Laserfiche WebLink
Case 8:23-cv-00504 Document 1-4 Piled 03/20/23 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:152 <br /> 11. The public notice for the first reading of the Ordinance was defective in that it <br /> constituted a denial of due process and violated applicable provisions of the <br /> Government Code because, among other things, the notice did not reference the <br /> Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the Ordinance, diet not indicate the <br /> staff was recommending additional changes not included in that recommendation, did <br /> not provide any hint or suggestion that non-profit medical offices were going to be <br /> treated differently than for-profit medical offices or that for-profit offices might be subject <br /> to the Ordinance if they accepted any federal subsidies or reimbursements, and, most <br /> importantly, the notice did not indicate that applications that had been duly submitted <br /> before the Ordinance took effect were not going to be grandfathered in which is the <br /> normal custom and practice with new zoning ordinances. <br /> Conclusion. <br /> In light of the above-listed problems underlying the Ordinance, SOS respectfully <br /> requests that Ordinance either be sent back to staff to cure its deficiencies or that it at <br /> least be clarified so that it will not apply to Turner's Application. Thank you. <br /> Ernest W. ("Will") Klatte <br /> Chair, SOS Board of Directors <br /> Share Our Selves 9 P e g e <br />