Laserfiche WebLink
MORRISON FOERSTER <br />Hon. Vicente Sarmiento <br />March 1, 2021 <br />Page Four <br />modifies contractual terms and as such impinges on a fundamental right. Regardless, absent <br />from the Ordinances is any requirement that would actually address any potential purpose of <br />promoting the public's health and safety. Put simply, there is a disconnect between the <br />Ordinances' reach and stated purpose, making them unlawful and violating the equal <br />protection rights of CGA's members. <br />CGA disagrees with the Council's characterization of the Urgency Ordinance as a possible <br />"urgency ordinance." There is nothing in the Ordinance that is required for immediate <br />preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or welfare. (§ 2.) Even if an emergency <br />ordinance passes, there is no requirement that an emergency ordinance become effective <br />immediately on passage. As this Council has done many times before, an emergency <br />ordinance can become effective at a set date in the future. <br />Finally, in light of emerging vaccination programs for essential workers, stores' increasing <br />ability to protect patrons and workers from infection using distancing, curbside pickup, and <br />other measures, we strongly encourage the City to set an alternate deadline for expiration of <br />hazard pay ordinance (i.e., 90 days) so that it can be revisited by the Council in light of the <br />rapidly changing pandemic conditions. <br />For all of the reasons discussed above, we respectfully request that the City Council reject <br />the Ordinances. <br />Sincerely, u� <br />I <br />William F. Tarantino <br />cc: Santa Ana City Council <br />Thai Viet Phan <br />David Penaloza <br />Jessie Lopez <br />Phil Bacerra <br />Johnathan Ryan Hernandez <br />Nelida Mendoza <br />sf-4438126 <br />