Loading...
03 (13) Public Comment From:Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com> Sent:Monday, September 28, 2020 9:33 PM To:Denise Barnes; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Lucille Kring; Stephen Faessel; Trevor O'Neil Cc:Sherry Daley; Dave Sheridan; Mitch Cherness; Loretta Day; Public Comment Subject:Re: Item #3 Good evening, Another addition to public comment: Cities receiving HUD funds have an obligation to reduce housing barriers for disabled individuals, often termed their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). They are required to make semi-annual filings attesting to their efforts to do so. The “housing element” of that report is the part that focuses on how they are meeting their obligations in that regard. Like most other official documents, those filings are public records. Most cities don’t think of recovery housing – or usually even licensed community care facilities – as disabled housing, so that capacity isn’t included in their filings. However that also means that they don’t report the capacity their actions cause to close. With all this being said, we would like to know if the numbers the put in the staff report on the agenda item are reflected in the housing element. Have they done an assessment to see how this ordinance will impact the loss of housing? Have they omitted sober living housing in the HUD reports? Have a great day, Tamara Jimenez Community Relations Manager Lighthouse CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts. 160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. The Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a written consent is obtained from the person to whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. On Sep 28, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com> wrote: In addition to our previous comments, we would like to point out the quite obvious and overtly purposeful change in description of the item on agenda which can only be meant to completely mislead and deceive the public into even knowing what this item is regarding. Please take note that in the previous description it mentions community care facilities and sober livings but for tomorrow’s agenda it does not. Hence another reason this item should be continued. It is the only 1 fair decision to make for the public, especially since meetings are still not in person. It is quite shocking that you would allow this to be voted on tomorrow night as is. <image0.png> <image1.png> Have a great day, Tamara Jimenez Community Relations Manager Lighthouse CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts. 160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. The Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a written consent is obtained from the person to whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. On Sep 25, 2020, at 11:00 AM, Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com> wrote: Good morning, Again I am writing to urge you to continue this item. It is quite clear that there has not been any thorough study done on the issue at hand. The way this ordinance is written is frankly quite callous. It is an attack on those seeking recovery and I am more than disappointed. The staff report given at the meeting on the 15th put our logo along with CCAPP & the Orange County Recovery Collaboration on a slide referring to us as stakeholders. I can assure you that none of us are stakeholders in this item nor were we ok with having our logos used in the presentation. I speak for all three groups when I say we are absolutely in strong opposition to this ordinance as it is written. It is nothing more than an attempt to push out recovery services in the City of Anaheim. Maybe none of you personally have any one in your lives right now that suffer from addiction but that doesn’t exempt you from the responsibility as leaders to fully educate yourself on the subject matter before taking such drastic steps. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Final_Report_Dra ft_11-15-2017.pdf https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-generals- report.pdf 2 https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/housing-best-practices-100819.pdf https://narronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/National-Recovery-Residence- Quality-Standards-Oct-7-2015.pdf Have a great day, Tamara Jimenez Community Relations Manager Lighthouse CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts. 160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. The Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a written consent is obtained from the person to whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 3