D e v e l ( EV gDn t S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t 1 A "}: " a A. F, IT PJkhrt. ing Division Development Processing Cltr Of
CHUTA VISTA
Appeal the decision of the:
Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission
Application Information
l'? j ' N ' I I I A v 2L1 APPEAL APPLICATION FORM
Name of Appellant Mr. Brad Davis
Address 797 Creekside Place, Chula Vista, CA 91914
Business Address
Project Address 830 and 831 Showroom Place, Chula Vista, CA 91914 Project Description Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital STAFF ( 1SE0NI. Y
Date Recelved:
Receipts
Caser!
77_
Phone 619- 253- 8685
Example: variance, conditional use permit, design review, etc.) Please use the space below to provide a response to the decision you are appealing. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.
Grounds for an appeal must be based on at least one of the following:
1) Factual Error. The statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when approving, conditionally approving, or denying a permit, map, or other matter was inaccurate; 2) New Information. New information is available to the applicant or the interested person that was not available through that person' s reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision; or 3) Findings Not Supported. The decision maker' s stated findings to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit, map, or other matter are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker.
In order for an appeal to be valid, detailed responses must be included which cite at least one of the above reasons for the appeal along with substantiation of the facts and circumstances on which the claim of theappeal is based. If an appeal is filed within the time limit specified, and determined to be valid, it automaticallystays proceedings in the matter until a determination is made by the City Council.
1. Findings Not Supported: The Report does not provide sufficient support as required by California Public Resources Code 21100( b) 4) and 21002. Ila). The report fails to describe the alternatives that were thoroughly assessed. 2. Factual Error: The Applicant made representations regarding economic impact that were factually in error. 3. New Information: Applicant had Ex parte communication with the Council that was not disclosed or made public. 4. Findings Not Supported: The Applicant prepared the EIR but failed to address and answer community questions and input. 5. New Information: Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures Appeal Form Directions
Pursuant to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19. 14, an interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission to the City Council. The appellant must be an interested party. An interested party means a person who was present at a public hearing from which an appeal arose and who had filed a speaker slip with the decision maker at that public hearing, or a person who expressed an interest in the project in writing to that decision maker before the close of the public hearing or a decision on an action from which an appeal may be filed. The appellant must file a complete appeal application form within the specified appeal period ( 10 business days after the decision has been made), complete the Disclosure Statement, and pay the required fee. Once a valid appeal form is filed ppea ' ll be scheduled for a hearing by the City Council within 30 days.
Signature of Appellant Date.
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: City Council On / / Development Services Department City Clerk
1 oft
rrru
276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista California 91910 ( 619) 691. 5101 8. 5. 14 TysharTurner
From: ToddPhilips
Sent: Friday, January21, 202212:51PM
To: TysharTurner
Subject: FW: EastlakeBehavioralHospitalAppeal & RequestforaCityCouncilMeetingafter December7
D. ToddPhilips | PlanningManager
619.409.5465
[email protected]
From: BradDavis <
Sent: Monday, November29, 20211:37PM
To: GlenGoogins <[email protected]>
Cc: ToddPhilips <[email protected]>
Subject: EastlakeBehavioralHospitalAppeal & RequestforaCityCouncilMeetingafterDecember7 Warning:
External
Email
DearMayorSalas, CityCouncilmembersandCityAttorneyGoogins, Mynameis BradDavisandI filedtheappealofthePlanningCommissionapprovalof theEastlakeBehavioralHealthHospital. I amwritingthisletteronbehalfofmyself, MonicaNelsonandconcernedresidentswhoattendedtherecentPlanningCommission hearingandtoformallyprotesttheCityCouncilhearingonourappealonDecember 7th. WehavebeenadvisedbyMr. ToddPhilipsthattherearealreadyseveral “bigticket items” ontheagenda, includingtheShortTermRentalOrdinanceandnewredistricting councildistrictmaps, whichwillresultin limitationsonthetimethecommunitywillhave to speakonouritem. Ontopof this, Ms. Nelsonsubmitteda publicrecordsact requestfor theexpartecommunicationssubmittedto thePlanningCommission thatwerenot madeavailableto thepublicpriorto thehearing. Shehasbeen advisedtheCitywill not producethoserecordsby Dec7th.
Thetimeperiodforthecommunityto speakatthePlanningCommissionwasalready reducedfromfiveminutestothree. Nowit appearstheCityis tryingtopushthroughthis 1 controversialprojectwithoutprovidingthoseopposedtheirdueprocessat theCouncil meeting. Over400peoplesubmittedcommentsfortheEIR, thevastmajorityin opposition. Wewereshockedto hearthatAcadiawasallowedto preparetheEIR andresponsesto thecommunitycommentsandconcerns. Thisinandofitselfcalls intoquestiontheimpartialityof theEIRandtheprocesstheCityhasengagedin topush throughanapprovaloftheprojectwithoutaddressingthelegitimateconcernsof the residents.
ThePlanningCommissionhearingraisedsomeseriousquestionsthatbythisletterwe wouldlikeansweredat CouncilhearingafterDecember7thwhenthereis adequate timesetasideto answerthem. First, whydid theCityallowAcadiato hiretheir handpickedcompanyto preparetheEIRandcomments? Weobjecttothisprocess andaskthattheEIRberedonebyanimpartialthirdparty. Second, welearnedatthe hearingthattheEIRdidnotexamineanobviousandbetteralternativesitewhich Scrippsalreadyowns, is ontheirhospitalcampuswithpublictransportationdirectlynext toit, andis in closeproximitytoa medicalcomplexofofficesforsupportservicesafter dischargeandwithina mileanda halfofthepolicestationin theeventof anemergency elopementof someonewhois a dangerto themselvesor others. Weareaskingthat theEIRbeamendedto studythis or otheralternativesitesandbesentoutfor communitycommentson alternativesites.
AtthePlanningCommissionhearingandfollowinga questionbya commissionerit becameapparentthattheapplicantmadeassertionsabouttheeconomicimpactofthe projectthatwereatbestmisleading, if notdeliberatelyexaggeratedwithnoactual backupfortheclaims. Inresponse, theprojectplannerstatedtheCitydid notdo an economicimpactanalysis. WhywasAcadiaallowedtopresentthisfalse, unsubstantiatedinformationconcerningtheproject's economicimpact? Weaskthat suchanimpartialanalysisbedonebytheCityandthecorrectinformationbeincludedin animpartialEIR.
Inresponseto anotherquestionbya commissioner, Acadiasaidthe “goodpayingjobs” averaged $30perhour. Thisraisessomeseriousissuesabouthowthisfacilitywillbe staffed. Willit havea full-timepsychiatristonstaff? Willit bestaffedwithunionized registerednursesandif sohowmany? A $30dollaranhouraveragesuggeststhat thelow-cost modelthathasbeencritiquedin thenumerousarticlessubmittedas partof theEIRcommentswill bethemodelfor this facility. Thesesamearticles documenthowthismodeladoptedbyAcadiahascausedin otherfacilitiesa safety dangertothepatientsandworkersin thefacilities. ThepublicsafetysectionoftheEIR wasnotevena pagelonganddidnotadequatelyaddresseitherthisissueorthepublic safetyissuesposedbyelopementin anareacloseto child-relatedservicesinthe adjacentcommercialcenterandin closeproximitytohomes. WeaskthattheEIR addresstheseissuesin depth. It shouldincludethequestionssubmittedbythepolice departmentandAcadia's answersthatwerementionedin thestaffreportbutnot includedin theEIRcommentssection. Wefoundit disconcertingtolearnforthefirst timeatthePlanningCommissionhearingthatthestaffreportwaschangedtoindicate thepolicedepartment's positionwas, in fact, notin favorbutneutral.
It wasalsoapparentfromanotherquestionbya commissionerthattherewereno alternativefindingsavailableto thosecommissionerswhoseemedinclinedto denytheproject. Thequestionwasexplicitlyaskedwhatthefindingscouldbeandit wasneveranswered. Again, it appearsonlyonesideofthestorywasbeingmade2 availabletothedecisionmakers. Giventheconfusionoverthelegalissuespresented byAcadia, thereneedstobea clearandbalancedpresentationonwhatoptionsare availableif certaincouncilmemberswantedtodenytheprojectandalternativefindings preparedthatwouldsupportdenial. Thisanalysisshouldbedistributeda weekin advanceof anyhearingsoit canbelookedat andexaminedbythecommunityin advanceof themeeting.
Lastly, theCUPpresentedat thePlanningCommissionhearinglackedanyreal enforcementmechanism. Whatif thereportsonAcadia’s trackrecordofelopements areindeedaccurate? HowmanywilltheybeallowedbeforetheCUPcanbe withdrawn? Severalarticlesincludedin theEIRcommentsnotedAcadiafacilitiesthat hadtobecloseddownorwereraidedbythepolice. TheCUPconditionsneedtohave clearstandardsthatcanbeenforced. Forexample, thereis onlyan8-footwallthatcan easilybescaledseparatingsomeonewantingtoescapethefacilityandresidentsright nextdoor. TheCUPdoesnotaddressthiscommunitysafetyconcernwhichis necessaryto makeanappropriatefindingtopreservepublicsafety .
I amrequestingthatall theissuesin this letterbeconsideredandaddressedby theCouncilat ahearingscheduledafterDecember7thandthatacopyof this letterbemadeavailableprior to thepublichearing.
BradDavis
3