Correspondence- #6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

district from applying for or accepting these sorts of grants or subsidized loans, or from accepting payment from patients eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, Medi-Cal, or state subsidized insurance. Since it is hard to imagine that there are any medical offices in the P district that do not accept at least one of these forms of government subsidies, the Ordinance as currently drafted would have an immediate and devastating impact on the ability of medical offices in Santa Ana to serve the City's residents, particularly senior citizens. This would appear to be one of the many "unintended consequences" of approving the Ordinance and it clearly requires the Ordinance to be sent back to staff for further review and revision. Indeed, in the spreadsheet on page 3 of the January 17, 2023 Staff Report for the Ordinance, it appears that staff intended to distinguish between for -profit and non-profit medical offices and did not anticipate that the CUP requirement would apply to for -profit medical offices simply because they might, for example, serve patients covered by Medicare. This ambiguity caused by the vague language of the Ordinance is fatal to its enforcement, and the Ordinance needs to be sent back for further analysis and resolution. Moreover, because the Ordinance as presently drafted could potentially sweep in all medical offices and discourage them from receiving federal subsidies in order to avoid the CUP requirement, the Ordinance would impermissibly frustrate the purpose of the various state and federal government programs that provide all these forms of financial assistance. This Ordinance will likely have even more severe consequences that the City has not considered. Notably, the City receives millions of dollars of government grants and subsidies. The Staff Report and City Council discussions to date have not considered whether or not explicit discrimination against government medical programs might jeopardize the funding that the City receives itself. SOS submits that, when state and federal agencies learn that the City is directly interfering with the implementation of their health and welfare programs, they may withhold and/or cancel any more funds provided to the City. Additional Deficiencies Invalidating the Ordinance. In addition to the infirmities discussed above, the Ordinance is subject to the following deficiencies that render the Ordinance invalid: 1. Without any rational basis, the Ordinance unlawfully discriminates between for - profit and non-profit medical offices, allowing the former to operate "by right," but requiring the latter to apply for a discretionary CUP which could be denied following a Share Our Selves 5 1 P a g e