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