v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
January 25, 2022
ITEM TITLE
Planning Commission Appeal: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for a 120-Bed Acute Psychiatric Hospital in the Eastlake II Planned Community, known as Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
Report Number: 22-0010
Location: 830 and 831 Showroom Place
Department: Development Services
Environmental Notice: Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0001) has been prepared.
Recommended Action
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal by Brad Davis and affirming the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP19 -0010 and Design Review Permit DR19 -0012 to construct a one -story, 97,050 square -foot building consisting of a 120 -bed acute psychiatric hospital on a
10.5 acre site located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the urbanized northeast portion of the city known as Eastlake Business Center II.
SUMMARY
On May 20, 2019, Eastlake Behavioral Health, LLC (the “Applicant”), submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit ( “CUP”) and Design Review ( “DR”) to construct a one -story, 97,050 square -foot building consisting of a 120 -bed acute psychiatric hospi tal on a vacant 10.5 -acre site at 830 and 831 Showroom Place (see Locator Map, Attachment 2), known as Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital (“EBHH” or the “Project”).
On November 10, 2021, the Planning Commission considered and approved the Project by a vo te of 6-1. A total of 50 speakers submitted speaker slips at the Planning Commission hearing. The staff report and associated attachments from the Planning Commission hearing are provided as Attachment 6 to this report.
On November 17, 2021, Brad Davis (th e “ Appellant”) filed an appeal (Attachment 4) of the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. The Appellant cites “Factual Error ,” “New Information” and “Findings Not Supported” as the bases of the appeal. The appeal specifically states:
P a g e | 2
1. The Applicant made representations regarding economic impact that were factually in error.
2. The Applicant had ex-parte communication with the Planning Commission that was not disclosed or made public.
3. The Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.
4. The FEIR does not provide sufficient support, as required by California Public Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(4) and 21002.1(a), by failing to describe the alternatives that were thoroughly assessed.
5. The Applicant prepared the FEIR but failed to address and answer community questions and concerns.
This item now presents the Project for City Council consideration and action. While this is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s November 10, 2021 vote, and the City Council should take into full consideration the deliberations and decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the authority to consider the Project, in its entirety , and make a de novo determination based upon appropriate findings. Staff has reviewed and ultimately recommende d approval of the Project due to several factors, including that the proposed Project is a conditional use allowed within the zone, it is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses and zoning, it is in compliance with current Development Standards, it has met the findings required for a CUP, and it would not result in a conflict with applicable plans, policies, or programs relating to the City’s General plan or the Municipal Code. More specifically, the proposed use complies with the General Plan policy of providing adequate commercial and industrial uses for the City of Chula Vista through the attraction of industries and businesses that contribute to the diversification and stabilization of the local economy. As such, it is s taff’s recommendation that the appeal be denied , and the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, and the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; nonetheless, the Applicant chose to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), EIR20-0001.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On November 10, 2021, the Planning Commission made a Motion to approve the Project with a request by Commissioner Torres to add a condition to the EIR/CUP Planning Commission Resolution indicating the Applicant will maintain any and all licenses and accreditations necessary to legally operate in California. This condition was added into the EIR/CUP Planning Commission Resolution as Condition Number 14 in addition to a staff added condition (Condition Number 13) rega rding the Project’s Operational Profile . The Motion passed by a vote of 6-1. The Planning Commission meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 4.
DISCUSSION
The 10.5-acre Project Site is located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the urbanized northeast portion of the City known as the Eastlake Business Center II. 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. The Project Site sits adjacent to an Amazon driver training lot, and the District at Eastlake P a g e | 3
which is comprised of commercial uses such as restaurants and family -oriented businesses, providing recreational areas for adults and children, most of which also require CUPs to operate.
The proposed Project would consist of specific medical and ancillary services to include in - and out-patient behavioral services for geriatric, adult, and adolescent patients. The types of services provided by an acute psychiatric hospital 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 24 -hour acute care nursing. Onsite security measures would include the following: an eight-foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall along the front, side, and rear property lines; landscape barriers throughout the site; 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 per day to monitor the facility and the surrounding premises.
The Appellant filed an appeal on November 17, 2021 and has stated several causes of action in their appeal.
Factual Error
The Appellant states that the Applicant “made represen tations regarding economic impact that were factually in error.” At the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant discussed the economic impact that the hospital would have on the City of Chula Vista’s economy through the provision of high paying jobs and tax revenue generated from the developed Project site. Staff did not review or endorse the salary or tax revenue estimates discussed by the applicant at said hearing. However, as part of the General Plan consistency analysis, staff did include in both the Report to the Planning Commission and in staff’s PowerPoint presentation on November 10, 2021, the acknowledgement that, “through the construction and operation of the proposed hospital, an additional 150 higher -wage jobs would be added to the local economy.” It is important to note that CEQA does not require an economic impact analysis. As such, t he economic impact of the Project was not studied in the EIR. The Planning Commission was asked to make a determination based on the environmental impacts of the Project and the land use compatibility of the Project to the surrounding uses. The only economic impact information presented to, and considered by the Planning Commission in their deliberations, was the reference to 150 higher -wage jobs being added to th e local economy. No information to suggest this is an inaccurate statement has been provided.
New Information
Ex-Parte Communication
The appeal states there was “ex -parte communications with the [Council] that was not disclosed or made public.” In order to make a valid appeal, appellants are required to substantiate “the facts and circumstances on which the claim of the appeal is based.” In an effort to gain clarification on the ex -parte communication claim, City staff contacted the Appellant on November 18, 2021. In a phone conversation with City staff, the Appellant clarified their claim that they had received credible evidence of written communication being sent from the Applicant to one or more members of the Planning Commission but was unprepared to provide such evidence to City staff. The Appellant was not sure if similar communication had occurred between the Applicant and members of the City Council but was confident it had occurred with members of the Planning Commission and that said communication was not properly disclosed by members of the Planning Commission at the November 10, 2021 hearing.
P a g e | 4
As part of the Planning Commission proceedings on November 10, 2021, each Planning Commissioner was asked to disclose, on the record, any discussions or communications they had received prior to the hearing of this matter. Several Commissioners indicated they had received unsolicited emails and phone calls related to this Project. All Commissioners disclosing such communication indicated they either did not read, respond to, nor did they engage in any communication related to the Project prior to the November 10, 2021 hearing.
Failure to disclose an ex-parte communication would not necessarily invalidate the Planning Commission’s decision, nor would it compromise the City Council’s authority and discretion to consider and take action on the appeal.
Failure to Disclose
The appeal states the “Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.” As part of the requirements to apply for a Conditional Use Permit or a Design Review permit with the City of Chula Vista, all applicants must provide a Disclosure Statemen t at the time they submit the Project. The purpose of the Disclosure Statement is to provide information to the public of any financial interests or conflicts of interest that may exist when a member of a City discretionary body takes action on a Project. The Disclosure Statement asks about any financial interest, payments, or campaign contributions made by the Applicant to any member of the discretionary bodies within the City.
The Applicant submitted their original Disclosure Statement on May 17, 2019 and provided an updated Disclosure Statement on April 6, 2020. There is no legal requirement for the Applicant to submit an updated disclosure statement prior to a hearing unless circumstances have changed from their original filing. The Applicant stated o n the record at the November 10, 2021 Planning Commission hearing, that nothing had changed. Staff has since requested a new Disclosure Statement from the Applicant which is included as Attachment 5 to this Report. No new relevant contributions were disclosed on the updated Disclosure Statement.
Findings Not Supported
CEQA Study of Alternatives
Both t he EIR for the Eastlake community (EIR 81 -03) approved on January 29, 1985, and the General Development Plan for Eastlake II (adopted November 16, 1999 and amended on August 23, 2005 and December 18, 2007) , addressed the environmental impacts of future Eastlake Business Center II developments in such a way as to not legally require further analysis be performed for the Project. However, the Applicant elected to prepare a project-specific EIR.
The appeal states that the project-specific EIR did not adequately analyze alternatives to the Project.
Specifically, the Appellant cites two provisions within CEQA as the basis for appeal:
1. Section 21002.1(a) states, “the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.”
2. Section 21100(b)(4) states that the EIR “shall include a detailed statement setting forth all of the following: Alternatives to the proposed project.”
P a g e | 5
Throughout CEQA there are requirements to “identify alternatives to the project .” Section 15126.6(a) gives guidance to lead agencies that EIRs “need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and pub lic participation.” Further, Section 15126.6(c) requires the EIR to only consider those reasonable alternatives that “could feasibly accomplish most of the objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts.”
The result of the project-specific EIR is that there are no significant impacts to the environment created by the proposed Project in the categories of agriculture, biology, cultural resources, housing, mineral resources, and population. The EIR i dentifies less than significant impacts in the categories of aesthetics, air quality, energy, geology, greenhouse gases, hazardous materials, hydrology, land use, noise, public services, public utilities, transportation and wildfire. Therefore, there are no significant impacts resulting from the proposed Project.
Staff has analyzed the EIR and has determined the Applicant has met the requirements of Section 21002.1(a) by identifying there are no significant effects the Project has on the environment, as well as identifying the alternatives to the Project. Further, the EIR complies with Section 21100(b)(4) by listing in Chapter 7.0 of the EIR (Attachment 6.c.), all of the alternatives studied:
Chapter 7.1.1 – alternative locations were studied and rejected for failing to achieve most of the objectives of the Project
Chapter 7.2 – a No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative was rejected for creating greater impacts than the proposed Project
Chapter 7.3 – a Reduced Intensity Alternative and was rejected for failing to achieve the objectives of the Project
Finally, many comments from the public in opposition to the Project cite the location as a poor choice and that the Applicant should study alternative sites as an alternative. CEQA Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A) states the key question to be answered when discussing alternative locations is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.”
As part of the EIR, alternative sites were evaluated on how well they served the Project objectives . Key Project objectives identified include:
Location in an area underserved by inpatient beds
Proximity to major road network
Appropriate size (10+ undeveloped acres) to construct a one-story facility Zoning that allows for a hospital use
Based on these objectives, the EIR states that several alternative sites were evaluated in the EIR. However, these alternative sites were not listed out i n the EIR. On page 7-3 of the EIR (Attachment 6.c.), the analysis states:
A number of alternative sites were considered in an attempt to meet the required criteria, as identified in the project objectives. None of the alternative sites were located at any closer P a g e | 6
proximity to major road networks, nor could accommodate the size of the structure or could be developed without a conditional use permit. The project site was selected, in addition to meeting the siting criteria, because it provides a flat graded ar ea which would avoid additional site clearing, excavation, grading and compaction.
In compliance with Section 15126.6(c), only alternatives sites which would meet the Project objectives need be studied, and b ecause the proposed Project will have no signifi cant impact on the environment, Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A) is also met. Therefore, Staff feels the Applicant has met CEQA’s requirements with regard to the study of Project alternatives.
Failure to Address Community Concerns
Lastly, the appeal states that the EIR “failed to address and answer community questions and input.” As part of the public review process, approximately 431 comments were received in response to the EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City independently evaluated the comments and written responses were prepared by the Applicant in consultation with the City. No new or previously undisclosed, significant environmental issues were raised by the public review comments. The Responses to Comments are included on pages RTC-1 through RTC-146 of Attachment 6.c. Environmental Impact Report EIR20-0001.
Analysis and Bases for Staff’s Recommendation
This appeal presents to the City Council not only the ability to take into full consideration the deliberations and decision of the Planning Commission, but also to exercise the City Council’s full authority to consider the Project, in its entirety, and make a de novo determination based upon appropriate findings.
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
As described in Staff’s Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 6), the proposed one-story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital is a conditionally permitted use in the Eastlake Business Center II planned area. Staff ‘s analysis of the proposal found it complies with the policies, guidelines, and design standards for the Eastlake Business Center, Chula Vista Municipal Code, Design Manual as well as the Landscape Manual. In addition, the size, location and condition of the two relatively flat, vacant parcels provides a desirable location for the Project’s needs.
The proposal 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.
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 residence s have rear fences and the Project site will have an eight-foot wall around the entire perimeter of the property.
The proposed Project would also be consistent with the vision of the Eastlake Business Park in having a diverse base of industries for the re sidents of Chula Vista. Sitting adjacent to the District at Eastlake, the P a g e | 7
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 Pa rk. Further, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable design standards for building, facade and roof articulation; materials and colors; landscaping; and trash enclosures & recycling.
The proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, including but not limited to matters of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, and hazards or excessive concentrations of traffic, all as evidenced in the Project EIR. A limited amount of noise and dust is to be expected in association with construction activities, but Conditions of Approval and the City’s performance standards offset and mitigate for such impacts.
Operational Profile
Many of the comments in opposition to the Project addressed the issue of security of the site. The Applicant submitted and has agreed to have made a condition of approval of their CUP, an Operational Profile (Attachment 6.b.) which addresses many of the concerns voiced by the community. Included in the Operational Profile is a securi ty plan indicating 24-hour patrols, controlled access in and out of the facility, closed circuit security cameras, and patient checks every 15 -minutes. The Applicant must meet and confer with the Director of Development Services upon request to confirm tha t Project operations are consistent with the Operational Plan and to obtain City approval for any material changes thereto. (See CUP condition
14.)
Limits on Discretion Presented by Federal ADA and Fair Housing Rules The City, generally, has broad discret ion to determine the classification and utilization of land within its jurisdiction. There are, however, limitations on that discretion.
In all of its dealings, including when making land use decisions, the City is prohibited from utilizing criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating against individuals with disabilities. This includes individuals with mental illness. Specifically, both Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Amendments A ct of 1988 protect the rights of 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) disabi lity of an individual with whom the individual or entity has a known relationship or association.
Accordingly, both as a matter of best practices, and as a matter of law, land use decisions must be made utilizing objective, nondiscriminatory criteria. 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. Land use decisions should also not be based on the reputation of partic ular applicant/operator or the population an applicant serves.
That being said, in processing and considering this project, it should not be unlawful for the City to consider neighborhood concerns, and to impose reasonable, proportionate security measures to mitigate risks known to arise from projects such as these. Staff believes that such concerns have been reasonably addressed through the CUP process, particularly with the incorporation of the applicant’s Operational Profile, described above, as a condition of the CUP.
P a g e | 8
Conclusion
In conclusion, because Staff has determined that (1) the Applicant has met or exceeded the analysis burdens of CEQA with no unmitigated environmental impacts identified, (2) there is substantial evidence in the record that the Project meets the findings for issuance of a CUP, with legally appropriate concerns addressed through conditions on the Project, , and (3) Project design is consistent with City design standards, Staff recommends the City Council deny the Appellant’s appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP19-0010 and Design Review Permit DR19-0012 to construct a one-story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital on a 10.5 acre site located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the urbanized northeast portion of the city known as Eastlake Business Center II.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City council 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 City council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The appeal fee of $250 was paid by the Appellant and the processing of the appeal to City Council, and processing costs associated with the Project are borne by the Applicant. There is no net fiscal impact to the General Fund or the Development Services Fund as a result of this action.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact to the General Fund associated with this action. All processing costs are paid by the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution
2. Locator Map
3. Planning Commission Minutes
4. Appeal, dated 11/17/21 and Written Communication Received from Appellant, dated 11/29/21
5. Updated Disclosure Statement from Applicant, dated 11/22/21
6. Planning Commission Report
a. Project Plans
b. Eastlake Operational Profile, dated November 9, 2021 c. Environmental Impact Report EIR20-0001
d. EIR Appendices (11)
e. CEQA Findings
f. Neighborhood Meeting Public Comments Summary and Response Matrix P a g e | 9
g. Public Comments (9)
7. EIR CUP Planning Commission Resolution
8. DR19-0012 Planning Commission Resolution
Staff Contacts: Stan Donn, Senior Planner, Development Services D. Todd Philips, Planning Manager, Development Services Tiffany Allen, Director of Development Services