finances versus its residents. The amount of operational deficiencies by Acacia and safety record is yet another reason that approving this project is highly illogical and misguided. Time to reimagine existing, vacant properties in the City limits that would provide greater efficiencies and overall effectiveness for the services provided for mental health. Placing this facility immediately adjacent to single residence family homes, near schools and off the public transit corridor would look like it appears. - a money grab and disregard for the residents of this City. I fiercely oppose this project. John Lasalle Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:18pm 09-27-20 What are the impacts this facility will have on the response times for fire and police for current residents? Response times are already below standard in the city if Chula Vista and will only get worse with the addition of this facility, which will inevitably require numerous calls for service and further strain public safety. Secondly, what about location to other public services such as hospitals (with emergency room services)? Your clientele consisting of 120 individuals that either pose a threat to themselves and others, are battling depression, and/or are detoxing will inevitably provide instances where further emergency medical assistance will be required. For instance if someone attempts suicide, will your facility be able to handle all emergency situations or will these patients need to be transported to a hospital? If so, why wasn't a hospital listed as a service that will be needed for the project? Is it because much like the police station, which is located 8+ miles away, there is no hospital located nearby the proposed location? (It should be noted that a 6 mile drive with street lights equates to approximately 20 minutes of drive time). Ruben Guilloty Location: 91914, chula Vista Submitted At: 6:44pm 09-27-20 This is a residential area with playgrounds and schools. This is no.place for a mental hospital. There is no mass transportation systems, therefore it is completely inadequate for a Hospital, let one a mental hospital. This is a purely residential area with family and children walking. Most of the neighborhoods do not provide school busses, therefore many children walk to school. This is not an environment to add a potential population.of mentally ill patients who cannot be made responsible for their behavior because of their medical condition.. It is you the government officials who are responsible to minimize the risk to our children and our citizens. This is not the place to build a mental hospital particularly with the negative reputation of the Acadia Complany that has had many control issues Nationally.. I completely oppose this project. Find a place that minimizes risk to our population. Natali Mendez Location: 91913, Chula vista Submitted At: 6:27pm 09-27-20 This is not something our community needs. Elle Lininger Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:04pm 09-27-20 I strongly oppose the location of this facility for numerous reasons. There are locations more suited to this type of facility. Clark Andrean Location: 91914 Submitted At: 5:34pm 09-27-20 I oppose! This is not good for our family oriented neighborhood! Geancarlo Palavicini Location: Submitted At: 5:11pm 09-27-20 I strongly oppose this project. This is not the right location for this - in the middle of a residential neighborhood, proximity to schools, next to churches and child centered businesses. There’s not proper infrastructure of public transport either. And Acadia has a terrible track record. Cesar Diaz Location: Submitted At: 4:16pm 09-27-20 “I oppose the location and the partner acadia Laura Churchill Location: 91916, Chula vista Submitted At: 3:18pm 09-27-20 I oppose. This is too close to schools, children activities and residences. Isabella Anderson Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:05pm 09-27-20 I oppose. I do not think this is the appropriate place to build a mental institution. Kevin Smith Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 2:09pm 09-27-20 This is better suited further away from school and residential areas. Jose Lopez Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 1:13pm 09-27-20 I oppose of this project. Yolanda Mitchell Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 1:01pm 09-27-20 I oppose, this type of facility should not be located so close to residential areas and so many family friendly businesses. I understand the necessity of a mental health facility, but should be in a non residential/family area. Jaime Miranda Location: Submitted At: 12:32pm 09-27-20 I oppose the location and acadia Loretta Zoehrer Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 12:24pm 09-27-20 I feel there is a need for a facility such as the mental health small complex, but not in a family neighborhood where there are small children in Darby schools, but it should be near a medical facility, hospital, large clinics, not where young children walk to and from to go to school. Also, it is close to a marijuana dispensary. Jacqueline F Location: San Diego Submitted At: 12:20pm 09-27-20 I oppose location and acadia Veronica Duarte Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:53am 09-27-20 I oppose the location of the facility. This type of facility needs close proximity or adjacent to a hospital in case of emergencies. Not to mention that the building area is close to schools, children activities locations and Traffic is already an issue coming in & out of The area. Please reconsider approving the building of this facility at this proposed site. Karla Diaz Location: Submitted At: 10:46am 09-27-20 I oppose the location and Acadia Peter Moundragon Location: san diego Submitted At: 9:19am 09-27-20 I oppose the location and Acadia Socorro Pailles Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:45am 09-27-20 I oppose, this type of facility should not be located so close to residential areas and so many family friendly businesses. The value of the properties will drop. Who would like to lpurchase a home in the neighborhood knowing the risks of having a facility like this one is close-by Giovanna Ruiz Location: Submitted At: 8:43am 09-27-20 I don’t think it’s beneficial to have it near houses where our kids consider there home a safe place and can play outside. if this was to pass now they will have to be more cautious since we don’t know if there will be men who have been convicted rape to minors or anything like that. Keep our neighbors safe or children safe . Tiffany Carney Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:20am 09-27-20 I oppose, this type of facility should not be located so close to residential areas and so many family friendly businesses. Felipe Espindola Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:14am 09-27-20 Strongly oppose. Please reconsider the location. This facility has no place near family friendly businesses, community, and our children. Take the potential risks involved into consideration. Israel Avalos Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:43am 09-27-20 How can a psychiatrist hospital (especially Acadia, who have horrible reputation) be considered to be built around a purely residential area? CVPD is been short staff for years, no imagine when all the 51/50’s start getting release into our neighborhood, when a drug addict get release gets release next to our elementary school and drug addict is looking for a quick fix? Obviously this is being done for pure profit. Please do not force it on us, like you guys did with the MTS express, that hardly anyone uses. Ivonne Aparicio Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:16am 09-27-20 This would be 5-6 blocks away from Salt Creek Elementary . Not a good location for this Hospital. Jennifer GarciaTolete Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:37am 09-27-20 We live in Rolling Hills and the thought if a highly guarded psychiatric hospital within a mile from my child’s elementary school at Saltcreek Elem school scares many mothers like me. This is nit the right place where many kids go to develop themselves gor Tarkwondo in Pride , Seim school amd ither dining and recreation . this puts a great risk to the community and we say No! Ana C Location: Submitted At: 1:13am 09-27-20 I oppose to this hospital, it should be in a rural area, we have enough dealing with our own neighbors' mood changes to be subject to more serious events like serial sex offenders or killers. Agree with the hospital need but this is not a good location. Alan Reoch Location: 91914 Submitted At: 12:09am 09-27-20 Strongly oppose this facility in Rolling Hills Ranch Angie Oh Location: 91915 Submitted At: 11:34pm 09-26-20 Not a good idea to have in the suburbs; they should build in downtown Evette Garcia Location: 91910, Chula Vista Submitted At: 11:15pm 09-26-20 I do not agree at all. We have 5 adults In my home and we all 5 day no. Malia W Location: 91913, Chula vista Submitted At: 9:54pm 09-26-20 Any hospital needs to be accessible by the trolley and Eastlake does not have adequate public transportation. Placing this hospital in a residential neighborhood with schools, children's daycare centers and family entertainment is not acceptable and the reputation of Acadia is horrible! Ashley z Location: 91915, chula vista Submitted At: 9:49pm 09-26-20 I am SHOCKED that this is being allowed in a neighborhood surrounded by FAMILIES. 24 hour guards, 2 fences!?!?!? GIVE ME A BREAK. This is NOT the right area for this type of facility. We are not central to ANY OTHER RESOURCES, other than schools and homes. Almost no public transit or community support. This is purely a for profit business that completely disregards the residents that surround the facility. Silvia Tibbett Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:02pm 09-26-20 While I understand the need for mental health services, I do not believe this is the right company or the correct location. The large number of locations that hold youth activities within very close proximity (some on the same cul-de-sac) makes this placement irresponsible. The location is also not good for the patients, as it is a 20 minute drive to the nearest emergency medical setting. Please reconsider the location within the City. In addition, most of the information on the proposed company (Arcadia) seems to demonstrate that they are unacceptable for offering quality services to our community. They do not have my trust for running a mental health facility in our community. Haidee McDevitt Location: Submitted At: 8:25pm 09-26-20 What is wrong with the city of Chula Vista? This is a residential area, unfit for this kind of facility that will be filled with folks with mental issues that can be discharged randomly in close proximity to our businesses, homes and schools! Once discharged, worst yet, escaped, where do you think they will end up? Our streets?! Next, we will have a homeless problem with the need for shelters. Did we really purchase houses here so that our children can walk in sidewalks riddled with tents and worst yet, unstable and dangerous people? This is not the place, let’s fight to keep this area a nice, safe place to live. Griselda Ocampo Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:25pm 09-26-20 Although I understand there’s a need for this type of facility I strongly disagree it should be located with such proximity to neighborhoods, schools and high activity of children (such as Sky zone, play city, after school rec. activities) God forbid an extreme chaotic situation where it would put children and families so close near by in danger. Sandra Parker Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:22pm 09-26-20 The City of Chula Vista should be ashamed for even contemplating the allowance of this Psychiatric Hospital to be built in the middle of this community so close to homes and schools. This is not the proper location. Dan Meyerhuber Location: Submitted At: 7:18pm 09-26-20 Oppose. The proposed location is logistically not well thought out. Further, when you consider how undermanned our police force is - this facility needs to be more isolated away from public businesses and closer to a medical facility that could support it. Fact is, this is not an outpatient MH clinic - this is an inpatient facility requiring a 12 FT fence. This family centered community should be the absolute last resort. Ginny Meyerhuber Location: Submitted At: 6:50pm 09-26-20 I do not think this is the place for a Psychiatric Hospital. There is more suitable land south of Chula Vista, and with the proximity to NUMEROUS schools and homes, it would not be a good area. Nevertheless, there is no public transportation near the proposed site and there are schools and children's activity centers within walking distance from the proposed site. PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS. Claudia Paoletto Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:28pm 09-26-20 I oppose this plan! This is not the proper location for a psychiatric hospital. It is too close to our neighborhoods, businesses, and schools. Kimberly Ortiz Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:29pm 09-26-20 I STRONGLY oppose to this facility being built in our community. It is not the right place for it at all. Peter Alvarez Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:02pm 09-26-20 I oppose the location and Acadia. This hospital will negatively affect the community and its citizens. The city has to protect its constituents!!! Debbie Pond Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:02pm 09-26-20 I strongly oppose! There needs to be far more consideration given to this being a family filled area, with family driven businesses and many schools. The safety of a community must be considered, and plopping that down right smack in the epi- center of bustling families is outrageous! Michael Bliven Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:56pm 09-26-20 I am strongly opposed to the establishment of the mental health hospital proposed for the Rolling Hills community. I feel it is dangerous and irresponsible to the residents of this community. I will support all political and legal opposition. Craig Eastep Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:30pm 09-26-20 I do not believe a psychiatric hospital in the middle of a residential community is a well thought out idea. There are limited support services for this type of hospital and would be better suited near a medical hospital that is already established. Furthermore, what happens to patients that are discharged or refuse to stay? They wander around Eastlake residential community until they get picked up by the police or medical personnel. Or worst yet, they build a homeless camp in the area. There are too many elementary, middle, and high schools in the area to take chances with this hospital proposal. Kevin Thompson Location: Submitted At: 3:30pm 09-26-20 This is the wrong place for a facility of this nature. Rick Tirado Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 2:55pm 09-26-20 I STRONGLY OPPOSE. 1. Acadia has an abhorrent safety record. Sexual abuse, suicide, and violence has taken place under the supervision of Acadia managed facilities. 2. Proximity to children. Schools, bus stops, and parks are accessible (within 60ft) to high risk recidivist discharged patients. 3. Traffic. A constant flow of police and ambulance traffic in and out of a community intended for residents, not high risk patient hospitals. SHAME on all City of Chula Vista public official in support of the development. Rick Tirado 747 N Valley View Dr John Walkup Location: Submitted At: 2:08pm 09-26-20 Strongly oppose this type of institution adjacent to my community, Rolling Hills Ranch. This a a suburban family community, not an urban center for major facilities. This is not acceptable for our community geared towards families. Sibylla Andrean Location: Submitted At: 1:55pm 09-26-20 I oppose this plan! This is not the proper location for a psychiatric hospital. It is too close to our neighborhoods and businesses. Katherine Myers Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 1:39pm 09-26-20 To Whom it May Concern: I strongly oppose to this plan. The site selection not only is not within the character of the residential neighborhood, but it is also next to commercial businesses that are not at all similar or within the medical system! For instance, most of the businesses within area of this development are children centered! Why would you consider this a safe place or in keeping with the character of the neighborhood by putting a psychiatric hospital? I for one, sadly, would no longer frequent the businesses if this hospital is built. These businesses have already lost so much revenue to due to the pandemic; I doubt the building of a psychiatric ward is going to endear customers to return when the COVID-19 pandemic subsides. Additionally, I am concerned within the infrastructure from a medical and traffic standpoint. How can this be the proper site selection, when there are no close hospitals? Additionally, traffic disturbances to the surrounding residential neighborhood. I certainly do not want ambulances and additional vehicular traffic being added to an already over populated roadway near this site. Lastly, we do not have adequate police force for Chula Vista! How do you propose to remedy this, when mental disturbance calls and an inevitable increase in issues come with this facility are not answered because our police force is understaffed? Please consider the detrimental and devastating consequences to our neighborhood and local businesses! Glory Capati Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 1:18pm 09-26-20 Oppose...too close to neighborhood schools and it will not be safe for the kids Tanya Hernandez Location: 91914, Chula vista Submitted At: 1:14pm 09-26-20 I oppose this location for this facility. This hospital will be too close to single family residences and neighborhoods. This hospital has no other support services nearby and will be too close to where we take our kids for recreational opportunities etc. Manuelito Jarina Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 12:46pm 09-26-20 I STRONGLY OPPOSE to building this Eastlake Behavioral hospital. 1. Not good being in close proximity to Schools(pre-school, grade school, middle school, high school)- NOT SAFE FOR THE KIDS. 2. Not good being in close proximity to a residential area - Puts the peace at the residential neighborhood to get disrupted as well as the safety of the kids. 3. Not good being in close proximity to a commercial area where there are kids activities going on like, dance, ballet, karate, etc. - NOT SAFE FOR THE KIDS. 4. Law enforcement response concern. If this facility becomes operational, there would definitely be an increased need for law enforcement around the area & as it is right now, it is not even enough. DEFINITELY NOT THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR THIS KIND OF A FACILITY Dianne Bliven Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:38am 09-26-20 My family moved to Rolling Hills Ranch in 2013 from College Estates. We finally saved enough money to move to an area that was quiet, residential and well cared for by my the neighbors. My husband and I have been citizens of Chula Vista since 1970. If this project goes through, we will live directly across the street from the hospital. I don't want the noise, the drama, and the change to my community. I did not move to this location for any of this. Please take into consideration the people, who like me, have moved to this neighborhood to fulfill a dream of a beautiful community in Chula Vista and have worked hard to keep it quiet and peaceful. Nadia Camarillo Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:12am 09-26-20 We oppose Leslee T Location: 91913, Chula vista Submitted At: 7:16am 09-26-20 We do not want that facility in East Chula Vista!!!! Eva Gammon Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:11am 09-26-20 Eastlake is not the right location for this . Too close to schools and homes and not enough police around . What happens when the patients get discharged into the community? Alyson Lefebvre Location: Submitted At: 6:03am 09-26-20 We are in opposition to the build of this hospital! Janine LaBastille Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 2:01am 09-26-20 Strongly opposed to the location with no viable support services and the chosen private partner with its faulty management/business/medical record. Zabrina Fong Location: 91914 Submitted At: 9:44pm 09-25-20 Strongly oppose, there are no support services for this hospital in this neighborhood. Jean Witherspoon Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:42pm 09-25-20 The location of this psychiatric hospital is completely unstable this was not a well sought out plan by the City of Chula Vista. Your choice of building a facility like this in an area that is residential full of families, schools etc is disgraceful, it needs to be relocated to an area that has better monitoring by the Chula Vista police department, and better means of public transportation such as the industrial area close to any of the trolly stations. Janie Lasalle Location: Submitted At: 9:13pm 09-25-20 I strongly oppose. The close proximity to neighborhoods, schools and family friendly activities is not the appropriate location for this hospital. Marco Vissuet Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:09pm 09-25-20 This is not safe in our community so close to schools, parks, and homes. Sami Jolli Location: 92127 Submitted At: 9:07pm 09-25-20 Oppose! Amber Vissuet Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:04pm 09-25-20 I oppose. It is not safe around our children, schools and community. Rebecca Manti Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:04pm 09-25-20 Not an appropriate location, zero services for outgoing patients who may need continued help. No public transportation nearby, only parks and schools. So many other places in South Bay closer to one of our hospitals and doctor’s offices and not near parks and schools! Lauren E Location: 92102 Submitted At: 8:41pm 09-25-20 Oppose Daniela LaSalle Location: Submitted At: 8:40pm 09-25-20 Oppose. Lyndsay Neer Location: Submitted At: 8:31pm 09-25-20 Oppose. Molly Crawford Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:18pm 09-25-20 While I understand the need for mental health services, I do not believe this is the right company or the correct location. The large proportion of children’s activities centers including a preschool on the same cul-de-sac makes this placement irresponsible. In addition it is a 20 minute drive to the nearest emergency medical setting. Please reconsider the location to a more commercial location that does not have the large amount of family and child services. In addition. I have found most of the information on the proposed company to be unacceptable for offering quality services to our community at large. Lisa Quintero Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:15pm 09-25-20 Sad the City would even consider this location with so many homes, young families, many children, schools and parks in the immediate area. The quality of life and safety of the residents should be the top priority for the City. Deborah Chapman Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:01pm 09-25-20 I oppose. Too close to residential community. Small children, schools, homes all within a shirt walk. Not an appropriate place for this facility. Teresa Walkup Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:52pm 09-25-20 This is an unfit location for such a large medical facility. Too many family institutions reside close to this location including indoor playgrounds, dance schools, an art school and not to mention Eastlake Middle. This location also backs up to a neighborhood with walking paths utilized by families. Eastlake is a suburb for families and family friendly businesses. I know this area is zoned for medical offices, but that’s why we have doctors and dentists. A behavioral hospital could bring in people to the neighborhood that may harm our children. Maggie G Location: Submitted At: 7:52pm 09-25-20 This is not the right location for a psych hospital we are already dealing with sex trafficking, pedophiles, kidnapping, and stealing within the area. The cops in the area don’t respond in a timely manner as is, what more for a mentally ill patient. Will you take responsibility if something bad happens to a child. L Y Location: 91914 Submitted At: 7:45pm 09-25-20 Oppose, location is not good due to community, schools, family activities and far from public transportation and freeways, also not a through street Paul V Location: Submitted At: 3:20pm 09-25-20 I oppose the proposed location of this facility due to the close proximity to family friendly businesses and neighborhoods. Andrea V Location: Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:03pm 09-25-20 I oppose the location of this hospital. I strongly believe that having a mental health facility in such close proximity to a suburban neighborhood ( literally just a short walk away from our homes) will have a negative impact on our lives and safety. Melissa B Location: Submitted At: 11:31am 09-25-20 I oppose the location of this hospital. I understand the need for a mental health facility, however, I strongly believe the proposed location is not the appropriate location for this. The facility does not belong in the suburbs of our community. If you take a look at other mental health facilities, you will see that the facilities are located in city areas, not in suburban areas where a number of schools and residential homes are located within close promixity. We urge you not to move forward with the decision in building this facility in our community. Marisa Salas Location: 91915, CHULA VISTA Submitted At: 2:34pm 09-24-20 I strongly agree with all the comments here who oppose the location of this hospital. It is too close to homes and schools in our neighborhood and I don't trust it to be well-monitored or well taken care of. OUR LIVES AND SAFETY MATTER. Linda Young Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:18am 09-24-20 Mental health disabilities is a struggle and I feel sad for those and the families who are struggling with this. However, I strongly believe that a facility of this sort does not belong in the suburbs which I consider us a suburb. The majority who live here are families raising their children. I don’t think that the City of Chula Vista has carefully considered the risks involved for our community should this go through. Mesa Vista is right off of the freeway in a medical/business district, not in the suburbs. I will be extremely disappointed if the City of Chula Vista does not listen to the concerned homeowners who live out in this community. We are adamantly saying NO. Families moved out here so they can raise their children in a safer environment. I hope the City of Chula Vista will carefully consider all of our concerns and build the facility elsewhere. Why the city is so determined to build this facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood baffles me. The majority of people in mental health facilities have the right to leave at any time. Some people have mild disabilities and some are severe. Would they then join the growing homeless population out here? What happens then? Thank you for allowing me to voice my concern. Mike Williams Location: 91914, CHULA VISTA Submitted At: 6:10am 09-24-20 There is a behavior health clinic off of 3rd and Moss...looks horrible. The city needs to make that facility shut down and replace it with this new one. We cannot allow this to be in a residential area near schools. If this goes forward, expect a picket line at the construction site. Build this somewhere else in the business district away from homes and schools and near other medical and law enforcement agencies for support. Roza N Location: Submitted At: 9:05pm 09-23-20 I oppose this project for a number of reasons. I believe this project will not only disrupt the tight knit community Chula Vista has worked diligently to create in its Eastlake community, but also the health and safety of its residents. If this project is approved, it will allow for a massive 24/7 facility to operate within feet of residential dwellings. The proposal of 207 parking spots demonstrates not only the mammoth size of the facility but also the expected number of vehicles they anticipate will be traversing our neighborhood streets causing additional congestion, emissions, and pollution. Many California residents have asthma and other breathing issues, which will only be intensified by the additional 150 staff vehicles entering and exiting every day not to mention visitors, family members, and emergency drop offs. In addition, the facility will boast lighting in the walkways and parking lots with motion detectors. How bright will these lights be? Will they be operating by motion detection 24/7? Will these lights (flashing or not) disrupt the residential homes nextdoor breaking REM sleep patterns and causing sleep deprivation? Candy Oh Location: Submitted At: 6:55pm 09-23-20 Totally agree with all the comments. We who work or live here in Eastlake, OUR LIVES AND SAFETY MATTER. All it takes is one incident. Please take that into consideration. AILEEN JARINA Location: 91914, CHULA VISTA Submitted At: 4:05pm 09-23-20 If the intention really is to address mental health and not to support anybody's financial gain, proper planning with safety as priority should be paramount. We know that this lot has been vacant for a while now. To risk the safety of our kids and our families just to fill this lot could never be justified. A mental Health facility which will also cater to patients with drug addiction, just steps away from family homes and businesses that cater to children. Really?! It doesn't take a genius nor a professional to know that this is not a proper place for this facility. I am still confused why this is even still an issue up to now when It is common sense that this kind of facility despite being essential, will in fact cause known dangers. Again if the intention really is to address mental health, why not do it the right way by actually making a a conscientious and responsible selection for the location of this facility. It will only take ONE INCIDENT, GOD forbid ONE LIFE to prove that this is will be an irresponsible decision if this facility is built in this location. Anybody who should stand in favor of this project to be built in this location, should be held accountable and responsible for any incident that will put the people around this facility in harms way. Hector R Location: Submitted At: 9:53am 09-23-20 Money grab This corruption need to be investigated! Bring in the Feds!!!!! James Byrne Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:22am 09-23-20 Terrible partner. Terrible spot not zoned for this, hence the CUP. Entire community opposed yet you persist. We are a diverse, tight knit suburban community and you choose here of the entire huge county to put this pysch hospital. I wonder why not Carmel Valley? Why here? It's too close to homes, schools, parks, churches. Nobody can guarantee our safety with the current talks of downsizing police. It's the ultimate quiet neighborhood with almost no problems so our betters want to "fix" all that and create issues where there are none? This is why nobody trusts public institutions or elected officials anymore. The idea is completely lacking in common sense. It's the worst possible place and there are other places that are completely well equipped, zoned, near hospitals and transport, etc. Please, just don't do it. Theresa Petros Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 2:20am 09-23-20 Relative to our safety in this suburban neighborhood is the national debate on policing that is happening. I am worried that our current political leaders or those we are about to elect will vote to either defund the police to some extent, or to divert police resources away from the police and to community based resources instead .It is absolutely a timely, new and valid issue with the current state of affairs throughout the country right now. With this proposed psych facility being only 90 feet from my home and near many of our homes, parks, schools, and churches etc. what guarantees do we have as to the ability of a FUTURE CVPD to respond to our calls if a severely mentally ill or drug addicted patient escapes from the facility and is in my backyard, right down the hill from the facility and trying to get into my house? I hear political leaders say that we are addicted to 911 and we will have to wean ourselves off of that. I am not inclined to leave it to an elected bureaucrat to decide which calls are deemed worthy of response and which should be triaged to a mental health unit of responders. For all the reasons stated previously, plus this new and valid concern over policing, this facility should be built elsewhere. The city of CV has no business building a full service psych hospital in the absolute middle of a suburban master planned community. Les Mollester Location: Submitted At: 10:48pm 09-22-20 Smell like pure corruption! Danger for public safety! Danger for children life’s! Not good idea, to place facility heavily populated area, place it in Otay or Rancho Del Ray Alyson Lauro Location: 91914, CHULA VISTA Submitted At: 8:19pm 09-22-20 This company has no business in Eastlake! It looks like a money grab on your part. Show us some respect or be voted out of office! Yesenia Kellmer Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:41pm 09-22-20 I don’t think that this type of facility should be in our community. The company is not in it for the clients but for the money. Our community would be adversely affected by the issues this company would bring into our community, from putting our children in jeopardy to the eventual ruin of our community. Edgar M Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:25pm 09-22-20 I oppose the opening of the Eastlake Behavior Health Hospital because it will bring more homeless to our community. Alex Reno Location: Submitted At: 6:10pm 09-22-20 Opposed. This facility would damage the character of the Eastlake area. Simon A Location: Submitted At: 5:42pm 09-22-20 I am strongly opposed to this facility. The projected area does not have the proper support needed to take care of people that have mental illnesses. Upon release of a patient, there is a lack of continual care options in the area. A portion of the homeless population suffer from mental illnesses. If a homeless person is released from this treatment facility there are no other options in the area to seek help for placement. This means they will be left to roam the neighborhoods and business areas that do not have the ability to support them. This facility will create more of a demand for a police presence in and around the area. The Chula Vista Police Department does not have adequate personnel to handle an influx of radio calls to this area. The increased workload is unsafe for the officers and for the community. Pete G Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:33pm 09-22-20 Totally Oppose this facility. Eastlake is a great family community and this facility has no reason to build here. Maybe focus on a police station or another Middle School. Laura Santiago Location: Submitted At: 12:35pm 09-22-20 OPPOSE do not consider this facility is good for my neighborhood Owey O Location: Submitted At: 7:30pm 09-20-20 I totally oppose! The city council and mayor needs to start listening to their citizens. This decision should not be about money but it should be about common sense and the well being of our families and neighborhoods. If you are adamant about instituting a behavioral hospital, then build it by the prison. Claudia Torres Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 2:47pm 09-20-20 Oppose. The City should be pushing more middle and high schools, youth and kids programs and small business. The planning in this side of the city has been very irresponsable. This type of facility needs more infrastructure, as a reliable public transportation, social services and police support, which we absolutely don’t have in place. John D Location: Submitted At: 10:15am 09-20-20 Eastlake is a small tight knit community and the Eastlake Business District is no different. This District was created to provide small business facilities to support the nearby residential community, not the other way around. That is why every business in this district is small (no more than 40 or so employees) with specific business hours. No business in this District operates 24/7. A facility with 150 employees by no means falls under the plan of the area and its surrounding businesses. In fact, that specific location was originally set aside for medical research, which again is not a 24/7 operation that will most definitely disrupt the residential homes nearby. That is precisely why this project needs to apply for a CUP as this area was never intended for this type of facility. Karina Lodin Location: 91911, chula vista Submitted At: 9:41am 09-20-20 Oppose!! This will bring more traffic and noise pollution. Plus its a huge risk for our kids incase patients wander off. Norma Roth Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:04pm 09-19-20 Absolutely opposed to having a mental health facility so close to our children, their schools and our homes. William Thompson Location: 91910, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:50pm 09-19-20 Eastlake is not the adequate place to build a mental facility. Jennifer A Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 2:06pm 09-19-20 Strongly opposed. Christina Eastman Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 2:03pm 09-19-20 I remain strongly opposed to this facility being built at the proposed location. It is surrounded by homes, businesses that cater to children, and is much too large for the area. The operators intend to use this facility to treat patients from all over the county, yet they want to build it in a small, primarily residential area, far from any large hospitals or major highways (non-toll), and with extremely limited nearby public transportation. Additionally, Acadia has a terrible track record as it relates to mental health facilities. This is the WRONG location for this facility with the WRONG operator (Acadia). Nicole T Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 12:36pm 09-19-20 Oppose Patricia Pugh Location: Submitted At: 11:19am 09-19-20 Oppose Marsha C Location: Submitted At: 9:13am 09-19-20 Oppose Alex A Location: Submitted At: 8:11pm 09-17-20 Opposed. This company clearly has too many well-documented issues to warrant being able to run this hospital. Rhea L Location: Submitted At: 1:33pm 09-17-20 Opposed. Erin Burgar Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:50am 09-17-20 The proposed location for this hospital lacks close access to an emergency room or other medical resources for ongoing care. It is being squeezed in between an existing residential neighborhood and businesses that cater to families and children. There is limited access to public transportation or to resources to help patients who may be treated at this facility and released into the community. Acadia is a for-profit company with a terrible track record that has no ties to, or concerns for, our local community. They have paid millions of dollars in fines for Medicaid fraud and have been accused of abuse, negligence and patient elopement. Patient elopement is a real concern and has been identified as a significant issue at all hospitals. Patients leaving unauthorized or being released and then wandering into the surrounding neighborhoods will have a negative impact both on those patients and the surrounding community. Our police and fire departments already do not have enough staffing on the east side of the city to deal with current issues. In addition, Showroom place is a one-way in and out street. There will be an increase in traffic and noise in an area that is home to residential neighborhoods and businesses that cater to families and children. Our small business community is already struggling due to Covid. It would be a shame to see these businesses further negatively impacted due to the potential influx of traffic, safety concerns and loitering in the area. Zack Rattray Location: 91914, Chula vista Submitted At: 12:37am 09-17-20 I strongly oppose the construction of the proposed Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital. The project at issue is located adjacent to Venture Commerce Center- Eastlake (VCC), a commercial common interest development, no effort has been made to notify the owners or the Board of VCC of the proposed development of a behavioral Health facility. I have several concerns: 1. Increase in traffic in the area and lack of public transportation 2. Safety and security: Acadia has numerous complaints of under-staffing which can lead to abuse of its patients, violence and elopements. See http://www.aureliusvalue.com/research/acadia-healthcare/ Also according to Acadia’s annual report to stockholders http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NASDAQ_ACHC_2018.pdf The patients they treat suffer from severe mental health and chemical dependency disorders and can pose a threat to themselves or others. Patient incidents, including death, sexual abuse, assaults and elopements occur from time to time. Individuals cared for by them have in the past engaged, and may in the future engage, in behavior that results in harm to themselves, employees or to one or more individuals, including members of the public. The proposed location poses a safety threat to the surrounding area as this facility would be located too far from emergency service infrastructure and too close to businesses and residential neighborhoods. J Oney Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:52pm 09-16-20 Another proof that the city councils and mayor Is only Interested in creating more revenue to the city without care about the quality of live of citizens of Chula Vista . When will this end ? Burton Lee Location: Submitted At: 6:52pm 09-16-20 It ain’t right. It’s just not right. Ashley Fernando Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:53pm 09-16-20 continuation 3. Release concerns impacting the area: patients leaving the facility on their own without an exit plan might loiter, increase homelessness in the area and cause safety issues at VCC. 4. Noise pollution: increase of traffic related noise, emergency sirens and noise from patient outdoor area’s might be disruptive to the surrounding offices and neighborhood. 5. Noise pollution during construction. Construction activities could generate noise and vibration levels that interfere with business conducted at VCC 6, Decline in property value Sara Fernando Location: 91902, Bonita Submitted At: 5:43pm 09-16-20 I strongly oppose the construction of the proposed Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital. The project at issue is located adjacent to Venture Commerce Center- Eastlake (VCC), a commercial common interest development, no effort has been made to notify the owners or the Board of VCC of the proposed development of a behavioral Health facility. I have several concerns: 1. Increase in traffic in the area and lack of public transportation 2. Safety and security: Acadia has numerous complaints of under-staffing which can lead to abuse of its patients, violence and elopements. See http://www.aureliusvalue.com/research/acadia-healthcare/ Also according to Acadia’s annual report to stockholders http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NASDAQ_ACHC_2018.pdf The patients they treat suffer from severe mental health and chemical dependency disorders and can pose a threat to themselves or others. Patient incidents, including death, sexual abuse, assaults and elopements occur from time to time. Individuals cared for by them have in the past engaged, and may in the future engage, in behavior that results in harm to themselves, employees or to one or more individuals, including members of the public. The proposed location poses a safety threat to the surrounding area as this facility would be located too far from emergency service infrastructure and too close to businesses and residential neighborhoods. Mercedes Razo Location: 91902, Bonita Submitted At: 5:07am 09-16-20 The location is too close to schools, parks, homes and businesses. The hospital won’t benefit the Eastlake community as the patients most likely will be brought from other parts of the County. The property value will also be affected. I strongly oppose this project. David Spear Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 11:50pm 09-15-20 A mental health facility in the middle of Eastlake, I beg your pardon? How does this make any sense whatsoever? This proposed facility MUST be co-located adjacent or in very close proximity to a hospital due to the nature of the patients. Careful consideration must also be given to building such a facility in an industrial area, NOT in a location surrounded by residential homes with families that will absolutely be at risk if this project moves forward. Moreover, who is going to provide the additional funding to CVPD in order to respond to what will certainly be more calls for service from this center? I can't think of any reason to justify the construction of this facility within Eastlake. This project simply cannot move forward, there are at least a dozen sites within SD county which are better suited, dare as say "ideal" for this type of project. Dixon X Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:33pm 09-15-20 Of all the possible locations around the county to build this place, why putting it in the middle of a residential area? This is a very shortsighted project if the city of Chula Vista is even seriously considering it. The ideal place for a psychiatric hospital should be near public transportation, hospitals, and law enforcement. Once this hospital is built, the home values will for sure take a hit. People will vote with their feet and this will result in the deterioration of the neighborhood. Monica N Location: Submitted At: 9:18pm 09-15-20 How am I supposed to comment on this haphazard presentation? The PowerPoint states there will be a single public entry and exit point at the end of the cul-de-sac. Will this also be controlled access or will it be a break in the measly 6' perimeter wall? Will there be additional entry and exit points for employees and/or emergency personnel? If so, will those be controlled access or additional breaks in the perimeter wall? The PowerPoint states the location will have 6 activity areas for patients each with a 12' concrete wall enclosure; however, in the diagram I only see 2 activity areas with this wall depicted - one of which does not even appear to be enclosed completely. Monica N Location: Submitted At: 9:08pm 09-15-20 Furthermore, the proposed EIR is missing several key components such as it's impact on public services and wildlife. In some areas of the website/PowerPoint it says public services will be included, in other areas it is left off. The proposal needs to include the impact of delayed response times on public safety. Chula Vista has worked diligently as a city to make Eastlake and its surrounding area a natural habitat with plush landscaping, various walking and biking trials, and an abundance of wildlife. This project will most definitely disrupt the natural habitat of various species of wildlife and the overall plans of the area. As such, it is important to note that a 12' concrete wall does not fit with the other buildings in the area, all of which are small businesses -- none of which operate 24/7, none of which have anywhere near 150 employees, and none of which are fortified in such a manner. Jason Carpenter Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:03pm 09-15-20 No one is disputing the need for mental health services, but having it placed in the proposed area makes no sense. Two grade schools, a middle school, multiple businesses that cater to children that are within walking distance of the proposed site as well as thousands of residential homes mere feet away make this a terrible decision. I’d be the first to say that if this goes through it will forever change how comfortable I feel in my own neighborhood and home. No more leaving my windows and slider door open for a cool breeze. No longer will kids be safe walking to school, to the pool or their friends houses. This will degrade and ruin the surrounding neighborhood and for that this needs to be denied. Uriel Cortez Location: 91921, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:12pm 09-15-20 How is this even being proposed? Way to far from the hospital, the extension of the police department closes at 8pm, so how can you operate safely for 24 hours. The risk this clinic poses to the city outweighs the benefits it offers. With so much land available, not sure why this location is even at question. Completely oppose this, and reading the comments, 99% of people do as well. Let's see if city council votes representing the communities demands or if they seek their own special interest. Gabriela Stone Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 12:20pm 09-15-20 I oppose the location of this hospital. I believe it should be moved closer to the Sharp hospital in Chula Vista. This location is right by residential areas as well as right next door and in very close proximity to business catering to children. I work within a hospital now and I know that sometimes, despite security, even with one on one staff, patients can elope. This presents a danger to those nearby and will absolutely hurt businesses and property values of homes. In addition, the 24 hour facility is out of character with the area. There will of course be lights for security which takes away from the ambience of our area. We also do not have enough police officer staff constantly within the area to assist with any problems that will surely follow. The fact that there would be a facility here means more homeless populations will be around the area, which further increases security risk and devalues the area. This would be a very big unintended consequence. Schools are nearby, arcades, child play areas, gyms, stores, etc. It will become even less safe for women to be out at night, and even more so for children and teenagers to be out in this area. Please propose this project somewhere more secluded. Rodney I Location: Submitted At: 10:28pm 09-13-20 I oppose the location of the proposed hospital. It would literally be located in the backyards of houses in the neighborhood. I propose that the hospital be located near Sharp hospital located further west or maybe further south on the 125. Richard Richardson Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:55am 09-13-20 I oppose the location being proposed. There are several informal access points that create connection between the lot and the neighborhoods creating an environment of unacceptable proximity. With limited public safety services in east Chula Vista, this presents an unacceptable risk of crime, vagrancy, noise, trash, &^ other health & safety hazards, especially to children in the neighborhood or frequenting the adjacent businesses catering to children. Concern about noise caused by patients who are being treated for behavior issues (in facility, or outside), including police/EMS calls for service. Concern about noise from large-scale HVAC, in a facility that will operate 24 hours a day is a concern, & air quality/noise issues from this equipment & very large parking lot. Concern with vehicle traffic, landscape & maintenance immediately adjacent to the surrounding residential neighborhood where sound is not bounded by zoning. A 24 hour a day business is a significant change to the character compared the other business in the neighborhood. Security lighting on the perimeter, within hundreds of feet of the surrounding homes will generate light pollution further disrupting the character of the neighborhood and impeding views of the night sky. The proposed project will disrupt the visual character of the lot site. The lot has excellent views to the East, but fenced in/walled large structure will degrade the visual character of the project area & the quality of surrounding views Cecilio N Location: 91914 Submitted At: 10:19pm 09-12-20 I oppose to have this facility constructed closely to family residential properties. It will be a dis-service to have this Behavioral facility located to the proposed site because this definitely will degrade the appreciation of family residential properties Rebecca M Location: Submitted At: 9:58pm 09-12-20 The proposed location is close family residential housing and businesses which catering children. Nancy bettger Location: 91914, chula vista Submitted At: 5:16pm 09-12-20 It would be too close to children in the neighborhood If a patient would leave the hospital and stray thru the neighborhood The value of our properties would fall down terribly Florence Meaux Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:32pm 09-12-20 This is not the place to build this hospital. Jackeline Lopez Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:28am 09-12-20 I oppose the location being proposed for this behavior health hospital. There are 3 elementary schools just walking distance, a middle school across the street, and full residential areas all around the proposed location. The company heading this project a Acadia is one that poses high risk because of prior issues with other facilities they operated. We have communities along this area, community parks, elementary schools, middle school, high school, recreational trails. This would be a danger to our community and our children. There needs to be a different location for this type of facility, not in the middle of a community with close by parks, schools and residences. Ben Radi Location: 91914, Chula vista Submitted At: 9:40am 09-12-20 This proposed location is too close to residential area and schools. Taking into account the poor record of Acadia in securing its facilities, this location could pose a risk to the families living close by and especially to the children. Besides, this location is highly inaccessible by public transportation which causes a significant hardship for patients and families if commuting is needed. As a healthcare professional who serves a similar population, I totally understand the urgent need for development of such facilities in our communities, but a psych facility with this scope needs to be planned and built in a more optimal and well-thought-through location than the proposed area. Dan Luko Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:10am 09-11-20 This large scale psychiatric hospital will border the neighborhood of rolling hills ranch a community with a long standing HOA. The CC&R’s of the HOA state that fences cannot be taller than 5ft. Although the fence between the hospital and RHR will be on hospital property it will not blend in well with any of the surroundings on the neighborhood side. Having a fenceless facility is NOT an option due to the high risk patients that would be admitted as 5150’s. Additionally, Acadia had a fencelss facility that saw a high number of escapes into neighborhoods and calls for service. Although the hospital will supposedly be transporting patients in a silent ambulance, the neighborhoods surrounding will be disturbed by the sounds of sirens from calls for service. Facilities of this size experience hundreds of calls for service over years (please see the calls for service doc delivered to Caroline Young of similar facilities). The sirens will be absolutely disruptive for residential neighbors. Lastly, this hospital is unlike anything that will be in the business park. All of the medical facilities are clinics and not meant to house patients. There are no clinics that require 24/7 security and absolutely no facilities in the business park that require a 12ft fence surround. Please consider the noise pollution coming from calls for service. Also The best planned safety restrictions always have failure and when those happen there will be potentially dangerous impacts to neighbors. Claudia S Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:04am 09-11-20 RHR is a planned community build to attract home owners who wanted to raise families within walking distance to schools, shops, parks and other outdoor activities. It was build with many size parks within the community. Now that families have settled and established roots corporations looking to cash in on the community we have build. looking to turn the areas where we walk our pets, our strolls and our kids play into an area where none of us will safely be able to do so. A psyche center needs to have trained personnel to support its patients who deserve and are paying for it. Building a psyche center in the middle of open parks, elderly and young families who do not have the training to protect themselves or even offer assistance to a patient who is having a breakdown the psyche center themselves can not help and released them into a community that is not equipped to help them. To destroy a community just because corp. can cash in on the love and care we have poured into our homes. There are many other areas, not RHR, that are equipped and welcome a psyche center. Why don’t they build there? Because the corporations pushing it to be build here in RHR would not make as great of a profit. It’s not being build for the service of the patients or the community. It’s being build for a few to make money. What if the patients check themselves out and walk into our nearby mountains? Who is going to find them? Our firefighters, police force, volunteers. Not the corporations. Rie Kinney Location: Submitted At: 6:58am 09-11-20 Not a good idea to set behavior health hospital in the middle of residential area. It poses danger to the community. Alex Abengoza Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:56pm 09-10-20 I oppose this location for a behavioral health hospital. It’s proximity to homes, schools, and businesses poses a threat to our neighborhood. This is not the type of business we need for that parcel of land. In addition, Acadia does not have a great track record. We cannot rely on that type of company to keep our neighborhood, their employees, or patients safe. Brandy D Location: 91913 Submitted At: 10:01pm 09-10-20 This project poses a danger to the community. Thad Ryan Location: 91913, chula vista Submitted At: 9:53pm 09-10-20 this project is the last thing needed in a residential neighborhood! I am a native of Chula Vista and remained in the area due to the master planned community designed to support family and their daily activities! Not to be living next to a facility of this type located right next to several facilities that are designed for families and children! This facility needs to be relocated where it will service the community and not endangered it! Forest Villa Location: 91914-2437, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:51pm 09-10-20 I have release concerns when a discharge takes place and a patient is released into the community. Emi Wong Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:05pm 09-10-20 I strongly oppose this facility to be built in the area proposed. I have ground up in the East Chula Vista area and have lived in Eastlake for the past 8 years. The area is a great family community with excellent schools. There are many schools (elementary, middle, and high schools) located within walking distance to this proposed property. As parents, we are already in fear of lockdowns at our kids schools due to gun violence. As society, we should be looking out for these children and schools not add more obstacles. Lillian Harvey Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:26pm 09-10-20 People should be served where they have access to ALL needed services (physical, mental, emotional, and day- to-day needs). This location does not provide that access. It also does not fit with our community needs. Please find a better location for this hospital. Marc Endriss Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:17pm 09-10-20 My wife and I have lived in Rolling Hills Ranch for 20 years. We are both strongly opposed to allowing this facility to be built in this location. Chula Vista has a plethora of open space to locate such a facility and quite frankly, we are confounded about how our elected officials are even considering this. We aren’t strictly opposed to the building of a facility in concept, but to shoehorn it into this location in the middle of a residential community in close proximity to our homes, schools, and parks is unacceptable. Surely there is a far more appropriate location available that does not present such a clear danger to our community. Please put a stop to this plan now and find an alternate site that doesn’t put our citizens at risk. -Marc and Debra Endriss Kristin Guardado Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:41pm 09-10-20 I am opposed to the placement of a behavioral health hospital in or near the Eastlake and Rolling Hills neighborhoods. It’s unsafe for the patients and the residents. This facility needs to be placed closer to a medical hospital. The company proposing this facility does not have a good track record, and incidents published about their other facilities indicate that the facility could pose a risk to residents and children at nearby businesses. A behavioral health facility needs to be placed somewhere in the community where patients will be able to get quick treatment for possible emergencies and where there are not homes and children’s facilities across the street. The location proposed is a very poor choice for all involved. It may very well result in residents and businesses moving out of the area, as well as discourage new families and businesses from moving into the area. Help protect our community and the patients this facility would serve. Make a better choice. Barrett Jung Location: 91914, CHULA VISTA Submitted At: 5:00pm 09-10-20 I strongly oppose this type of facility being built in this proposed area. I have been a resident of this community for 20 years. I specifically selected Rolling Hills as it very friendly to raising families. Schools and parks are within close proximity of this proposed facility and it will be devastating and irresponsible to put children and the whole community in harms way. This proposed facility will be just around the corner from my family's home. John McCann, I have supported you in every election you have participated in. Now I expect you to support me. Ian Burgar Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:28pm 09-10-20 I strongly oppose this project. After reviewing the Eastlake II Development Plan, Business Center SPA, District Regulations, and Design Guidelines it is quite clear that it is woefully inadequate for governing the planning or regulation of a Behavioral Hospital. These governing documents spend vastly more time on landscaping, and signage regulations than they do focusing on ensuring community safety and the operational logistics required to support a Hospital in an area where one was never originally envisioned or planned. As an example the CVMC (which does not govern Eastlake) states that all hospitals must be located on collector streets or thoroughfares. Showroom place is a unclassified cul de sac. This shows that the West side had proper planning for hospitals and Eastlake has not but strangely the current east side hospital is on a collector. Further this project will have 12ft security fencing. What facilities bordering residential neighborhoods haves this feature? We suspect none and for good reason. Further it appears the facility as proposed will violate section III-5 of the design guidelines. The proposed fencing appear to violate height, type and placement guidelines. The document states walls and fences between buildings and the front of the property line ARE NOT ALLOWED. This project has both. Please reject a project that needs and 8ft and 12ft security fencing in a residential area. The planners never intended it and the use is not proper or wise. Cindy O Location: Submitted At: 11:12am 09-10-20 Strongly oppose to the construction of Behavior Health Hospital here due to its close proximity to many schools, assisted/independent facilities for the elderly, hotels, many residential homes, parks and community centers. The well being and safety of our children, the elderly, hotel guests, and families living around the area is utmost important. This is a friendly Neighborhood and endangering all of us would be a failure to our constituents. Julia Mundy Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:25pm 09-09-20 The location proposed was wrong from the beginning. I am not sure if the group of people who try to build A Behavior Health Hospital right in the middle of our community, have ever thought about the families, children, schools nearby. I assume these people’s families do not live in our community, so they care less or do not care at all! Maria Hernandez Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:00am 09-09-20 Building this mental healthcare facility in the middle of a community and schools will be extremely dangerous. This will be a mental facility that will bring many patients with many mental healthcare problems along with social economical issues. Chula Vista will become the new Hillcrest. We will be discharging patients intonations area that is less than a mile from our neighborhoods and the adjacent schools. There are many research papers that show that people with mental health problems commit crimes such as rape, robbery, aggression, and too many to mention. Furthermore, our government doesn’t offer mental health patients enough resources when discharged from these facilities. Having said that, This facility will be discharging these patients into our community with no resources. Many of them don’t have any money to get to where they want to go. There is a social services resource center on the west side of the city, on Oxford (begins Costco.) What this means is that these people will travel by foot to get to the resource center. Therefore, leaving these people the only option, to most likely walk through our communities to get to their destination. Many of them will take a journey to the resource center. Furthermore, they will sleep on our streets, commit crimes, and panhandle. This will impact our current living situation. This article talks about mental health and homelessness. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html Joycelyn Thomas Location: 91914, chula Vista Submitted At: 6:42am 09-09-20 As a former PERT Officer with the SDPD, I am aware of just how unpredictable a person needing psychiatric care can become. This facility has no business in a "NEIGHBORHOOD" and it has been previously pointed out to this city, the vendor trying to place it near the Eastlake design Center has a track record that is highly questionable for security! There have been OTHER proposed sites that would meet all criteria needed for this type of facility and THIS SITE IS NOT IT! If it is felt that "southbay" needs a facility, there is plenty of land near Donovan State Prison with a newly constructed "rapid transit" corridor close by! I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE LOCATION IN THE EASTLAKE DESIGN CENTER and it is time for this city to start listening to it's constituents (unlike Cheryl Cox who screwed the citizens in Otay Ranch Village 1 by using her SANDAG pockets to change a light rail into a bus and put that bus through the community it had no right to endanger Hedencamp Elementary children!) A Reyes Location: 919121, CHULA Vista Submitted At: 6:26am 09-09-20 Not an appropriate community to have a facility. New hotels will be there and Residential homes with families live too close in proximity. Not enough Police support in that area Julie Peck Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:45pm 09-08-20 Hello, I am a Registered Nurse and having worked in the mental health field , I believe this facility is not a good fit. The company running it has a horrible track record with many complaints and negligence documented. There is no mass transit and it’s proximity to schools and neighborhoods is dangerous not only their safety, but to their property values and peace of mind. The businesses in the strip mall and all around have struggled recently enough as it is. I personally Would not feel comfortable allowing my children to attend any of those businesses with this in such close proximity. To add a RV Park next door will become a target for those released that don’t leave. This is not a good fit period and there are other areas better suited for this facility. I strongly oppose this facility in the current location Jodi Santiago Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:36pm 09-08-20 This is terrible location for this type of facility near family residences, schools, children and children’s activities. There are countless reports from other states that the operator of this facility has been involved in law suits. This faculty is know for having substandard care and negligence. WE DO NOT WANT THIS FACILITY LOCATED ANYWHERE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!! Cletis Strausbaugh Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:22pm 09-07-20 Strongly opposed MATT MANDE Location: 91915, CHULA VISTA Submitted At: 7:12pm 09-07-20 Numerous reports from other states that the perspective operator of this facility has been involved in law suits related to substandard care and negligence. WE DO NOT WANT THIS FACILITY LOCATED ANYWHERE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!! Maria MANDERS Location: 91915, CHULA VISTA Submitted At: 6:54pm 09-07-20 A real bad idea locating this hospital here. There is limited assess to services and community resources such as public transport, fire, and police. Locating this facility so close to houses and schools is highly undesirable for our community. Additionally, there are numerous reports from other states that the perspective operator of this facility has been involved in law suits related to substandard care and negligence. WE DO NOT WANT THIS FACILITY LOCATED ANYWHERE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!! Belinda Rojas Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:12pm 09-07-20 I strongly oppose that building of the hospital in Eastlake location. I don’t think is the best location for the people that are going to attend the hospital and that it’s not safe for the families and kids around the hospital . Almaz Bakit Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 11:40am 09-06-20 I strongly oppose this facility to be built in this proposed area. I have a lot of concerns such as safety and welfare to residents and children. II will also create traffic jams and homelessness, just to mention a few, which will be a threat to the community. Thank you. Gabe Bakit Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 11:04am 09-06-20 I strongly oppose this facility being built in this proposed area. I have been a long time resident of this community that is very friendly to raising families. This is a residential area. Schools and parks are within close proximity of this proposed facility and it will be devastating and irresponsible to put children and the whole community in harms way. It's a safety hazard. Justin Layman Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:01pm 09-05-20 I have been a resident of CV since 88 and I oppose this facility being built in the proposed area. The closest hospital is 5+ miles away. Such facilities are traditionally located on or near an established med campus for the safety of patients. Stats show similar facilities generate numerous calls for service for missing persons (elopements) as well as violence-related offenses. Due to budget constraints, there is no organic police presence in eastern CV, as a result response times are less than desirable. Patients admitted involuntarily have the ability to refuse further treatment, and leave on their own without a treatment plan in place, or they may demand a premature discharge. Profit driven operators (Acadia) release patients when their insurance runs out. Given the proposed location, in a suburban neighborhood, where will the patients go and what environmental or similar damage will be caused to the area as a result during that time? Elopements (escapes) and other disruptions may trigger lockdowns at schools/businesses within a 1 mile radius. Acadia will be 80% majority owner. In 2019 Acadia, 11 days b4 they filed an app with the City to build the proposed facility, agreed to a $17M h-care fraud settlement resulting from a scheme to defraud Medicaid. They have been named in lawsuits claiming sexual abuse of its patients, failure to adhere to professional standards of care, and terminating employees for reporting criminal/illegal or otherwise unsafe operations/activities. Beau Jones Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:49am 09-05-20 Strongly oppose... the grim reality of a behavioral center is the necessity to maintain a close proximity to a trauma hospital. Marylupe Flores Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:19pm 09-04-20 As a parent, as a neighbor, as a home owner and a licensed mental health therapist, I vehemently oppose this psychiatric hospital near my house and children’s schools. I am an advocate for mental health services and I have first hand knowledge of the need of our severely and persistently mentally I’ll population. We need to offer high quality integrated care and work in close partnerships with community resources, medical services, intensive mental health therapy and psychiatry, substance use disorders support, housing opportunities as well as vocational training. None of this is within the location selected. A better option would be downtown Chula Vista near Scripps, which is a bustling neighborhood with all the needed services as well as a centrally located police station. In addition, Acadia is a poor business partner with it’s long string of legal troubles and complaints from its own workers, the consumers they serve, and the communities they’re located. I urge the city of Chula Vista to immediately block the construction of this inpatient psychiatry hospital in Eastlake and reassign this much needed service to downtown Chula Vista, which has several mental health services nearby such as the county funded mental health agency Community Research Foundation’s South Bay Guidance for adults and Nueva Vistas for children and teens, and two Federally Qualified Health Centers, which offer mental health, San Ysidro Health Center and Family Health Centers of San Diego. Thank you. Roland Fernando Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:07pm 09-04-20 The proposed location is surrounded by residential and businesses that cater to children. This development would put all in the area in jeopardy and cause businesses to lose clients. This is the wrong area for this type of facility. PLEASE DO NOT BUILD THAT FACILITY HERE! Nicholas Wyatt Location: Submitted At: 7:14pm 09-04-20 I am a father with a family adjacent to this location and I strongly OPPOSE! I have a number of concerns: Proximity to Residential neighborhood: This location is in the backyard of many households, increase in traffic, loitering, and homelessness that have been throughly documented to increase near these types of facilities. These create safety concerns for many schools, parks, and day care centers that are in the neighborhoods immediately adjacent. Limited Police & Resources: Adding a new facility of this scale will likely cause an increase in call volume resulting in an increase in response time from ambulances, fire, and police. Chula Vista currently does not have enough police and Eastlake has the fewest patrols assigned to handle issues arising from the facility or from those released. CVPD has the lowest sworn officer-to-population ratio in the county at less than 1 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. Distance from Integrated Healthcare and limited accessibility: This facility will be 20 miles away from Scripps Mercy Hospital in Hillcrest, far removed from much of the population it currently serves. How will patients get to this location with limited public transportation and quick accessibility only available via toll road? Release Concerns and Escape Risk: What will happen to patients when they are released and refuse help from a social worker? What happens when patients lack housing, access to additional medical care, or a family/support system to assist them? Briana Wyatt Location: 91910, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:42pm 09-04-20 I am a military spouse, business owner and mother. I strongly OPPOSE! I have a number of concerns: Proximity to Residential neighborhood: Increase in traffic, loitering, and homelessness that have been throughly documented to increase near these types of facilities. These create safety concerns for the many schools, parks, and day care centers that are in the neighborhoods immediately adjacent. Limited Police & Resources: Adding a new facility of this scale will likely cause an increase in call volume resulting in an increase in response time from ambulances, fire, and police. Chula Vista currently does not have enough police and Eastlake has the fewest patrols assigned to handle issues arising from the facility or from those released. CVPD has the lowest sworn officer-to-population ratio in the county at less than 1 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. Distance from Integrated Healthcare and limited accessibility: This facility will be 20 miles away from Scripps Mercy Hospital in Hillcrest, far removed from much of the population it currently serves. How will patients get to this location with limited public transportation and quick accessibility only available via toll road? Release Concerns and Escape Risk: What will happen to patients when they are released and refuse help from a social worker? What happens when patients lack housing, access to additional medical care, or a family/support system to assist them? L Meaux Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 12:58pm 09-04-20 I totally oppose the building of this facility in this neighborhood. This is not safe for the nearby homes and schools. There are other areas more appropriate that are near freeway 5 and trolley. Isabel Peraza Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 11:07am 09-04-20 To whom it may concern, We received a certified letter from the City of Chula Vista a few days ago, and it was regarding a follow on to the current project for building a Hospital for Behavioral Health in our community. A few months a go, we attended meetings and sent emails to inform you that we totally object to the continuation of this project, as this would drastically have an effect on our safety and tranquility. Please reflect and consider the effects and impact of building this type of hospital would have on the families and children in the neighborhood and surrounding areas, be conscious of all the adverse effects to our community. We agree that this type of hospital is needed, but planning for this in a residential area/community should never be a consideration. We are counting on the promises made by you to look out for the best interests of our city and communities. We are relying your promises. Regards Brenda Chrisopoulos Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:46am 09-04-20 I completely oppose the location of this proposed hospital. This hospital will be best served in another more centralized lication. Thanks L Rathe Location: 91914 , Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:08am 09-04-20 Oppose Sarah Rathe Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:59am 09-04-20 This facility should not be built with such close proximity to residential area and schools especially with such a negligent company like Arcadia. Alex Nuno Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:43am 09-04-20 Opposed. There are several concerns related to this proposal. This medical facility is proposed to be in a residential area. Not An area even near other health care services. Not in an area that would be a routine throughway for emergency support if needed. Lack of public transportation for those needing access in and out of facility. Concerns related to integrity of proposed company. Bsrbara romero Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 12:56am 09-04-20 Opposed Alli Inocencio Location: 91915 Submitted At: 12:25am 09-04-20 We oppose this project being built at the proposed Chula Vista sight. It is an inappropriate location for patients and the residential community yards away. The company has a track record of not keeping staff or patients safe - there is no reason to believe they will protect patients, staff or the community. Beth Badea Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:47pm 09-03-20 !!!!! Laila Abdo Location: 91914 Submitted At: 9:05pm 09-03-20 I strongly oppose to the location of this hospital. Not only it will be managed by a company with really bad reputation but it’s location is not the best for its residents nor patients. Please reconsider its location. Julie McClintock Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:32pm 09-03-20 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. 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! Brandon McClintock Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:16pm 09-03-20 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. 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. 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? 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. There is also lack of major public transportation in accessing the facility. There are better options out there for the location of this facility. Gabriel Gomez Location: 91914, chula vista Submitted At: 3:35pm 09-03-20 Not a good location. Too close to homes, schools, and ingress and egress will put a stress on traffic patterns in our mostly residential area. Construction noise, dust, and traffic will be impacted. Jennifer Denison Location: 91914, Chula Submitted At: 3:22pm 09-03-20 Oppose. Absurd location for this type of facility. Jennifer Abengoza Location: 91914, Chula vista Submitted At: 3:06pm 09-03-20 This facility does not belong in this proposed location. Acadia Healthcare is a controversial company with multiple lawsuits. The location presents a potential decrease home values. The location also has limited emergency services available. More importantly, it’s proximity to homes, schools, and businesses poses a threat to our safety during a release or escape. Katherine Meaux Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 2:40pm 09-03-20 The idea behind this is nonsense. We don’t have any infrastructure to support this move. We barely have police over here. Allowing a behavioral health inpatient facility in this area is irresponsible not only for the hospital but the community. These types of hospitals should be near other emergent hospitals and there are none over here. This community is growing because we want to get away from the “city life” you are basically forcing a bunch of unnecessary issues upon us because the land is probably cheaper down here than anywhere else. As a community member I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS! Ray Edwards Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:20am 09-03-20 I strongly oppose this facility being built in the proposed location. Too close to homes and schools and nowhere near a hospital. Eastlake does not have the infrastructure to support it. Not to mention Acadia's atrocious track record of fraud, abuse and negligence. Cynthia Saenz Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:05am 09-03-20 This is a family friendly neighborhood. Bringing in a psychiatric hospital into our neighborhood poses a threat to our family friendly environment. Please reconsider the location. Hugo Sanchez Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 11:42pm 09-02-20 Oppose Monica Delavega Location: 91914 Submitted At: 11:00pm 09-02-20 Not between family, children oriented businesses and schools, residential homes. There is no public transportation and/or hospitals ,medical buildings adjacent to optimize the supports needed to make a behavioral center successful at this specific site . Celia Luna Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:59pm 09-02-20 This is not the right place for it! Donny Bautista Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:33pm 09-02-20 OPPOSE! This proposed facility does not belong in a residential area! Eastlake / Rolling Hills is a suburban neighborhood where young families are thriving. The site where the Psychiatric Hospital will be built is near houses and commercial areas that cater to children. Many schools are also near that area. Having a psychiatric hospital in this neighborhood will defintely rob the residents of their well-deserved safety and security. As already known to the public, Acadia does not have a good track record. If they are building and managing this institution in our neighborhood, what’s our guarantee that Acadia will not violate any of the rules/laws. Our neighborhood is NOT THE PLACE for this psychiatric hospital! Nora Lasalle Location: 9913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 10:18pm 09-02-20 The Hospital will bring. negative impact in our family oriented residential neighborhoods, Being so close to schools, residences an a whole shopping center full of businesses dedicated to children’s activities and classes. This hospital would be better situated next to a medical complex, where besides psychiatric issues, other health problems could be addressed. Not in our neighborhood!!!! I hope common sense in used, no political maneuvers! Keep our neighborhood safe!!!, please. Cherrie Bautista Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 9:42pm 09-02-20 I highly oppose this proposed plan of building a Psychiatric / Behavioral Hospital in a suburban family-oriented neighborhood in Eastlake. Being a healthcare professional myself, I am very much aware of the vast need of such institutions in all communities around the nation. However, this specific site is not the appropriate place for an institution that will supposedly provide care for mentally unstable patients, both inpatient and outpatient. This proposed site is NOT easily accessible to the rest of the communities in Chula Vista (West side) nor the rest of San Diego. It is roughly about 7.5 miles from the 805 freeway, and the main streets such as Otay Lakes Road or H Street have many traffic lights before reaching the site. The 125 freeway requires a toll, which not everyone will be able to utilize due to its cost. The public transportation in this suburban neighborhood is also limited. This proposed location is also NOT near any acute care facility / hospital with a high-level emergency department — which is very important in order to safely manage a Psychiatric Hospital. The proposed location’s proximity to the nearby residential homes and commercial businesses that are kid-oriented is TOO close! Right across the site are businesses like Play City, Floaties Swim School, etc. Many schools are also within the vicinity: Eastlake Middle School, Eastlake High School, Thurgood Marshall Elementary to name a few. A lot of kids walk to and from school. It will be unsafe! Enrique Morlett Location: 91914, Chula vista Submitted At: 8:35pm 09-02-20 Oppose. Not in a residential area. Christy Jones Location: Submitted At: 8:13pm 09-02-20 I oppose to this plan. Lisa Moreno Location: Submitted At: 8:09pm 09-02-20 This project is out of scope with community needs. City officials need to really survey the needs of the community. It is beyond disappointing. Marvin Dael Location: Submitted At: 8:01pm 09-02-20 I highly OPPOSE the building of psychiatric hospital very close to our residential area. Our neighborhood is not right nor suitable for this type of facility. Lynda Elliott Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:47pm 09-02-20 I strongly oppose the proposed site for this facility. It is in a residential area, close to homes and next to family- friendly businesses. We don’t have adequate emergency response in our area to be adding the calls from a large psychiatric facility. It’s a bad location for easy access. Our neighborhood is absolutely the wrong choice for this proposal!! Danielle MacAdams Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:35pm 09-02-20 I strongly oppose the location of this hospital. It is too close to residential homes, schools, and other family friendly businesses on Showroom Place. This company has a proven track record of irresponsibility. William Manders Location: 91915-2243, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:27pm 09-02-20 This is an all around bad idea locating this hospital here. There is limited assess to services and community resources such as public transport, fire, and police. Locating this facility so close to houses and schools is highly undesirable for our community. Additionally, there are numerous reports from other states that the perspective operator of this facility has been involved in law suits related to substandard care and negligence. WE DO NOT WANT THIS FACILITY LOCATED ANYWHERE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!! Ana Nosal Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:26pm 09-02-20 I oppose the building of the psychiatric hospital in the neighborhood of Eastlake, located in east Chula Vista. While I do support the accessibility to mental healcare services, this neighborhood is not the appropriate place for it. There are numerous children related facilities as well as schools in the surrounding area. The ciry would be liable and open itslef up to legal repercussions if something were to happen to at the hands of a patient that the facility releases or one that escapes. It will also create a big problem with homelessness. Once the facilty releases a patient, they have no obligation to ensure the patient has a place to go, they also have no responsibility to the community. I chose to live in Eastlake because of safety, the building of this facility eill jeopardize that. We don't have a police presence in East Chula Vista like in west Chula Vista. Do not allow this facility to be built. If a patient escapes surrounding schools eill have to be put in secure campus or lockdowns and that can be traumatic for young students. Profit should never be put before safety, but by allowing this facility to move forward you are letting the community know that your interest lies solely on lining your own pockets. Bringing in this facility will have a negative impact on our community and our safety. Wenn Moreno Location: 91915, Chula vista Submitted At: 7:25pm 09-02-20 I am strongly opposed, we need to keep our community safe. Marlene Wood Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:24pm 09-02-20 We love this neighborhood for families, children walk and ride their bikes, and older seniors walk around the vicinity all the time. Kristen Loupassakis Location: Submitted At: 7:04pm 09-02-20 I strongly oppose this project for many reasons, including: 1) release concerns impacting the community: patients admitted involuntarily have the ability to refuse further treatment, and leave on their own without a treatment plan in place, or they may demand a premature discharge. Profit driven operators, such as Acadia, have been known to release patients when their insurance runs out. Given the proposed location, in a suburban neighborhood, where will the patients go and what environmental or similar damage will be caused to the area during that time? 2) decline in public infrastructure and home values: homeowners and the community in general were never informed of, or anticipated, living in proximity to an inpatient mental health/drug treatment facility which will tax existing resources, infrastructure, and environment. The proposed facility is also directly adjacent to, and in some cases sharing a fence-line with, residential properties. The presence of this facility, in this location, will no doubt have a direct negative impact on the values of those home as well as those in the neighborhood. 3) Unsafe operator: Acadia will be 80% majority owner. The company has been named in lawsuits claiming sexual abuse of its patients, failure to adhere to professional standards of care, and terminating employees for reporting criminal/illegal or otherwise unsafe operations or activities. Elizabeth Stellin Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:03pm 09-02-20 This is not an appropriate location for a facility like this. It will be right in the middle of a residential neighborhood and way to close to schools. It will also be right next door to the Showroom Place family center. Not an acceptable location! Bibi Luko Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:50pm 09-02-20 I strongly oppose this project location. It does not fit the character of the area. There is not a single facility in Eastlake that requires 24/7 security and a fenced area. Donovan prison is the only similar facility but is secluded, not within a business district that caters to children or surrounded by family homes. The patients that will be using this facility pose a risk to themselves and others. Placing such a facility hundreds of feet from businesses that cater to children as well as a preschool and k-12 school prevents those facilities from having enough warning time to lockdown should someone elope, an altercation occur or someone unstable refuses further treatment and leaves by their own will. There are a multitude of examples of escapes and necessary police intervention with Acadia owned facilities that CVSAFE has shared with Caroline Young and the city. Also provided, was a document with the hundreds of calls for police service from the other behavioral health institutions in Chula Vista. The increase of calls for service to the area will be disruptive to the homes that surround the proposed hospital as well as the businesses, especially because this hospital will operate 24/7. The city should also consider that not only will employees be traveling to this location and creating additional traffic on Otay Lakes road (an already congested road with a high number of incidents) this facility will offer outpatient treatments too which means more cars. OPPOSE! Susan Dunford Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:42pm 09-02-20 INADEQUATE EMERGENCY SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE: There is only one point of ingress/egress (street) in and out of this cul-de-sac (dead-end) location, which is inconsistent with recommended best practices of 2 or more entrances in the event that one street is in some way impassable. Furthermore, in the event of medical emergency, the closest hospital is 5+ miles from the facility. Such facilities are traditionally located on or near an established medical campus for the safety of patients. Also, statistics show similar facilities generate numerous calls for service for missing persons (elopements) as well as violence-related offenses. Due to budget constraints, there is no organic police presence (i.e., substation) in eastern CV, as a result response times are less than desirable. b. RELEASE CONCERNS IMPACTING COMMUNITY: Patients admitted involuntarily have the ability to refuse further treatment, and leave on their own without a treatment plan in place, or they may demand a premature discharge. Profit driven operators, such as Acadia, have been known to release patients when their insurance runs out. Given the proposed location, in a suburban neighborhood, where will the patients go and what environmental or similar damage will be caused to the area as a result during that time? Manuel Moreno Location: 91915, Chula vista Submitted At: 6:34pm 09-02-20 The location for this facility will be in a residential area, which poses a significant risk To the community and surrounding areas. I believe this facility would be better suited at a different location, preferably one that is not residential. I don’t have confidence in the city or the company’s ability to keep this community safe were this facility to open. There is currently not a police station in East Chula Vista. Opening this facility here would strain the city’s resources and be much more costly and dangerous for taxpayers. I strongly oppose this! Matthew Roth Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:19pm 09-02-20 This is a bad idea. I work in the field of mental health/illness. Danger to our children. Bad for our property value. Laura Ballard Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 6:05pm 09-02-20 Firmly oppose this location as it is not in an area that is conducive for the surroundings and the needs of the patients. Rashmi Savgur Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:50pm 09-02-20 STRONGLY OPPOSE! The proposed location is too close to schools, homes, child care centers and other family friendly activities. Add to the mix, a lack of public transport. And the company’s record of bad management. Sylvia Rosenberg Location: 91921, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:48pm 09-02-20 I oppose to the building of this facility in its entirety for the following reasons: Location is surrounded by schools, daycares, and other children’s facilities. Location is predominantly a residential area with the basic businesses i.e., grocery stores, banks, retail, to satisfy residents needs. The construction of this facility could create a hazard and/or hazardous materials or hazardous spill(s) to our neighbors properties as well as to any children’s facilities and contaminate the area. We have no transportation for those patients being brought in or released from facility at issue. It would be very detrimental to our community if any of those patients released will hang out in our neighborhood parks or residential areas; even if those patients are stable when they are released and for some reason they fail to follow Dr’s order for their medicine intake and end up acting up, violent etc and stay in our community in which we have lots of families with children. Will not be a safe Community anymore. This facility will create lots of traffic on Telegraph Canyon and adjacent side streets which we are already experiencing along with the car accidents. We DO NOT need more traffic, as we do not have the City resources to enforce such an increase. This facility does not have good record of operation. Finally, this is not the proper area to build that facility and I reiterate, this is a residential neighborhood and we want to maintain it as such. Linda Bryant Location: 91915 Submitted At: 5:47pm 09-02-20 No public transportation. Family neighborhood. Family friendly businesses. This company has poor track record of patients leaving against doctors orders. Not a state facility where clients do not have the option of checking themselves out. Michael Parker Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:32pm 09-02-20 Strongly oppose, presents a danger to the community being built so close to homes and with Acadia’s lack of Security presents a risk to families businesses and children within the community. Amy Rodriguez Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:28pm 09-02-20 The proposed location is in very close proximity to residential area, preschool, elementary school, middle school, and numerous children activity centers. Cheryl Jones Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:23pm 09-02-20 I am strongly opposed to the location of this hospital. It is near homes, schools, and other family friendly entertainment. This company has a proven record of irresponsibility. I do not want to risk our kids and our community. Catherine Zordell Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:20pm 09-02-20 This proposal is irresponsible and dangerous in that this hospital with patients deemed to be "a danger to themselves and others" is located within a residential community in close proximity to Elementary, Middle and High schools as well as businesses that cater to children. The danger is exacerbated by the fact that the management company, Acadia, has a very poor record in managing these facilities across the US and Internationally. As well as legal judgments against them. Lara Crabtree Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:15pm 09-02-20 The location for the proposed mental health facility completely unacceptable. It’s far too close in proximity to schools, daycares, dance studios, and other kid centered businesses. Please consider the safety of our children when making this decision. Craig Hendren Location: Submitted At: 5:14pm 09-02-20 I oppose the Behavioral Health Hospital proposed location due to proximity to family housing, school bus stops, schools, and children's day care facilities. Adelle Labaria Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:08pm 09-02-20 I recognize that there is definitely a need for more behavioral health unit to serve the greater San Diego area. Be that as it may, this location is not compatible with the proposed building plan. The lack of resources, concern for safety, the disturbing history of the company task to run this institution are just a handful of the reasons why I strongly oppose this proposal. Kyle Meaux Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:08pm 09-02-20 I’m very opposed to this project. I moved to Eastlake / Rolling Hills to live in a family friendly neighborhood away from facilities like this. There are numerous kid friendly business on the same street. I have concerns for safety and declining home values. Please oppose this new facility and keep Eastlake / Rolling Hills the family friendly neighborhoods they’ve always been! Kyle Meaux Greg Martinez Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:03pm 09-02-20 Acadia is the wrong company for this project. They have a poor safety and financial record. The proposed location is all wrong. It should be near hospitals and police facilities, not in a residential area near schools. Sandra Aldana Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:02pm 09-02-20 I oppose the building of a new psych facility at the proposed spot. It backs up to a residential neighborhood. I agree that we need more psychiatric hospitals, but where we place them is important. This area lacks public transit and is not a busy area with medical facilities nearby. There is a lot of open land southeast of the Otay Ranch town center. That would be a more suitable spot as business and a college will be out there. Plus the area is well serviced by public transit. I think that is the best place for this. Not right up against a residential neighborhood where people bought houses not expecting this as a neighbor. Thanks. amber hendren Location: Submitted At: 4:58pm 09-02-20 This Behavioral Health Hospital would be better suited near a hospital and close to main access roads. This facility would be better served closer to a main hospital, not a residential neighborhood. This facility may also be detriment to the well-being of the community. There is a need for Behavioral Health services, but in my opinion, it should not be placed in the middle of a residential area surrounded by schools with young children. Thank you. Lizbeth Crespo Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:50pm 09-02-20 As much as I think mental health services are needed in San Diego, I don't support this project. This facility would be next to a residential neighborhood, schools, family businesses and parks. I strongly encourage the city to find another location more appropriate for this type of facility. Norma Galvan Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:50pm 09-02-20 Don’t want this hospital in our area. Elizabeth Howeth Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:40pm 09-02-20 As a parent I am deeply concerned about proximity to family businesses where children play. Release of patients with no public transportation readily available leaves mentally unstable persons roaming our community. Traffic is an additional concern for already crowded streets. This is not the location for this to be built. Jennifer Villa Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:30pm 09-02-20 1. INADEQUATE EMERGENCY SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE: There is only one point of ingress/egress (street) in and out of this cul-de-sac (dead-end) location, which is inconsistent with recommended best practices of 2 or more entrances in the event that one street is in some way impassable. Furthermore, in the event of medical emergency, the closest hospital is 5+ miles from the facility. Such facilities are traditionally located on or near an established medical campus for the safety of patients. Also, statistics show similar facilities generate numerous calls for service for missing persons (elopements) as well as violence-related offenses. Due to budget constraints, there is no organic police presence (i.e., substation) in eastern CV, as a result response times are less than desirable. 2. c. NOISE / LIGHT POLLUTION AND SAFETY CONCERNS TO NEARBY BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES: A facility such as this, with its inherent noise and light pollution from incoming/outgoing emergency response vehicles, compound lighting, alarms, and other activities, in the proposed location adjacent to residential and business properties, has the potential to disrupt residential neighborhoods and schools and drive business away from the neighboring family-friendly businesses. It must also be noted that elopements (escapes) and other disruptions may trigger lock downs at the multiple schools, churches and/or businesses which fall within a one mile radius. Carla Villa Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:30pm 09-02-20 I strongly OPPOSE this project and Acadia unethical practices (far too many lawsuits) Miriam Palavicini Location: 91913 Submitted At: 4:29pm 09-02-20 My husband and I strongly oppose this project. This is not the right location for this - right next to a residential neighborhood, proximity to schools, next to churches and child centered businesses. There’s not proper infrastructure of public transport either. And Acadia has a terrible track record. Please don’t put our safety after money for the city. Please put out safety and wishes first! Katrina Gaviola Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:27pm 09-02-20 I strongly oppose this project. J HERNANDEZ Location: Submitted At: 4:26pm 09-02-20 I oppose the location of this project Roberto Mighela Location: 91915, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:25pm 09-02-20 This is an outrageous proposal ! For such a facility to be built in the middle of residential neighborhoods, and in close proximity to Family Indoor Venues & Family friendly activities. Christina Shen Location: 91913, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:21pm 09-02-20 I strongly oppose this project. The city has continued to ignore their residents’ safety concerns including increased traffic, hospital’s unsafe proximity to schools and homes, poor infrastructure plan, and the unethical practices from Acadia. Mandie Waterman Location: Submitted At: 4:17pm 09-02-20 Strongly oppose. Wrong location-endangers the community and the children in the area. The company wanting to operate the facility has a horrible track record and cannot be trusted. Long list of reasons as to why this location is not suitable for this type of business, zero as to why this would be a good place!! BRAD DAVIS Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:14pm 09-02-20 My wife Katy and I strongly oppose the approval of a Psychiatric Hospital adjacent to the Rolling Hill Ranch neighborhood. Multiple secondary schools and parks are too close, and police and medical support sadly too far away. The city needs to find a more appropriate site near a Hospital with established social support facilities, not on a cul-de-sac 1000 feet away from a middle school. Dafne Molina Location: 91914, Chula vista Submitted At: 4:14pm 09-02-20 I oppose the location of this hospital, I oppose Acadia. Diana Alvarez Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:06pm 09-02-20 The community strongly oposes this project. Lina Douglas Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 4:03pm 09-02-20 I oppose this project. E Y Location: Submitted At: 4:01pm 09-02-20 Oppose for location, poor access to freeways (only toll road), within a neighborhood and not ideal (elementary school bus stop steps away), too close to schools, daycares, and family activity centers. Thomas Fellenbaum Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:27pm 09-02-20 I oppose this project. John Teevan Location: Submitted At: 2:08pm 09-02-20 There are multiple reasons to oppose this project, including: 1. Inadequate public safety infrastructure: there is only 1 point of ingress/egress (street) in and out of this cul-de- sac/dead-end location, inconsistent with recommended best practices of 2+ entrances if 1 street is in some way impassable. Furthermore, in the event of medical emergency, the closest hospital is 5+ miles away. Such facilities are traditionally located on or near an established medical campus for the safety of patients. Also, statistics show similar facilities generate numerous calls for service for missing persons (elopements) as well as violence-related offenses. Due to budget constraints, there is no organic police presence (i.e. substation) in eastern CV, so response times are less than desirable. 2. Noise/light pollution and safety concerns to nearby business and residential communities: a facility such as this, with its inherent noise and light pollution from incoming/outgoing emergency response vehicles, compound lighting, alarms and other activities, in the proposed location adjacent to residential and business properties, has the potential to disrupt residential neighborhoods and schools and drive business away from the neighboring family-friendly businesses. It must also be noted that elopements (escapes) and other disruptions may trigger lock downs at the multiple schools, churches and/or businesses which fall within a 1 mile radius. Deleted User Location: Submitted At: 1:58pm 09-02-20 There are multiple reasons to oppose this project, including: 1. Inadequate public safety infrastructure: there is only 1 point of ingress/egress (street) in and out of this cul-de- sac/dead-end location, inconsistent with recommended best practices of 2+ entrances if 1 street is in some way impassable. Furthermore, in the event of medical emergency, the closest hospital is 5+ miles away. Such facilities are traditionally located on or near an established medical campus for the safety of patients. Also, statistics show similar facilities generate numerous calls for service for missing persons (elopements) as well as violence-related offenses. Due to budget constraints, there is no organic police presence (i.e. substation) in eastern CV, so response times are less than desirable. 2. Release concerns impacting the community: patients admitted involuntarily have the ability to refuse further treatment, and leave on their own without a treatment plan in place, or they may demand a premature discharge. Profit driven operators, such as Acadia, have been known to release patients when their insurance runs out. Given the proposed location, in a suburban neighborhood, where will the patients go and what environmental or similar damage will be caused to the area during that time? Chad Schneider Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 8:44pm 09-01-20 I oppose this for many reasons: the facility will be poorly situated in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and facilities that care for children. The operator track record is consistently poor leading to a higher probability of mishap. This is also evident in the provider is consistently incapable of following proper communication procedures nor address any Community concerns by attempting to subvert the required process. Judi Reber Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 7:22pm 09-01-20 This facility is needed but not in the middle of a residential community. Wrong place. Enrique Esparza Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 5:02pm 09-01-20 It's just not the right place for this type of facilities, the company that is going to manage the hospital has demonstrated in multiple occasions that the security is not their thing. Not opposed to the hospital, I'm pretty sure it's needed, but they should find a different lot that is not in the middle of literally thousand of houses, several schools and children parks. It's extremely close to schools and parks. I'm opposed to the project the way it is now. Joe Christie Location: 91914, Chula Vista Submitted At: 12:58pm 09-01-20 If we are to ever expand the desperate need to help with mental health, these things need be encouraged, not oppossed by individuals, this panel, or the culture at large. I am an upstanding citizen, achieved a great life, with a great family - what many would see as a "model citizen," but even I needed an inpatient, and later outpatient program, for my own issues at Sharp. It was a few of the most critical weeks of my life and allowed me to continue on as an even better father and husband. If not for these types of institutions, which are in short supply, who knows what would have happened. Please, please, please, look into your heart and mind to realize this is a tremendous benefit to the community and will not damage property values at all. It will be white noise, tucked away, out of sight, but great for our economy and society. Vote Yes for goodness sake:)! Bill Stellin Location: Submitted At: 8:17pm 08-31-20 I believe the evidence regarding this company is abundantly clear. They are dangerous for our community and they simply can not be trusted to uphold the safety requirements or moral standing that our neighborhood deserves. “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11 4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS-240 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 PHONE (619) 688-6075 FAX (619) 688-4299 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov Making Conservation a California Way of Life. March 29, 2021 11-SD-125 PM 4.419 Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital NOP/EIR/SCH #2021030087 Mr. Steve Power Principal Planner City of Chula Vista Development Services 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Power: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review of Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2021030087 for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital located at near Otay Lakes Road and State Route 125 (SR-125) in the city Chula Vista. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. The Local Development‐Intergovernmental Review (LD‐IGR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with Caltrans’ mission and state planning priorities. Caltrans has the following comments: Environmental Caltrans welcomes the opportunity to be a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as we have some discretionary authority of a portion of the project that is in Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (R/W) through the form of an encroachment permit process. We look forward to the coordination of our efforts to ensure that Caltrans can adopt the alternative and/or mitigation measure for our R/W. We would appreciate meeting with you to discuss the elements of the MND that Caltrans will use for our subsequent environmental compliance. Mr. Steve Power March 29, 2021 Page 2 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” An encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction. As part of the encroachment permit process, the applicant must provide approved final environmental documents for this project, corresponding technical studies, and necessary regulatory and resource agency permits. Specifically, any CEQA determinations or exemptions. The supporting documents must address all environmental impacts within the Caltrans’ R/W and address any impacts from avoidance and/or mitigation measures. We recommend that this project specifically identifies and assesses potential impacts caused by the project or impacts from mitigation efforts that occur within Caltrans R/W that includes impacts to the natural environment, infrastructure (highways, roadways, on-ramps and off-ramps) and appurtenant features (including but not limited to lighting, signage, drainage, guardrail, and slopes). Caltrans is interested in any additional mitigation measures identified for the EIR. Traffic Engineering and Analysis In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743 public agencies are required to use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to evaluate transportation impacts associated with development. Please provide a traffic impact study using the Caltrans-Vehicles Miles Traveled-Focused-Transportation Impact Study Guide (May 20, 2020). Provide a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project. Caltrans guidance on VMT studies for local development has been released for use (Transportation Impact Study Guide, TISG). The TISG details how the Caltrans Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) program reviews a land-use project's vehicle miles traveled. See https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation- planning/documents/sb-743/2020-05-20-approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf For additional guidance, Caltrans references the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Senate Bill 743 based Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) for guidance on the development of VMT based Transportation Impact Studies. Caltrans recommends use of OPR’s significance thresholds for determination of transportation impacts from land use projects. OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA is available online at http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/. Mr. Steve Power March 29, 2021 Page 3 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” On page 4 of 14, under “Transportation, Access, and Parking”, paragraph 1 mentioned a detailed traffic impact study will be prepared in conjunction with the EIR to evaluate potential transportation impacts associated with VMT. Please submit the VMT report to Caltrans for review. If you have any questions, please contact Mark McCumsey at (619) 985-4957 or by email at mark.mccumsey@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Maurice A. Eaton MAURICE EATON, Branch Chief Local Development and Intergovernmental Review Branch P: (626) 381-9248 F: (626) 389-5414 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney At Law 155 South El Molino Avenue Suite 104 Pasadena, California 91101 VIA U.S. MAIL & E-MAIL April 1, 2021 Kerry K. Bigelow City Clerk City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 Em: kbigelow@chulavistaca.gov Steve Power Project Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Em: spower@chulavistaca.gov RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for a Design Review (DR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital Dear Ms. Bigelow and Mr. Power, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ( “Carpenters” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Chula Vista (“City”) Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“NOP”) (SCH No. #2021030087) for the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital (“Project”). The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning, addressing the environmental impacts of development projects and equitable economic development. City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital April 1, 2021 Page 2 of 8 Individual members of the Southwest live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts. Commenter expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. Commenter incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the environmental impact report (“EIR”) submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 CA4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). Moreover, Commenter requests that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. The City should require the Applicant to provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California. Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital April 1, 2021 Page 3 of 8 length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: . . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1 Also, the City should require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code and 2020 County of Los Angeles Green Building Standards Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals. I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital April 1, 2021 Page 4 of 8 California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).2 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810. Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B). While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure 2 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217. City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital April 1, 2021 Page 5 of 8 requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. (Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102, 131.) As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355: A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450). B. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4). Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High- risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-19.3 3 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx. City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital April 1, 2021 Page 6 of 8 SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site. In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site: Construction Site Design: • The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points. • Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening. • A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening. • The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details. • There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening. • Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site. Testing Procedures: • The temperature screening being used are non-contact devices. • Temperature readings will not be recorded. City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital April 1, 2021 Page 7 of 8 • Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual. • Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before temperature screening. • Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be refused access to the Project Site. • Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate [ZONE 2] • After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors. • If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading. • If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A. Planning • Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that City of Chula Vista – Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital April 1, 2021 Page 8 of 8 meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.4 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office. Sincerely, __________________________ Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 4 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU_ CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. .. EXHIBIT A 1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com March 8, 2021 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South El Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts. Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2 The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3 1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4 Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below): “VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where: n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5 Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below): “Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant Where: Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise. Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are: “[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Minimum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location. Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C). Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17% As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location. 14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 5 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. EXHIBIT B SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3:10-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 EXHIBIT C 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887‐9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 6 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011. 9