My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence- #6
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2023
>
02/07/2023 Regular & HA
>
Correspondence- #6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2023 4:45:55 PM
Creation date
2/10/2023 4:45:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
public hearing. As such, the Ordinance violates the equal protection clauses of both the <br />U.S. and California Constitutions to the extent that it discriminates between similarly - <br />situated medical offices (for -profit and non-profit) for the illegitimate purpose of <br />regulating how, when, and where non-profit FQHC's, like SOS, can serve poor and <br />homeless minority clients. <br />2. The Ordinance's unequal treatment of for -profit and non-profit medical offices <br />clearly shows that the ordinance improperly targets the client base served by non-profit <br />entities like SOS. A neutral law found to have a disproportionately adverse effect upon <br />a minority classification will be deemed unconstitutional if that impact can be traced to a <br />discriminatory purpose, i.e., an intent to discriminate against a particular individual or <br />class of individuals. Discrimination that involves a suspect class requires the City to <br />show a compelling governmental interest to justify such action and the Ordinance points <br />to no such interest. <br />3. City staff has publicly reported to the Council that the reason for requiring a non- <br />profit medical office to obtain a CUP is so that the City can "ensure that the location and <br />operation of such facilities are compatible with the scale, character, and nature of <br />surrounding properties and neighborhoods." Obviously, the City does not feel that for - <br />profit medical offices raise the same kinds of concerns and thus such businesses do not <br />need to apply for a CUP. The clear implication, therefore, is that non-profit medical <br />offices tend to attract a certain type of "clientele" that the City views as not being <br />"compatible" with "character" of surrounding neighborhoods. That implication has racial <br />and ethnic overtones, considering that the clients that would potentially be served by <br />SOS at the new location in Santa Ana would be mainly persons identifying as <br />Hispanic/Latino, African -American, or other ethnic minorities. Those overtones, in turn, <br />would constitute invidious discrimination in violation of the U.S. and California <br />Constitutions. <br />4. As a community health center, SOS is one of the intended beneficiaries of a <br />multi -million, multi -year grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, <br />Office of Minority Health for "Advancing Health Literacy to Enhance Equitable <br />Community Responses to COVID-19." The City also receives funds from the federal <br />government relating to various federal programs, including, but not limited to, the <br />Community Development Block Grant Program, and the Home Investment Partnerships <br />Program. The express terms of these federal grants, as well as other federal laws, <br />including 42 USC §2000d ("Title VI") and the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Act <br />Share Our Selves 6 1 P a g e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.