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