Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case 8:23-cv-00504 Document 1-4 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:144 February 8, 2023 Via Hand Delivery hare Han. Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Our Hon. Members of City Council Selves Ms. Normal Orozco, City Clerk City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Proposed Ordinance 2022-03 Dear Mayor, Members of the Council, and Ms. Clerk, I currently serve as the chairperson of the board of directors of Share Our Selves ('SOS"). On behalf of SOS, and medical providers impacted by this matter, I would respectfully request that the City Council not proceed today to provide final approval of Ordinance 2022-03 (the "Ordinance"). For the reasons stated below, we at SOS believe that the Ordinance is flawed and needs to be sent back to staff for further review and revision to eliminate its unfair and discriminatory treatment of federally funded, non-profit community health centers, such as SOS and the predominantly Hispanic and Latino individuals it serves in Santa Ana. In this regard, I would kindly ask that the public hearing on the Ordinance be reopened so that I and others supporting SOS be allowed a meaningful opportunity to present our concerns regarding the Ordinance to the Council. As explained below, SOS does not believe that the public notice for the Ordinance was adequate because, among other things, the notice did not alert either non-profit or for-profit medical offices in the City's Professional district that they might be considered to be "government-subsidized" entities that would be subject to the new CUP requirement in the Ordinance if they accepted any federal funds for treating patients on Medicare, for example. We believe that, if that message had been communicated to the public at large, there would have been a lot more people speaking in opposition to the Ordinance on January 17, 2023. As it was, not a single person from the public spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the Ordinance on January 17. That underscores the fact the notice was deficient and helps to explain why representatives of SOS were not in attendance at the hearing on the 17th. Although we believe that the Ordinance should be reworked to eliminate the deficiencies listed below, it should, at a minimum, be clarified to provide that it will not