Loading...
5760ORDINANCE NO. 5760 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AN INTERIM MEASURE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF NEW OPERATOR PERMITS, AND PERMITS TO EXISTING OPERATORS FOR ADDITIONAL VEHICLES, FOR TAXICAB OR CHAUFFEURED LIMOUSINE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH PERMITS MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH NEW REGULATIONS THE CITY IS STUDYING OR INTENDING TO IMPLEMENT; AND DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE WHICH SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 53075.5 of the Government Code and its powers as a charter city as set forth in Article XI, Section 5, of the California Constitution, the City of Anaheim has heretofore adopted Chapter 4.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (hereinafter the "Taxi Ordinance") regulating and restricting the issuance of permits for, and the operation of, taxicabs and chauffeured limousines (hereinafter collectively referred to as "taxicabs") in the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 1999, pursuant to the provisions of the Taxi Ordinance, the City Council did hold hearings and considered the application of A Taxi Cab for a taxicab operator's permit to operate an additional 58 taxicabs within the City of Anaheim to supplement its existing permit for 50 taxicabs, and the application of South Coast Cab Co. ("South Coast") for a taxicab operator's permit to operate 117 taxicabs within the City of Anaheim and, following the receipt of evidence and testimony relating thereto, did deny each of said applications on the basis, inter alia, that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the public convenience and necessity required the operation of additional taxicabs within the City of Anaheim at that time; and WHEREAS, South Coast subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Orange County Superior Court entitled South Coast Cab Co., et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 80-03-59, seeking to compel the City to issue an operator's permit to South Coast for the operation of 117 taxicabs in the City of Anaheim which petition for writ of mandate was subsequently denied by the Superior Court and which court decision was thereafter appealed by South Coast to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (the "South Coast Appeal"); and 1 WHEREAS, on May 18, 1999, the City Council authorized the creation of an ad hoc committee (the "Committee") to study the City's current and future taxi service needs, determine whether and when additional taxicabs would be needed in the City and, if so, the number of additional taxicabs which should be authorized, and a recommended method for authorization and allocation of any such additional taxicab services (hereinafter the "Taxicab Study") ; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim also retained the services of an independent consultant to assist the Committee in the preparation of the Taxicab Study; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City Council did receive and consider the recommendation of the Committee and the independent consultant, and did approve the recommendation that a new system be developed and implemented to franchise taxicab operations in the City of Anaheim which franchise system would replace the current Taxi Ordinance; and WHEREAS, following further study by the City staff, the independent consultant and a second ad hoc committee created to review the franchise plan, the City Council, on August 29, 2000, approved the solicitation of requests for proposals ("RFP") by taxicab operators for taxicab franchises for a total of 230 taxicabs to be awarded by the City Council by ordinance in 2001 which franchises would replace the Taxi Ordinance and the permits issued pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2000, the City of Anaheim released the RFP for the award of up to three taxicab franchises and did solicit proposals with a deadline date of October 20, 2000, for the receipt of such proposals by the City; and WHEREAS, prior to the specified deadline, the City received proposals for taxicab franchises from the following proposers: A White and Yellow Cab, Inc. dba A Taxi Cab; American Livery, Inc. dba American Taxi; Cabco, Inc. dba California Yellow Cab; XITOA, Inc. dba AM -PM Taxi; and Yellow Cab Company of Northern Orange County; and WHEREAS, following the deadline for the receipt of taxicab franchise proposals, the five proposals received were submitted to a franchise selection committee for evaluation and recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the evaluation procedure specified in the RFP; and 2 IWT T-- .� WHEREAS, prior to submission to the City Council by the franchise selection committee of its evaluation and recommendations concerning the award of the taxicab franchises, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, rendered its decision in the South Coast Appeal, ordering the City Council to issue a taxicab permit for 117 taxicabs to South Coast on the grounds that the requirement in the Taxi Ordinance that the permit applicant demonstrate that the public convenience and necessity required such additional taxi service was void for vagueness; and WHEREAS, within the time permitted by law, the City of Anaheim filed a petition for review by the California Supreme Court seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal which petition was denied on March 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the City Council will receive and consider the recommendations of the franchise selection committee at its meeting on April 17, 2001; and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the ordinances awarding the taxi franchises, it is the intention of the City Council to amend the Taxi Ordinance to generally render such Taxi Ordinance inoperative and thereby preclude the approval of any further taxicab permits thereunder; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has recently received an application for a new taxicab operator's permit which application is in conflict with the taxicab franchise plan and ordinances which the City Council is intending to implement therefor, and which application would otherwise require review under the current Taxi Ordinance certain applicable provisions of which have been held to be invalid and unenforceable by decision of the Court of Appeal; and WHEREAS, to protect the public peace, health or safety, the City Council adopts this interim ordinance as an urgency measure to temporarily prohibit the processing of applications and the issuance of any further taxicab permits prior to the drafting and adoption by the City Council of ordinances relating to the award of the taxicab franchises and the amendment of the Taxi Ordinance as may be necessary or appropriate in conjunction with said court decision and/or the award of said franchises. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 3 __SIT 1.. ,� _ SECTION 1. Notwithstanding any provision in the Anaheim Municipal Code to the contrary, no application shall be accepted for processing, no pending application shall be further considered or processed, and no permit, authorization or approval of any nature whatsoever shall be issued or given by the City of Anaheim, the City Council, or any officer or employee thereof, for any increase in the current number of taxicabs or taxicab operators within the City, or for any additional taxicabs for an operator with an existing operator's permit issued by the City of Anaheim, during the period this ordinance is in effect, except as provided in Section 2 hereof. SECTION 2. No person or entity shall commence, establish, operate or maintain any taxicab or taxicab service in the City of Anaheim for which a permit is required pursuant to the Taxicab Ordinance during the period this ordinance is in effect unless said person or entity has a valid and unrevoked taxicab operator's permit for said taxicab(s) issued by the City of Anaheim prior to the date this ordinance takes effect; provided, however, nothing contained in this ordinance shall be deemed to prohibit: A. The renewal of any permit or license for any taxicab(s) which permit or license was issued prior to the date this ordinance became effective; B. The issuance of any permit or identification decals for any vehicle placed into service to replace any authorized taxicab vehicle in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 4.72.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; C. The approval of any temporary increase in the number of taxicabs authorized pursuant to an existing operator's permit in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 4.72.085 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; or D. The issuance or renewal of any operator's permit, or increase in the number of taxicabs authorized pursuant to any operator's permit, as mandated or otherwise ordered pursuant to a final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall take effect immediately as an urgency measure and shall remain in full force and effect for a 4 period of 180 days after the date of adoption, or until sooner repealed, unless extended by the adoption of a subsequent ordinance in the manner provided by law. SECTION 4. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION. Any violation of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section 1.01.370 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or word of this ordinance be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid. SECTION 6. DECLARATION OF URGENCY. The City Council declares that this ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety pursuant to Section 511 of the City Charter and the reasons for its urgency are as follows: 1. The Taxi Ordinance currently requires the City Council to consider applications for taxicab permits in the manner provided therein; 2. The City Council has heretofore determined to replace the current Taxi Ordinance with taxicab franchises and has solicited requests for proposals and has received proposals for the award of new taxicab franchises and is currently in the process of evaluating and awarding said franchises and adopting new ordinances which will render the current Taxi Ordinance inoperative; 3. The California Court of Appeal has heretofore rendered a decision in the case of South Coast Cab Co., et al. v. City of Anaheim, 4" Civ. No. G026197, holding portions of the Taxi Ordinance under which all applications for taxicab permits must be processed to be invalid and unenforceable and the California Supreme Court has denied the City's petition for review of said court decision; 5 4. The City of Anaheim has received an application for a taxicab operator's permit to authorize additional taxicabs within the City of Anaheim pursuant to provisions of the Taxi Ordinance which application, if accepted, processed, considered and approved, will conflict with the ordinances currently under consideration by the City Council relating to the award of franchises for taxicab operations in the City of Anaheim; 5. The City of Anaheim is currently determining whether it may be necessary to amend the Taxi Ordinance in conjunction with the award of the pending taxicab franchises, or prior to the processing of any further applications for taxicab operator's permits; and 6. Unless this ordinance is adopted as an emergency measure, the City Council will be required to accept, process and consider applications for additional taxicabs within the City of Anaheim prior to adoption of new ordinances relating to the award of taxicab franchises which ordinances and franchises will render the Taxi Ordinance inoperative and/or prior to any necessary amendments to the Taxi Ordinance concerning the provisions under which taxicab permit applications would be processed to conform to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal, all of which could result in an unrestricted number of taxicabs being allowed to operate in the City which taxicabs would not be subject to the operational standards and regulations proposed to be required for franchised taxicabs and which unrestricted and unregulated taxicabs would be detrimental to the public peace, health or safety. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 27th day of March 2001. ATTEST: CITY CLFOK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 31094.3 R MA OR OF CITY rNAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 5760 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim, held on the 27th day of March, 2001, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS (SEAL) Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly None None CITY CLEKK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) SS. County of Orange ) 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the Anaheim Bulletin , a newspaper that has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, on December 28, 1951, Case No. A-21021 in and for the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California; that the notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: April 5, 2001 "I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct": Executed at Santa Ana, Orange County, California, on Date: April 5, 2001 nau Signature Anaheim Bulletin 625 N. Grand Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 796-7000 ext. 3002 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Paste Clipping of Notice SECURELY In This Space iORDINANCE NO. 5780 The City Council declares that this ordinance is necessary as an emergency mea: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AN INTERIM MEASURE IMPOSING Apublic peace, health or safety pursuant to Section 511 of the City Charter and the res MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF NEW OPERATOR PERMITS, AND PERMITS TO EXISTING OPERATORS FOR ADDITIONAL VEHICLES, FOR TAXICAB OR CHAUFFEURED LIMOUSINE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH PERMr7S MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH NEW REGULATIONS THE CITY IS STUDYING OR 1. The Taxi Ordinance currently requires the City Council to consider applications video therein; INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT; AND DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE WHICH SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority set forth In Section 53075.5 of the Government Code and its city as set forth in Article Xl, Section 5, of the California Constitution, the City of Anaheim has heretofore do ed Charter 4.72 2. The City Council has heretofore determined to replace the current Taxi Ordinan solicited requests for proposals and has received proposals for the award of new ta) process of evaluating and awarding said franchises and adopting new of the Anaheim Municipal Code (hereinafter the "Taxi Ordinance") Pt Chapter for, and the o d ) regulating end restricting The issuance of permits Aeration of, taxicabs an chauffeured limousines na ordinances w Hance inoperative; of Anaheim; and (hereinafter collectively referred to as "taxicabs") in the City 3. The California Court of Appeal has heretofore rendered a decision In the case o Anaheim, 4th Civ. No. G026197, holding the p WHEREAS, on May 18, 1999, urauam to the provisions of the Taxi Ordinance ,the Ci Council did hold hearings and considered the application of A Taxi Cab for a taxicab operator's permit to ty City an additional theaxi Ordinance under which must f processed to be irnreld and unenforceable and the California Supreme Cou view b said court decision; n portions le of Anaheim to supplement its existingoperate 58 taxicabs within the Coss[") fora taxicab o rotor's permit for 50 taxicabs, and the application of Souh Coast Cab Co. ("South dance and testimony renting thereto, did deny each of el permit to operate 117 taxicabs within the City of Anaheim and, followingthe receiptof evi - 4. h City of Anaheim has received an application for a taxicab operator's permit the C' of Anaheim pursuant to said applications on the basis, inter glia, that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the public convenience and necessity required the operation of additional taxicabs within the City of Anaheim at that time; and provisions of the Taxi Ordinance which°application, and approved, will conflict with the ordinances currently under consideration by the franchises for taxicab operations in the City of Anaheim; WHEREAS, South Coast subsequently filed a South 4 Y . petition for writ of mandate in the Orange County Superior Court entitled Orange County Superior Court Case No. 80-03bs 5. The City of Anaheim is currently determining whether it may be necessary to am I tion with the award of the pending taxicab franchises, or prior to the to issue an pel the C' the in 59, seeking to corn- lion for wttrt of mandate wassubsequentlyently denied b>�t,Supedotor the or Courtvid shish decision wash er��rner�����(a�d by South .' avatar's permits; and processing of an I Coast to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth 'I'iB Appellate District (the "South Coast Appaal"; and 6. Unless this ordinance is adopted as an emergency measure, the City Council wi consider applications for awdditional taxicabs within WHEREAS, on May 18,1999, the City Council authorized the creation of an ed hoc committee the 'Committee,,)to study the City's current and future taxi service needs, determine whether and when additional taxicabs would be nded in the City and, N so, he number of additional taxicabs which should be thethe C'tty of Anaheim prior to adol n� of taxicab franchises which ordinances and franchises will render he Taxi i would be p�roces�sed tto conform tndments to wo he recent disc! Taxi Ordissroe concerningins under wt Court authorized, and a recommended method for au- thorization and allocation of any such additional taxicab services (hereinafter the " taxicab Study"); and of �1y %uPo�. all of w number of taxicabs being allowed to operate in the to which taxicabs would not be and regulations proposed to be required for franchised taxicabs and whidh unrestricti be detrimental tothe public health WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim also retained the services of an independent consultant to assist the Committee in he preparation of the Taxicab Study; and 1 peace, or safety. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE is approved and adopted by the City Council of the Marc#% 2001. WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City council did receive and consider the recommendation of the Committee and the Independent consultant, and did approve the recommendation that a new system be developed and implemented to and hise taxicab operations in the City of Anaheim which franchise system would replace the current Taxi Ordinance ; • further study independent WHEREAS, following udy by the C' staff, the inde ndent consultant and a second as trot committee creat- ed to review the franchise plan, the. City Council, on August 29, 2000, approved the solicitation a requests for ("RFP") by taxicab ATTEST: SCHROEDER CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM proposals operators for taxkeb franchisee For a total of 230 taxicabs to be awarded by the City Council by ordi- nance in 2001 which franchises would replace the Taxi Published: Anaheim Bulletin Ordinance and the permits issued pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2000, the City of Anaheim aril 5, 2001 2530 4559765l456006d released the RFP for the award of up to three taxicab franchis- es and did solicit proposals with a deadline date of October 20, 2000, for the receipt of such P proposals by the City; and ---------- WHEREAS, Prior to the specified deadline, the City received proposals for taxicab franchisselrom the following propos era: A White and Yellow Cab, Inc. dba A Taxi Cab; American Llvery, Inc. dba American Tamd; Caboo, Inc, dba low Cab; XITOA, Inc. r: elifprnia Yel dba AM -PM taxi; and Yellow Cab Company of Northern Orange County; and WHEREAS, following he deadline for the of taxicab franchise proposals, the live received were sub- mitted to a franchise $election c01111111111111111110 forh on end recommendations to e evaluation procedure specified In time RPP; andaoxMacoe with he WHEREAS, Prior h submbato he City "--- ---S-_'- - bn Cotaaltl by the franchise �i�e — - -—�V.r.. are r�anmrree Uourt of Appeal t its decision In the Coeet Appetit confer oil jesue a dab 6cabs MIA Cvset on ttme grounds that fife rerlukarrtetlt i1 tine $is pwame• p� comeer. lance and ^ Y're d each addMorW tall aal rase vt>w for vagi all 7lwt the WHEREAS, torevt►wthe ty kw,tltegqh�dAnaheinrfgadapaNtionfarravlermrby9rt►CNlbrtmla8uprems Court seNdng rewsrlis he a the 0W aI fippaed whichpetttron was dented ori tNadf21, 2001; and WHEREAS, it is antfcipe" that tih it Councl W#1 receive and consider he recomrneraletrone of the ft til salec- tion a Tmlthe at ft mm�tirtp:on Aprfl 17, !till; and to anwmd dmWHEREASe sat OMltat the fimw a the S*01111011 slime ordlrwress awarding mewl franchises, it pta.k don 01 the any fur w M*ab perrilk>k sr Such Tamil Ordinal inoperative and linefeby lldude the approv of amid �decllslon 1PPlMalltln for a new taxicab a permMtwhidl aaam. onwhldr theGty CounG1 brsbrref cF►m.nmbw &to «tlrere Testi Omr mer,q; r rNdctt rmaw . tp a.Invalid ai,d' cF the Court a Appeal: grid pwvWone d WI1As, to �peaoo, AeoDn ors�r, Ime qN Council Cauail acrd the Issuance a any %Alen rrmeaaae ro hb kllrtkn pam+le� urgenev eilli dment railFnEZ cio y to 1Fw award of the taxkab. of add franchises. s. may°r 1n con)<nrdfbn witfr said otxgl mor the arYa»tl NOW. THEREFORH, THE CRY CtJIkM OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 #eimli or How" for" Wftal s) which permit or iicamse was blued pfbr to the dab this ordl. B. The Issuance a malt rx tdr any vehicle placed kftasrWce ce1111, le In sof .. vtill time any aulma lmd taxi- 4 - t tlr Section 4.72.090 a the Armetn if i Obde; Jiliciluelil the number¢e ' h 72 oil I od opetabt"eper . or D' or or (increase ktdfu nreriblr a or w�?,UN ant to a *Ad jud0nele t a o l 11 'N m any - Tfmleoelirratmes i....vr.=----.--�__ 0901N1IM0E NO. 5760 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AN INtemm� McnsuRE IMPOS ISSUANCE OF NEW OPERATOR PERMRS, AND PERMITS TO EXISTING OPERATORS F FOR TAXICAB OR CHAUFFEURED LIMOUSINE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM W CONFLICT WITH NEW REGULAt10NS THE CITY IS STUDYING OR INTENDED TO IMPLE THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AN EMERGFNr V UPAM roe wu e.,., , �.........__. -- WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 53075.5 of the Government Code and its powers as a charter city asset forth In Article XI, Section 5, of the California Constitution, the City Of Anaheim has treretofore 4.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (hereinafter the "Taxi Ordinance") regulating and restricting the Issuance permh� for, and the operation of, taxicabs and chauffeured limousines (hereinafter collectively referred to as "taxicabs") in the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, on May 18,1999, pursuant to the provisions of the Taxi Ordinrt�City Council did hold hearings enc considered the application of A Taxi Cab for a taxicab operator's pern8 to a dftionalCityofaheimto splent its eit for 50 taxicabs, end theon of3OuthCoat")forcabtor'mt117 taxicabs within the Cahimend,fdancedestiony relating theretodid deny eah of said aplications osis,interalsfailetodemonstrateatthepublicconveand necessrredtation of additional taxicabs wittnin the City of Anaheim at that time; and WHEREAS, South Coast subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Orange County Superior Court entitled Co Ih -= t a6 8D-03 Pel the City to issue an operator's permit to Sduth CoastOrfw the o 117 Icab�e n the City of Mahe king t ch pati torn for wnt of mandate was subsequently denied by the Superior Count end shish court decision was thereafter appealed by South Coast to the Celifomie Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (the "South Coast APf»ai"; and WHEREAS, on May 18,1999, the Ciry Council auUnwized the creation of an ed hoc committee (the 'Committee") to study the City's current and future taxi eanr�e needs, determine whether end when eddftional taxicabs would be needed in the City and, if so, the number oT addftionai taxicabs whiclh should be authorized, and a recommended method for au taxica tion and allocation of any such additional taxicab services (hereinafter the " taxicab Study"); and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim also retained the services of an independent consultant to assist the Committee preparation of the Taxicab Study; and in the WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City council did receive and consider the recommendation of the Committee and the independent consultant, and did approve the recommendation that a new system be developed and implemented to franchise taxicab operations in the City of Anaheim which franchise system would replace the current Taxi Ordinance ; and WHEREAS, following further study by the Cri'ryry staff, the independent consultant and a second as hoc committee creat- ed to review the franchise plan, the City Councl1, on August 29, 2000, approved the solicitation of requests for Proposals ("RFP") by taxicab operators for taxicab franchises for a tidal Of 230 taxicabs to be awarded by the Ciry Council by ordi - nance in 2001 which franchises would replace the Taxi Ordinance and the permits issued pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2000, the City of Anaheim released the RFP for the award of up to three taxicab franchis- es and did solicit Proposals ppwith a deadline date of October 20, 2000, for the receipt of such proposals by the City; and WHEREAS rior to fflad the era: A White end Yellow Cab, Inc Inc. Taxi Cab; Cityreceived Livery, Inc dba As for Ammeerican Taxi; Cabcfranchises froo Incefollo . dba California is Yei low Cab; XITOA, Inc. dba AM -PM taxi; and Yellow pCab Company of Northam Orange County; and deadline for the mi ed to WHEREAS, rnchiseisseeleection committee for evaluation recommet of taxicab franchisendationstothe City the pouncilsle received were sub - evaluation procedure specified in the RFP; and City CouncB in accordance with the WHEREAS, prior to submission to the City Council by the franchise selection committee of its evaluation and recommen dations concemmg the award Of the taxicab franchises, the California Court of its decision in the South Coast Appeal, Fourth =lalie District, rendered Appeal, ordering the City council to issue a taxicab permit for 11Y taxicabs to South Coast i n the grounds that the requirement in the Taxi Ordinance that the permit applicant demonstrate that the public conven- I fence and necessity required such edditbnat taxi service was void for vagueness; and WHEREAS, within the time permitted by law, the City of Mahaim filed a petiticn far review by the California Supreme f Court seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal which petition was denied on March 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the City Council will receive and consider the recommendations of the franchise selec- tion committee at its meeting on April 17, 2001; and i WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the ordinances awarding text franchises, it is the intention of the CityCouncil to amend the Taxi Ordinance to generally render such Taxi Ordinance inoperative and thereby preclude the approval of any further taxicab permits thereunder; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has recently received an application for a new taxicab operator's permit which applica- tion is in conflict with the taxicab franchise plan and ordinances which the City Council is intending to irnp�ement therefor, and which application would otherwise require review under the current Taxi Ordinance certain applicable provisions of which have been held to be Invalid and unenforceable by decision of the Court of Appeal; and WHEREAS, to protect the public peace, health or safety, the City Council adopts this interim ordinance as an urgancy measure to temporarily prohibit the processing of applications and the issuance of any further taxicab p it drafting and adoption by the City Council of ordinances relating to the award of the taxicab franchises e�rtd the amerce t e merit of the Taxi Ordinance as may b necessary or appropriate in conjunction with said court decision and/or the award of said franchises, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 Notwithstanding any provision in the Anaheim Municipal Code to the contrary, no application shell be accepted for proc nature easing, no pending ail on shall be further considered or processed, and no Permit, authorization w approval of any any increase in whatsoever current number bVIssued of tta�xi�. y he or Anaheim, the City council, or any offter or employee thereof, for orator with an ex'all opperator's Mors within the City, or for any additional taxicabs for an op cept as provided in S�ectlon 2 her ft issued by the City of Anaheim, during the period this ordinance is in effect, ex- Noppeerson or entity shall commence, establish, operate w maintain any taxicab or taxicab service in the City of Ana- heim for which a permit is required pursuant to the Taxicab Ordinance during the -period this Ordkance Is in effect unless said person w entity has a vaNd and unrevoked taxicab operator's permit for said taxicab(s) issued by the City of Anaheim prior to the date this ordinance takes effect; provided however, nothing contained in this ordinance shall be deemed to prohibit: n A. The a newaogn permit w license for any taxicab(s) which permit or license was issued prior to the date this ordi- B. The issuance of any permit or Identification decals for any vehicle placed into service to replace any authorized taxi- cab vehicle in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 4.72.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; C. The approval of eny temporary increase in the number of taxicabs authorized pursuant to an existing operator's pei- mit in accordance with the procedure set fQM in Section 4.72 085 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; or D. The issuance or renew*I of arty operator s ppeerrmm�t, w increase in the number of taxicabs authorized pursuant to any operator's Permit, as mandated orntherwoo ordered pursuant to a final Judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction. SECTIONZ EFFIF W_DATEj0EDjRDjNANCF This ordinance shall take effect immediateiv as an urgency measure and shall remain in full force and effect for a period of 180 days after the date of adoption, w untilsooner repealed, unless extended by the adoption of a au uent ordi- nance in the manner provided by law, bseq SECnON-4. PFNeI TY FOR Vint ATION Any violation of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section 1.01.370 of the Anaheim Munic !pal Code. SECTION ; CEVFRARII m - The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should an section, paragraph, word of this ororianOa bo dq*r%d Air y p agreph, sentence, phrase, term or ®d all other portions Of this ordkience'� to Invalid it is the intent of the City Cauncnl that it would have adopt - invalid. of 11ne efirtiination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared C CTln- �N.�R .. The City Council declares that this ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of Public peace, health dr adety-pureuant to Section 5N of the City Charter and the reasons for its urgency are as follows: 1. The Taxi Ordinance currently requires the City Council to consider applications for taxicab permits In the manner pro. vided therein; 2. The City Council has heretofore determined to replace the current Taxi Ordinance with taxicab franchises and has solicited requests for proposals and has received proposals for the award of new taxicab franchises and is currently in the process of evaluating and awarding said franchisee and adopting new ordinances which will render the current Taxi Ordi- nance inoperative; 3. The California Court of Appeal has heretofore rendered a decision in the case of Ce Anaheim, 4th ,, oast -h at ai V City Of Anah, 4M Civ. No. G0281997, holding portions of Me Taxi Ordinance under which all applications for taxicab permits must be processed to be invalid and unenforceable and the California Supreme Court has denied the City's petition for re - view of said court decision; 4. The City of Anaheim has received an application for a taxicab operator's permit to authorize additional taxicabs within the City of Anaheim pursuant to provisions of the Taxi Ordinance which application, R accepted, processed, considered and approved, will conflict with the ordinancea currently under consideration by the City Council relating to the award of franchises for taxicab operations in the City of Anaheim; 5. The City of Anaheim is currently determining whether it may be necessary to amend the Taxi Ordinance in conjunc- tion with the award of the pending taxicab franchises, or prior to the processing of any further applications for taxicab op- erator's permits; and 6. Unless this ordinance is adopted as an emergency measure, the City Council will be required to accept, process and consider applications for awdditionai taxicabs within the City of Anaheim prior to adoption of new ordinances relating to the award of taxicab franchises which ordinances and franchises will render the Taxi Ordianre inoperative and/or pnor to any necessary amendments to the Taxi Ordlance concerning the provisions under which taxicab permit applications would be processed to conform to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal, all of which could result In an unrestricted number of taxicabs being allowed to operate in the City which taxicabs would riot be subject to the operational standards and regulations proposed to be required for franchised taxicabs and which unrestricted and unregulated taxicabs would be detrimental to the public peace, health or safety. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 47th day of Marg 4001. TOM DALY MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SHERYLLSCHROEDER CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM Published: Anaheim Bulletin April 5, 2001 25.430 4559765/4560064 517,1 -ed OR01INANOE NO. a?" AN ORDINANCE OF THE CRY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AN INTERIM M ISSUANCE OF NEW OPERATOR PERMITS, AND PERMITSTO MWINC FOR TAXICAB OR CHAUFFEURED LIMOUSINE SERVICES IN THE CITY CONFLICT WITH NEW REGULATIONS THE CITY IS STUDYING OR 1NTE THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE WHICH SHALL WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 53075.5 of fie Government Code and its powers as a charter city as set forth in Article XI, Section 5, of the California Constitution, the City of Anaheim has heretofore adopted Chapter 4.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code(hereinafter the "Taxi Ordinance'} regulating and restricting the issuance of permits for, and the operation of, to dcabs and chauffeured limousines (hereinafter coMettivaly referred to as 'taxicabs') in the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, on May 18,1999, pursuant to the proviaiane the Taxi Ordinance ,the Cittyy Counal did hold fearinga end rronslder"d the application oT A Taxi Cab for a taxicab operator's pemYE th an eddttionei 58 tax[caba witfbt the City of Anaheim to supplement its exialltg pintail for tOtaxfuxobS, and to apptatlon of South Cant Cab Co. (•South Coast') for a taxicab opaalor's permit to operate 117 tadcebs wtthin the City d Anaheim end, TcikNuAng the of evi - dance and testirnany relating therato, did deny each of end aapp firetlons on the basis, inter elle, the the appfl had failed to demonstrate that the public convenience end neaasRy required the operation of additional taxicabs within the City of Anaheim at that time; and WHEREAS. South Coast subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate In the Orange County Superior Court entitled �+__x?h+.0 a tr` h r am a�y G�v�¢ AoabeW%� O� County Superior Court Case No. OD43-M, seeking to com- pel the City to issue an operator's permit to South Coast for the operation of 117 taxicabs In the City of Anahelrt which pini tion for writ of mandate was subsequently denied by the,Superbr Cart and shish court decision was thereafter appealed by South Coast to rte California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate DiMrict (the 'South Coast Appeal`; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 1999, the City Council authorized the creation of an ad hoc committee Mm'Commtttee") to i study the -City's current and future taxi service needs, determine whether and when additional taxicabs would bo needed in the City and, t so, the number of additional taxicabs which should be authorized, and a recommended method for au- thorizatlon and allocation of any such additional taxicab services (herekefter the " taxicab Study"); and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim also retained the services of an independent consultant to assist the Committee in the preparation of the Taxicab Study; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City council did receive and consider the recommendation of the Committee and the independent oonsultem, and did approve tm he recomendation that a news em be de plcmented franchise taxicab operations in the City of AnMeim which franchise system would replace the t Taxis Ordinance to end WHEREAS, following further study by theCity staff, the independent consultant and a second as hoc committee creat- ed to review the franchise plan the, City Cor on August 29, 2000, approved the solicitation of for proposals ("RFP") by taxicab operators for taxicab franchisee for a til of 230 taxicabe to be awarded by tha Count by ordi - nance un 2001 which franchisee would replace the Text Ordinance and the permits issued pursuant thmeto; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2000, the City of Anahelm released the RFP for the award of up to three taxicab franchis- es and did solicit proposals with a deadline date of October 20, 2000, for the receipt of such proposals by the Ctty; and WHEREAS, prior to the specified deadline, the City receivers proposals for taxicab franchiseelrom the following propos- ers: A White and Yellow Cab Inc, dba A Taxi Cab; American Livery, Inc. dba American Taxi; Csboo, Inc, dba California Yal low Cab; XITOA, Inca dba Ahk-PM taxi; and Yellow Cab Company of Northern Orange County; and WHEREAS, following the deadline for the receipt of taxicab franchise proposals, the five proposals received were sub- mitted to a franchise selection committee for evaluation and recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the evaluation procedure specified in the RFP; and WHEREAS, prior to submission to the City Council by to franchise selection committee of its evalwtion and recommen dations concerning the award of the taxicab franchises, the California Court of Appeal Fourth r�eatct, rendered its decision to the South Coast Appeal on I the City council to issue a twdoab permit for 11 to South Coast on the grounds that the requirement in the Tax1 Ordinance that the permit applicant demonstrate that the public conven- ience and necessity required such additional tax! service was void for vagueness; and WHEREAS, within the time permitted by law, theof Anaheim filed a petition for review by the Ca►ilomia Supreme decision Court seeking to reverse the o' the Court offAAppeal which petition was denied on March 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the City Council will receive and consider the recommendations of the franchise selec- tion committee at Its meeting on April 17, 2001; and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the ordinances awarding taxi franchises, it is the intention of the City Council to amend the Text Ordinance togenstally render such Taxi Ordinance Inoperative and thereby preclude the approval of any further taxicab pemiils therewMx; and . WHEREAS, the Clay of Anaheim has recently mcehved an application for a new taxicab operator's permit which applica - hon is In conflict with the taxicab franchise plat and ordinances which the City Council is Intending to Impbmarttprovisions ctherefor, � which which application would otheewlse require review tinder the current Taxi Ordinance certain applicable been hold to be Invalid and wxaMoroseble by decision of the Court of Appal; and WHEREAS, to protect the public peace, health or safety the City Council adopts this interim ordinance as an urgency measure to prolti the processing of applications and the issuance of any further taxicab permits prior to the drePong std ad City Council of ordinances relating to the award of the taxicab franchises and the amend- ment of the Tai ,MnCrdinance as may be necessary or appropriate in conjunction with said court decision and/or the award of said franchises. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 Notwithstanding any provision In the Anaheim Municipal Code to the contrary, no application shall be accepted for pros seeing, no ppeending *ppq= shall be halher considered or processed, and no permit, authglaation or approval of ary nature vvhMeoever sliafl tis Issued or=t s City of Maleim, the City council, or anyofficer orrr thereof, for any increase In the current number or taxicab operators within the City, or for any additbrml tawyc pa for an op- enstor as with an exisfingoperators dei in 2 it Issued by the City of Anaheim, during the period this ordinance is In effect, ex- cept d r which ar aperhy efiNl corn,a ace, sat fteti� openers or maintain any taxicab or tazicel service in the City cif Ana- hekn for which a pennt Is rpulap to the Taxicab Ordinance during the period this ordinance is in e#ect unless said peramor entity hags vva�tldd unravoked taxicab operator's permit for said taxicab(s) tasued by the City of Anaheim prior to the date this ordltenle takes effect provided, however, nothing contained in tee ordinance shall be deemed to prohibit: A, The renewal of any permit or license for any taxicab(s) which permit or license was issued prior to the date this ordi- nance became effective; B. The issuance of any permit or identification: decals for any vehicle placed into service to replace any authorized taxi- cab vehicle to accordance wth the procedure specified in Section 4.72.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; C. The approval of tarttppraty increase in the number of taxicabs authorized pursuant to an existing operator's per - mit in ecardance width proosdure,elfbti M Section 4.72.085 of the Anaheim Municipal Code-, or D. The issuance or ramewe(of any opsreM, porter or increase in the number of taxicabs authorize/ ppursuant to any operator's permit, as mani�bd or other>tia* ordered pursuant to a final judgment of any court of cornnpetent jurisdiction. SFCTrnM 9- rEEECMW DAZE_OF ORD&y4 :F This ordinance stall t" altsot Immediately as an urgency measure and shall remain in hall force and effec for a period of 180 days after the da0e pp�f e�dapaiort. or sooner repsalod, unless extended by to adopfion of a subsequent ordi- nance In rte manner pronnirterl by bw. of this o►dMwice Shell be a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section 1.01.370 of the Anaheim Mumic. S CDON.r, SEWEASI ITV - The City Council of the imsRsbft dselsea that should any section, paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or ' Zoftl+isomlkranaa#� � a or any reason to be invalid, it is the Intent of the City Council dw it wauM haus adopt- s ail other portions of thIs ordinancevalid. irtl ahtlerht of the elimination herefrom of arty such porfbri, r be deciiaed cECTmN .W, ,'f -A4 , r##���Y"♦ i ► � r 4. �. kF kw'Y"k art f* rim. M!f f`Jr`�-: ♦ r�-• s. �. e+rmrrr rm �rsr�s The City Council declares that this ordinance ie necessary as an wperg measure for the immediate preservation of public peace, health or safety Pursuant to Section 511 of the City Chatter and the reasons for Its urgency are as follows: 1. The Taxi Ordinance currently requires the City Council to consider applications for taxicab permits in the manner pro- vided therein; solicited City Council has heretofore determined to replace the current Taxi Ordinance with taxicab franchises and has requests for proposals and has received proppssle for the award of new taxicab franchisee and is currently in the process of evaluating and awarding sold franchisee and adopting new ordinances which will render the current Taxi Ordi- nance inoperative; 3. The California Court of has heretofore rendered a decision in the case of c . en oems sI o a< m y irt-_of Anahein musp4rocessed m002ebe 1 'jdandunenfbie end tlr® California holding Portions of the Taxi nanSynder which all applications for taxicab pem�its view of said court decision; Supreme Court has denied the City's petition for re - 4. The City of Anaheim has received an application for a taxicab operator's permit to authorize additional taxicabs within the City of Anaheim pursuant to roviakns of the Taxi Ordinarxce which'appikatlon, If accepted, Processed, considered and approved, will coMllct with the ordinances currently under consideration by the City Council relating to the award of franchises for taxicab operations In the City of Anaheim; 5. The City of Anaheim Is currently determining whether it may be necessary, to amend the Taxi Ordinance in conJunc- tionwis peritsth the award rd of the pending taxicab franchises, or prior to the processing of any further applications for taxicab op- orator't. Unless this ordinance is adopted as an emergermcy measure, the City Council will be required to accept, process and consider applications for awddidonal taxicabs within the CRY Anaheim prior to adoption of new ordinances relating to the award of taxicab franchises which ordinances and franchiseswill render the Taxi Ordiance inoperative aver/or prior any necessary amendments to the Tad Ordiam¢e concerning the provisions under which taxicab Permit applications to would rocessed to conform to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal all of which could result In an unrestricted numand re�grul"onspr allowed being to operas in the City which taxicabs would not be subject to the operational standards be detrimental to tPrha ubdtk wired for franchised taxicabs and whldh unrealricted and unregulated taxicabs would P peace, health or safety. YMTHE� DOING ORDINANCE is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 27t1r day of aro TOM DALY MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SHERYLLSCHROEDER CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM Published: Anaheim Bulletin "-aril 5, 2001 25-430 4559765/4560064 ORDINANCE NO. 5780 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AN INTERIM MEASURE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF NEW OPERATOR PERMITS, AND PERMITS TO EXISTING OPERATORS FOR ADDITIONAL VEHICLES, FOR TAXICAB OR CHAUFFEURED LIMOUSINE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH PERM( S MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH NEW REGULATIONS THE CITY IS STUDYING OR INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT; AND DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE WHICH SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 53075.5 of the Government Code and its powers as a charter city as set forth in Article XI, Section 5, of the Califomia Constitution, the City of Anaheim has heretofore adopted Chapter 4.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (hereinafter the "Taxi Ordinance') regulating and restricting the issuance of permits for, and the operation of, taxicabs and chauffeured limousines (hereinafter collectively referred to as "taxicabs") in the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, on May 18,1999, pursuant to the provisions of the Taxi Ordinance, the City Council did hold hearings and considered the application of A Taxi Cab for a taxicab operator's permit to operate an additional 58 taxicabs within the City of Anaheim to supplement its existing permit for 50 taxicabs, and the application of South Coast Cab Co. ("South Coast") for a taxicab operator's permit to operate 117 taxicabs within the City of Anaheim and, following the receipt of evi - dence and testimony relating thereto, did deny each of said applications on the basis, inter glia, that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the public convenience and necessity required the operation of additional taxicabs within the City of Anaheim at that time; and WHEREAS, South Coast subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Orange County Superior Court entitled South Coast Cab Co. at aly C tv9f Anaheim at al Orange County Superior Court Case No. 80-03-59, seeking to com- pel the City to issue an operator's permit to South Coast for the operation of 117 taxicabs in the City of Anaheim which pei� tion for writ of mandate was subsequently denied by the Superior Court and shish court decision was thereafter appealed by South Coast to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (the "South Coast Appeal"; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 1999, the City Council authorized the creation of an ad hoc committee (the "Committee") to study the City's current and future taxi service needs, determine whether and when additional taxicabs would be needed in the City and, If so, the number of additional taxicabs which should be authorized, and a recommended method for au- thorization and allocation of any such additional taxicab services (hereinafter the " taxicab Study"); and The City Council declares that this ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure fo public peace, health or safety pursuant to Section 511 of the City Charter and the reasons 1 1. The Taxi Ordinance currently requires the City Council to consider applications for tax vided therein; 2. The City Council has heretofore determined to replace the current Taxi Ordinance wit, solicited requests for proposals and has received proposals for the award of new taxicab fi process of evaluating and awarding said franchises and adopting new ordinances which u dance inoperative; 3. The California Court of Appeal has heretofore rendered a decision in the case of Sout Anaheim, 4th Civ. No. G026197, holding portions of the Taxi Ordinance under which all apt must be processed to be invalid and unenforceable and the California Supreme Court has view of said court decision; 4. The City of Anaheim has received an application for a taxicab operator's permit to suit the City of Anaheim pursuant to previsions of the Taxi Ordinance which application, if ecce and approved, will conflict with the ordinances currently under consideration by the City C, franchises for taxicab operations in the City of Anaheim; 5. The City of Anaheim is currently determining whether it may be necessary to amend It bon with the award of the pending taxicab franchises, or prior to the processing of any furtl erator's permits; and 6. Unless this ordinance is adopted as an emergency measure, the City Council will be r consider applications for awdditional taxicabs within the C'�ty of Anaheim prior to adoption the award of taxicab franchises which ordinances and hanchises will render the Taxi Ordia any necessary amendments to the Taxi Ordiance concerning the provisions under which u would be Processed to conform to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal, all of which number of taxicabs being allowed to operate in the City which taxicabs would not be subje and regulations proposed to be required for franchised taxicabs and which unrestricted an be detrimental to the public peace, health or safety. WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim also retained the services of an independent consultant to assist the Committee in the THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE is approved and adopted by the City :ounal of the Cit: preparation of the Taxicab Study; and i March, 2001. WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City council did receive and consider the recommendation of the Committee and I TOr. the independent consultant, and did approve the recommendation that a new system be developed and implemented to franchise taxicab operations in the City of Anaheim which franchise system would replace the current Taxi Ordinance ; (ATTEST: and ISHERYLLSCHROEDER WHEREAS, following further study by the City staff, the independent consultant and a second as hoc committee creat- CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ed to review the franchise plan, the City Council, on August 29, 2000, approved the solicitation of requests for proposals ("RFP") by taxicab for taxicab franchises for total 230 taxicabs to be by City Council by published: Anaheim Bulletin operators a of awarded the ordi - nonce m 2001 which franchises would replace the Taxi Ordinance and the permits issued pursuant thereto; and `.p^I 5, 2001 25-430 4559765/4560064 WHEREAS, on September 20, 2000, the City of Anaheim released the RFP for the award of up to three taxicab franchis- es and did solicit proposals with a deadline date of October 20, 2000, for the receipt of such proposals by the City; and WHEREAS, prior to the specified deadline, the City received proposals for taxicab franchises from the following. propos- ers: A White and Yellow Cab Inc. dba A Taxi Cab; American Livery, Inc. dba American Taxi; Cabco, Inc. dba California Yet tow Cab; XITOA, Inca dba AM -PM taxi; and Yellow Cab Company of Northern Orange County; and WHEREAS, following the deadline for the receipt of taxicab franchise proposals, the five proposals received were sub- mitted to a franchise selection committee for evaluation and recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the evaluation procedure specified in the RFP; and WHEREAS, prior to submission to the City Council by the franchise selection committee of its evaluation and recommen dations concerning the award of the taxicab franchises, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, rendarea its decision in the South Coast Appeal, ordering the City council to issue a taxicab permit for 117 taxicabs to South Coast on the grounds that the requirement in the Taxf Ordinance that the permit applicant demonstrate that the public conven- ience and necessity required such additional taxi service was voidof r vagueness; and WHEREAS, within the time permitted by law, the City of Anaheim filed a petition for review by the California Supreme Court seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal which petition was denied on March 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the City Council will receive and consider the recommendations of the franchise selec- tion committee at its meeting on April 17, 2001; and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the ordinances awarding taxi franchises, it is the intention of the City Council to amend the Taxi Ordinance to generally render such Taxi Ordinance inoperative and thereby preclude the approval of any further taxicab permits thereunder; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has recently received an application for a new taxicab operator's permit which applica- tion is in conflict with the taxicab franchise plan and ordinances which the City Council is intending to implement therefor, and whichapplication would otherwise require review under the current Taxi Ordinance certain applicable provisions of which have been held to be invalid and unenforceable by decision of the Court of Appeal; and WHEREAS, to protect the public peace, health or safety, the City Council adopts this interim ordinance as an urgency measure to temporarilyy prohibit the processing of applications and the issuance of any further taxicab permits prior to the drafting and adoption by the City Council of ordinances relating to the award of the taxicab franchises and the amend- ment of the Taxi Ordinance as may be necessary or appropriate in conjunction with said court decision and/or the award of said franchises. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECIlODL1. Notwithstanding any provision in the Anaheim Municipal Code to the contrary, no application shall be accepted for proc easing, no pending �appplicetlon shall be further considered or processed, and no permit, authorization or approval of any nature whatsoever ahalI be Issued or given by the City of Anaheim, the City council, or any officer or employee thereof, for any increase in the current number of taxicabs or taxicab operators within the City, or for any additional taxicabs for an op- erator with an existing operator's permit issued by the City of Anaheim, during the period this ordinance is in effect, ex- cept as provided in Section 2 hereof. SECTION 9. No person br entity sf1811 commence, establish, operate or maintain 'any taxicab or taxicab service in the City of Ana helm for which a permit is required pursuant to the Taxicab Ordinance during the period this ordinance is in effect unless said person or entity has a valid and unrevoked taxicab operator's permit for said taxicab(s) issued by the City of Anaheim Prior to the date this ordinance takes effect; provided, however, nothing contained in this ordinance shall be deemed to prohibit: A. The renewal of any permit or license for any taxicab(s) which permit or license was issued prior to the date this ordi- nance became effective; B. The issuance of any permit or identification decals for any vehicle placed into service to replace any authorized taxi- cab vehicle in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 4.72.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; C. The approval of ar temporary increase in the number of taxicabs authorized pursuant to an existing operator's per - mit in accordance with procedure set forth in Section 4.72.085 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; or D. The issuance or renewal of any operator's permit, or increase in the number of taxicabs authorized pursuant to any operator's permit, as mandated or otherwise ordered pursuant to a final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction. SFSTION a EFFECTIVE DATE OF OROINAN . This ordinance shall take ~ immediately as an urgency measure and shall remain in full force and effect for a period of 180 days after the date of adoption, or until sooner repealed, unless extended by the adoption of a subsequent ordi- nance in the manner provided by law. •MIvEl 21 V 0 V351; ILTJ reTuNi •. Any violation of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section 1.01.370 of the Anaheim Munic. ipal Code. The City Council of the City of Anaham.hemby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or mad cf1hfs ordhaftce 1'rc declared for any resson to be invalid, it is the intentof the City Council that It would have adopt - ad ail other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared nvalid. SECTION 6. DECI AHAVIOAM ANIA&r ,r + + t r s-•: hx : r r r r ♦. • ► ♦ . i t r ♦ ♦ `k-)' :'!-errol" Orr'MD R r• r-1 ! ♦ , i'r d r ♦ i r'• r• r r r r« r