Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Cliniva topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Palma council upholds staff finding that proposed Cliniva urgent care is a 'medical center' and is not allowed in PND zone
Summary
After an appeal, the council affirmed staff’s land‑use interpretation that Cliniva’s planned urgent care (5962 La Palma Ave., former Chase Bank) meets the municipal code definition of a medical center/clinic — a use prohibited in the Planned Neighborhood Development zoning district — and upheld that determination in a 5‑0 vote.
The La Palma City Council on April 1 voted 5‑0 to uphold a community development staff determination that a proposed Cliniva urgent care at 5962 La Palma Avenue should be classified as a medical center/clinic under the municipal code, a use prohibited in the Planned Neighborhood Development (PND) zoning district.
Community Development staff explained their interpretation by pointing to the applicant’s submitted floor plan (about 4,200 square feet) showing five exam rooms, at least four offices, a telemedicine room, an x‑ray room and extended hours proposed (7 days a week, 8 a.m.–8 p.m.). Staff said the city’s land‑use matrix distinguishes lower‑intensity medical offices (permitted in certain districts) from higher‑intensity medical centers/clinics that accept walk‑ins and have greater occupancy and extended hours — uses typically placed in office/professional or mixed‑use business zones rather than PND.
Doug Conradi, co‑founder of Cliniva Urgent Care Centers, argued the operation is functionally a single physician office with exam rooms and appointment scheduling; he said dental practices in the city operate with multiple exam rooms in PND‑like settings and characterized exam rooms as treatment spaces, not separate 'offices.' Conradi added that Cliniva typically sees roughly three patients per hour at similar clinics and has four staff, and noted the clinics are focused on ambulatory care and do not keep an on‑site pharmacy.
Council members questioned operational details — hours, staffing, patient volumes and whether the use might become a specialized pain clinic. Staff and the city attorney reiterated that the council is the final authority on interpretation of the zoning code and courts afford deference to the council’s reasonable code interpretations.
A motion to affirm (uphold) the community development manager’s determination was moved, seconded, and passed 5‑0. Council did not approve a rezone or an exception; the ruling preserves the existing zoning restrictions and leaves the applicant the option to seek an alternative location or to revise its proposal.
