Santa Ana must face zoning suit over health clinic block

A federal judge has allowed a nonprofit health clinic's lawsuit against Santa Ana to move forward, finding the city may have acted in bad faith when it abruptly passed a zoning ordinance that derailed the clinic's planned property purchase in the downtown district.

However, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter dismissed the clinic's procedural due process claim, finding no protectable property interest, and ruled that its federal health center status alone did not show discrimination or violate intergovernmental immunity. The dismissed claims cannot be refiled.

Edmond M. Connor of Tucker Ellis LLP, attorney for the nonprofit clinic SOS, said in a Wednesday interview that Carter's ruling lets the two-year-old case proceed on whether the city enacted the zoning restrictions in good faith.

"SOS is very happy by the court's ruling that allows SOS to seek recompense from the city having prevented us from opening this expanded medical clinic to better serve the low-income residents of Santa Ana," Connor said. "What the court allows us to do is to now further investigate whether there was any emergency, a true emergency, that justified the city's adoption of an urgency ordinance out of the blue with no public notice whatsoever."

At the center of the case is SOS's claim that Santa Ana abruptly blocked its property purchase by enacting an urgency ordinance requiring nonprofits--but not for-profits--to obtain a conditional use permit in the downtown zone. Share Our Selves Corporation v. City of Santa Ana et al., 8:23-cv-00504 (C.D. Cal., filed Mar. 20, 2023).

"What this says is that the city targeted SOS simply because of the type of patients that it serves, low-income residents. There's no other reason," Connor said.

Connor is joined by O'Melveny & Myers LLP partner Brett J. Williamson and counsel Nora N. Salem, who he said were key to defeating the city's dismissal bid.

Santa Ana's dismissal bid was argued by Saskia T. Asamura of Richards Watson & Gershon, who did not respond immediately Wednesday to emails requesting comment. The city argued the ordinances were lawfully enacted and that requiring use permits for nonprofit medical offices served legitimate interests by ensuring proposed operations fit the property and surrounding area.

However, Carter found it plausible the ordinance could be invalid due to a lack of specific evidence showing a legitimate emergency.

"Instead, the stated reasons are vague, generalized, and unsupported by sufficient evidence. The ordinance broadly references the absence of clear land use definitions, and potential negative impacts on property values and community welfare," Carter wrote.

"An urgency ordinance requires more than conclusory statements ... it must contain factual findings demonstrating an actual and immediate threat."

According to the complaint, SOS was close to closing escrow in late 2022 when the Santa Ana City Council approved a zoning ordinance requiring a medical office use permit. SOS claims the council never discussed the requirement or included it in advance public notices, despite holding a public hearing.