Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case 8:23-cv-00504 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 30 of 45 Page ID #:30 1 no longer willing to hold the Main Street Property off the market and under contract to 2 Turner long enough for Turner and SOS to pursue approval of a CUP application. 3 118. In addition, Turner and SOS cannot apply for a CUP on property they do 4 not own without the permission of the property owner. 5 119. This means that, to apply for a CUP (with little to no chance of success 6 given the City's demonstrated bias), Turner and/or SOS would have to spend millions of 7 dollars to purchase the Main Street Property with no guarantee that they would ever be 8 able to use the building. Neither Turner nor SOS has sufficient funds to make such an 9 imprudent gamble. 10 120. The discriminatory requirement to apply for a CUP, in and of itself, 11 therefore, imposes an unreasonable burden that puts SOS and Turner at a disadvantage, 12 since persons and entities not subject to that requirement will be able to purchase 13 properties in the P District without a contingency period, knowing that they will be able 14 to use the properties for medical offices as a matter of right. 15 H. Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies. 16 12t. To the extent that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, SOS 17 exhausted its administrative remedies by appearing at the second reading of the 18 Permanent Ordinance, stating the reasons for its opposition both orally and in writing, 19 and making an earnest request that the City Council reopen the public hearing on the 20 Permanent Ordinance to consider the grounds for SOS's opposition to the Permanent 21 Ordinance. The City Council unreasonably refused to do so, and adopted the Permanent 22 Ordinance over SOS's opposition. 23 122. SOS also attempted to timely obtain the ministerial approvals that would be 24 necessary to remodel the Main Street Property without a CUP. That attempt was fully 30 Complaint of Share Our Selves