Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission signals intent to disapprove Ocean Avenue medical expansion amid tenant displacement concerns
Summary
A conditional‑use request to consolidate medical providers into a single facility at 2645 Ocean Ave drew heavy opposition from tenant physicians who said they face displacement. After questioning from commissioners about necessity and available space, the commission voted 6‑1 on an intent to disapprove and continued the matter to Dec. 1 so staff can draft a disapproval motion.
The Planning Commission considered a conditional‑use authorization to allow a medical service use larger than 2,999 square feet at 2645 Ocean Avenue. Staff described the proposal as an interior consolidation of existing medical providers into a single, larger outpatient facility with services such as lab, x‑ray and mammography; the sponsor plans interior upgrades to meet modern medical practice needs.
Jody Knight, representing the project sponsor, characterized the request as a response to changing medical delivery models: "The use size is having the use size for the building allows us to explore what the demand is in the market," Knight said, and explained outreach efforts with existing tenants.
Multiple physicians who currently occupy suites in the building testified in opposition. Dr. Zia Adhannon said she has an option to extend her lease and has tried since February to work with the owner to exercise it; she described the prospect of closing a 31‑year practice and the patient impacts if forced to relocate. "If I'm forced to move out into a different building ... I will have to close my practice of 31 years in that community," she said, describing particular risks for elderly patients who depend on neighborhood access.
Commissioners pressed the sponsor on why the use was "necessary and desirable," given high occupancy in the building and nearby medical office options. Commissioner Richards asked whether the applicant had explored phased, one‑suite‑at‑a‑time rehabilitation—an approach sometimes used to modernize older medical buildings without displacing tenants.
After deliberation the commission voted on a motion of intent to disapprove the CUA and to continue the matter to Dec. 1 so staff could prepare a disapproval resolution; the motion passed 6‑1 (Commissioner Hillis opposed). The continuance preserves options for the sponsor to work with tenants and for the commission to consider revised materials at the next hearing.
Why it matters: The case highlights tensions between property‑scale modernization and preservation of neighborhood medical access. Commissioners weighed the applicant’s rehabilitation rationale against testimony that displacement would reduce nearby access to primary and specialty care, particularly for elderly and lower‑mobility residents.
Next steps: The matter will return to the Planning Commission on Dec. 1 with a staff‑draft motion for disapproval unless the sponsor and affected tenants reach a resolution beforehand.
