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