Correspondence - Non Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,r Case 8:23-cv-00504 Document 1.-4 Filed 03/20/23 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:1.51 8. The Ordinance impermissibly discriminates on the basis of source of payment, and is subject to state and federal preemption, because there are numerous state and federal statutes and regulations forbidding payment discrimination in health care contexts, establishing a clear public policy against source of payment discrimination This gives rise to unlawful discrimination under the U.S, and California Constitutions, as well as state and federal statutes. 9. The Ordinance is internally inconsistent and violates CEQA. Specifically, the Ordinance relies on Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as there is no possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not a"project", as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, contrary to these conclusions, the Staff Report for the ordinance indicates that the changes are intended to"create a user friendly environment," and recognizes that the changes duplicate those made in the City's 12/20/2022 Urgency Ordinance. The Staff Report for that ordinance explained that the changes were required to "address current and immediate threats to the public health, safety, or welfare," and that the absence of a conditional use permit requirement for government and philanthropic medical offices "hinder the City's ability to [...I implement a regulatory land use and development framework to promote the health, safety, and the general welfare of the residents of Santa Ana." The Staff Report then explicitly acknowledges the fact that this portion of the ordinance will have an impact on the environment: "The proposed ordinance establishes a decision-making process for the City to identify, evaluate, regulate, address, and reduce the potential impact to the built environment stemming from these land uses." These admissions by the City belie the notion that the Ordinance will not result in any foreseeable direct or indirect physical changes in the environment and preclude the use of the CEQA exemptions relied upon by the City. 10. The Ordinance is a violation of due process and equal protection and freedom of association under the U.S. and California Constitutions in that it impermissibly discriminates (a) against FQHCs and their patients on the basis of homelessness, income, source of income, and reliance on government or charitable assistance and (b) against entities providing medical services on the basis of non-profit status, philanthropic purpose, and receipt of government subsidies. Share Our Selves 8 1 P a g e