After nearly six hours of presentations, public comment, and deliberation, the Chula Vista City Council voted not to allow the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital project in Eastlake to move forward by a three to two vote with Mayor Mary Casillas Salas and Council member Andrea Cardenas voting to move the project forward.
On May 20, 2019, Eastlake Behavioral Health, LLC applied for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to construct a one-story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital on a vacant 10.5-acre site at 830 and 831 Showroom Place, known as Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital.
The project, a joint venture between Scripps Health and Acadia Healthcare gave Acadia 80% percent of ownership with Scripps holding 20%.
On Nov. 10, 2021, the Planning Commission considered and approved the project by a vote of 6-1. A total of 50 speakers submitted speaker slips at the Planning Commission hearing.
On Nov. 17, 2021, Brad Davis filed an appeal 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:
• The Applicant made representations regarding economic impact that were factually in error.
• The Applicant had ex-parte communication with the Planning Commission that was not disclosed or made public.
• The Applicant failed to provide updated or complete disclosures.
• 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.
• The Applicant prepared the FEIR but failed to address and answer community questions and concerns.
City staff found the finding were not supported and recommended Council deny the Davis’ appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Permit 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.
In public comments, both sides stated repeatedly that this type of facility was needed in Chula Vista, but those in opposition stated that the facility was too close to residential areas, creating the potential dangers for residents and their children.
Before the vote, Robin Madaffer, Acadia legal counsel requested a continuation from Council to have time to address the concerns presented by the public and council members so that the project could move forward. Davis requested an immediate vote on his appeal.
Casillas Salas said since the initial presentation of this project she realized that there was immediate concern and controversy, but in previous projects the City has done with controversy, once the project was completed, the concerns were no longer there. She also said that these mental health services are desperately needed in Chula Vista.
“I really appreciate the passion that you have for your neighborhood. I do not think if this project is built and goes through that it is going to affect your lives negatively in one way,” she said. “As a matter of fact, it may be a great resource to you and a great use to you.”
She said that council needed to have finding of facts.
“These types of facilities in the right land use zonings shall be permitted, not can be permitted, they shall be permitted,” she said. “If we do not follow that then we will have consequences.”
Cardenas said in what she heard, there was a constant rhetoric of stigmatizing mental health and that people need to look at mental health services as just health services.
“Look at our Black communities, our Latino communities, our immigrant communities” she said. “We all have this great stigma of what this means…Today, a lot of people are still struggling in silence because they do not have these types of services available to them.”
“In my independent judgement in full review of the CUP application, facts, I have carefully determined that per Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.14.080, Section A, there is not enough evidence on the record to indicate the particular project is necessary or desirable in this particular location. Therefore, I will be voting against approving the project,” said Councilman John McCann in whose district the hospital would have been located.
Council member Steve Padilla said although the project met all the criteria to move forward, but also it is whether that this particular use of the facility that is also consistent with the wellbeing of the community and after review and public comment questioned if the project use would be detrimental to the safety and general health and welfare of people working and living in the vicinity.
“In the absence of some specific statute or case that governs, Council has some latitude on how we interpret and apply,” he said. “I believe that we have to consider the general welfare and safety of the residents on the site and working in the facility…There was a comment in the staff report of something that we could not consider, and that is the reputation of the operator…My understanding of the reputation of a company’s operational history is somewhat objective, and clearly not appropriate to utilize on its own as a consideration. However, the operational record, insofar as it goes to the safety and welfare of the people residing and working in the vicinity, or on the site, is very much able to be considered by this council because the record is something that is subjective.”
Padilla read a conclusion statement from the California Office of the Attorney General from the last quarter. He said the conclusion section it reads: “Taken all together, these findings lead us to seriously question the fitness of Acadia as a new owner of AHV (Adventist Health Vallejo). We have substantial concerns that Acadia does not have the ability to provide and sustain the leadership and accountability to adequately address the quality of care and safety issues at either facility and to successfully take on the challenges that will come with their acquisition of AHV.”
