Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case 8:23-cv-00504 Document 1-4 Filed 03/20/23 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:147 In the fail of 2021, SUS identified significant unmet need for its services in Santa Ana, where it currently operates the El Sol Wellness Center on Broadway. Given the unmet demand, SOS decided to expand its outpatient clinic capacity by replacing its existing facility with a larger one. In February 2022, Turner and SOS signed a Term Sheet outlining the business terms for a longterm "triple net" lease of the Property to SOS as the tenant to operate a healthcare facility. In March 2022, Turner entered into a purchase and sale agreement to acquire the Property and to lease it to SOS upon approval of remodeling plans by the City. The intended lease between Turner and SOS would include a purchase option which would provide SOS with the right to purchase Turner's interest in the Property. The Property is improved with an 18% occupied three-story, 44,066 square foot commercial office building with 139 surface-parking spaces. The proposed Project involves interior tenant improvements to accommodate medical office uses, including primary care, dental, vision, and pharmacy services. The Property is located in Zone P: Professional, which, according to the January 17, 2023 Staff Report for the Ordinance allows for-profit medical offices "lay right," The Unintended Tho Ordinance, . �@t Seriou� Cc��sr�quencea Of,,,,,,,._ The City has not given due consideration to the implications and potential consequences of the Ordinance. First, on its face, the Ordinance purports to subject medical offices operated by"government entities," i.e., by the United States Government or the State .of California, to the City's zoning regulations, but the use of land owned by the U.S; or any state, such California, is never subject to the land use regulations of a city or county. This protection also extends to the agents of state and federal governments that are.directly implementing the goals, objectives, and programs of such governments. Secondly, the Ordinance purports to require a CUP for any medical offices that are operated by any entities that the Ordinance refers to by the overly-broad and vague term "government-subsidized." As such, any medical office that accepts Medicare, Medicaid, Medl-Cal, or government=subsidized insurance would appear to qualify as a "government-subsidized"entity under the current language of the Ordinance. The same would be true of any office that accepted any PPP loans, any Small Business Association loans, any government subsidized malpractice insurance, or any other Kind of grants or loans from the state or federal governments. Unless they were willing to apply for a CUP, the Ordinance would essentially prevent and discourage the owners of any for-profit medical offices in the Professional Share Our Selves 4 1 P a g e