05/11/2021The regular meeting of May 11, 2021, was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 4:00 P.M. for
lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned meeting of May 11, 2021 was called to order at 4:00 P.M. in
person and telephonically, pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding
the Brown Act related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20) in response to COVID-19. The meeting
notice, agenda, and related materials were duly posted on May 6, 2021.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Stephen Faessel, Jose Diaz,
and Trevor O'Neil (in person). Council Member Jordan Brandman (via
teleconference). Council Members Jose F. Moreno and Avelino
Valencia joined the meeting during Closed Session (in person).
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City
Clerk Theresa Bass
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
Cecil Jordan Corkern advised he is working on a Coronavirus update for Disney and noted they were
not out of the woods yet although they were open. He reported churches were under quarantine so
he was working on a home Bible study. He addressed the need for field hospitals and how people
were dying due to the pandemic. He recommended the Council Chamber be kept clean of foul
language. He suggested scarves as face coverings to allow clearer audio and presented Council
with a bag of scarves.
CLOSED SESSION: At 4:06 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed to closed session for consideration of the
following:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code)
Name of Case: Florentina Pelayo v. City of Anaheim et al. USDC Case No. 8:19-cv-02318
MCS (ADSx)
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code)
Name of Case: D.R., by and through her guardian ad-litem, Vanessa Gonzalez; and
Christopher Ramirez v. City of Anaheim et al. USDC Case No. 8:20-CV-00659-DOC-JDE
At 5:15 P.M., Mayor Sidhu reconvened the Anaheim City Council.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Stephen Faessel, Jose Diaz,
Jordan Brandman, Jose F. Moreno, Avelino Valencia, and Trevor O'Neil
(in person).
INVOCATION: Mayor Pro Tern Stephen Faessel
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 2 of 13
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Jose F. Moreno
Presentation: Recognizing 2019 and 2020 Mills Act participants
Associate Planner Christine Nguyen presented the City's six 2019 and eight 2020 Mills Act
participants and presented a video highlighting the 14 properties. She noted Anaheim has over 380
Mills Act properties, making it the third -largest program in the State behind only the cities of Los
Angeles and San Diego.
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):
Recognizing May 2 — 8, 2021, as National Travel and Tourism Week
Recognizing May 15, 2021, as Kids to Parks Day
Interim Community Services Director Sjany Larson -Cash thanked City Council for this proclamation.
She advised the Community Services staff is preparing for a fun -filled summer for the City's youth as
pandemic restrictions are lifted. She detailed many youth activities returning this summer and a
variety of outdoor experiences for families.
Recognizing June 2021, as Immigrant Heritage Month
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all aqenda items, except public hearin
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that a total of 8 public comments were received electronically prior
to 2:00 P.M. related to City Council agenda items and matters within the jurisdiction of the Anaheim
City Council. [A final total of 12 public comments were received electronically and distributed to the
City Council and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix.
Cecil Jordan Corkern advised the City was not out of the woods yet with the pandemic even though
Disneyland has reopened. He noted churches are closed and under quarantine and promoted his
Bible magazine and video. He addressed the need for field hospitals and how people were dying due
to the pandemic. He addressed safety protocols at restaurants and Disneyland. He asked Mayor
Sidhu to write him a letter with updates or give him a call and encouraged Council to wear the
scarves he provided earlier.
R. Joshua Collins, Homeless Advocates for Christ, encouraged everyone to give their lives to Jesus
and quoted the Bible to encourage the City Council to help the poor. He asked the City Council to
encourage the Anaheim Police Department to use the counselor -based teams to respond to the
homeless. He encouraged more permanent supportive housing and detox centers.
Mark Richard Daniels encouraged everyone to get vaccinated and suggested erecting a memorial at
City Hall or in a City park for those who lost their lives to COVID-19. He stressed the importance of
the retail workers and essential workers who worked through the darkest times of modern history and
asked City Council to support Item No. 10 in recognition of the patriots who kept essential businesses
operating.
Noah Stevens advised he works as a meat clerk at Ralphs' Anaheim Hills location. He praised Ralphs
from an employee culture perspective but advised feeling safe and financially secure has become
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 3 of 13
impossible lately due to actions by his employer and noted many are making cutbacks while reporting
record -breaking profits. He advised these companies are stretching their staff thin at a time when they
do not have to. He explained social distancing is impossible in his facility and customers are often
impatient with the situation during the panderbic. He reported being harassed for encouraging
customers to wear masks and noted the health risks extend beyond the store's doors while collecting
trash -filled carts in the parking lot. He expressed support for Item No. 10 and believed the temporary
pay raise is deserved.
Herman Herman advised Anaheim has become the California capital of homelessness because of
discrimination. He denounced Governor Gavin Newsom for costing taxpayers $600 per person to
build the State's $12 billion surplus. He expressed disgust at those engaged in corruption, bribery,
and racketeering and advised City Council should show interest in better use of income taxes. He
expressed doubts Mayor Sidhu could fix the City's budget crisis and encouraged the City Council to
help the constituents instead of stealing from them.
Harold Crouch advised he is an employee of the Vons on East Santa Ana Canyon Road. He asked
the City Council to approve hazard pay for grocery and drug store workers and noted how his
coworkers attempt to come into work as clean as possible. He discussed the extra efforts they make
in the store for safety during the pandemic even though those measures slow down the efficiency of
their work. He advised as long as the Centers for Disease Control encourages wearing facemasks,
they are at risk of being contaminated or contaminating others and should be compensated as such.
He urged the City Council to pass a hazard pay ordinance like many other California cities have done
to help their essential employees.
Gladys Gonzalez advised she works for CVS Pharmacy and recalled working during the pandemic on
the front lines and placing herself at risk of bringing the virus home to her family which included a five -
month -old baby. She explained her line of work made it impossible to see her mother who battled
health issues and passed away in October. She noted how much they gave to the community to keep
working for the City's benefit and advised an employee from another Anaheim CVS passed away
from COVID-1 9. She asked the City Council to pass hazard pay for endangering their lives and do
the right thing for the community.
Martha Ramirez (translation: Spanish) advised she has worked at El Super on North Euclid Street for
15 years and encouraged the City Council to support a salary increase of $4. She advised they have
worked hard during the pandemic and this is why they deserve the salary increase. She reported 75
of her coworkers signed a petition in favor of the $4 raise. She reported she was worried for her
coworkers when many of them got sick in November and noted they are all risking their lives daily to
serve their community. She encouraged City Council to support the temporary hazard pay.
Sean McKeever from Green Meadows Hospice asked to open the County's first hospice facility in
Anaheim. He advised other options for hospice care are either extremely expensive or extremely
impersonal and, by accepting Medi-Cal and Medicare, they do not need to charge family members of
the residents. He advised they currently lease a property in the City adjacent to a skilled nursing
facility and have often discussed working in tandem. He reported the Planning Department believes
they are non -conforming for a Conditional Use Permit for a rest home. He advised they strongly
protest the decision because the Anaheim Municipal Code states a rest home is also known as a
hospice facility. He explained they are adding value to the City by occupying an otherwise vacant
building, creating jobs, and removing some strain from community assets and requested City Council
investigate the issue.
Mayor Sidhu thanked Mr. McKeever for bringing a new business to Anaheim.
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 4 of 13
Council Member O'Neil explained he is in the home health and hospice industry and would
work with staff to come to a resolution on Mr. McKeever's issue.
Diluvan Hassan reported he is a partner of Mr. McKeevers at Green Meadows and advised opening
the Green Meadows facility in Anaheim would bring over $1,000,000 in payroll revenues to an
otherwise unoccupied building. He explained they bring a good service they should all hope to
receive at the end of their lives once they are diagnosed to have six months or less to live. He further
explained they care for individuals hospitals cannot find a place for and urged City Council to
consider their request.
Kenneth Hungerford advised he has worked for Ralphs for 20 years currently at the South Brookhurst
Street location. He encouraged the City Council to pass the hazard pay ordinance. He advised he
has special needs children but has to go to work every day where customers berate him over mask -
wearing and noted a customer last week was spitting on people.
Bryan Kaye presented a piece of engraved redwood to Council Members Valencia and Diaz. He
addressed alleged actions by the Police Department and hoped Council would make improvements
in Anaheim.
Teresa Lima spoke in support of Item No. 10 and reported work during the pandemic was very
stressful. She advised many people still refuse to wear masks and noted workers are taking all of the
risks while the business owners are gaining all of the rewards. She encouraged City Council to stand
behind the supermarket employees like herself who are operating for the community and asked City
Council to approve the hazard pay ordinance.
Kenneth Batiste suggested the workers not to expect too much due to corporate interests and many
groups of residents raising their voices to the City Council to no avail in favor of larger developers. He
believes Council puts money first over people until they need votes. He pressured Mayor Sidhu not to
read from a prepared statement about Item No. 10 and questioned whether or not he hears the
people's pain when they cry out. He asked new City Council Members Diaz and Valencia if they
would back up their people and stated that City Council needs to get its priorities right and urged
them to back the people and do the right thing.
Mike Greenspan advised the City of Long Beach is the first place he knows of to have enacted
hazard pay and reported two Kroger stores have closed in Long Beach since the hazard pay was
adopted because of decreased profit margins. He reported three supermarkets are closing in the City
of Los Angeles for the same reason.
Brenda Ruiz advised she has worked at El Super on North Euclid Street for five years and helps
coordinate the store's operations. She encouraged the City Council to support the hazard pay law.
She advised the issue is very important to her and is leading her to make her first appearance before
the City Council. She questioned whether working during the pandemic while getting paid the same
was worth putting her life on the line. She advised she ultimately did not have a choice because she
would have been ineligible for unemployment and unable to pay her rent. She reported she
contracted COVID-1 9 in November and explained the challenge of raising her children as a single
mother while isolated in her bedroom.
Jose Trinidad Castaneda advised, as the climate changes and housing grows, the City will need
more public health services. He explained this also means current hospital services cannot go away.
He requested City Council's assistance with Anaheim Global Medical Center closing several of its
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 5 of 13
departments and requested an update on negotiations between the City Manager and Global Medical
Group.
Mayor Sidhu reported he and City staff met with Anaheim Global via Zoom. He reported they
are not closing the Emergency Room. He advised they will be consolidating between their
Orange County facilities and staff will have an opportunity to move to the new locations. He
explained the City cannot tell the businesses what they can and cannot do but can simply
urge them for public health purposes to take care of the people of Anaheim.
Samuel Garcia advised he has worked at El Super on North Euclid Street for over 13 years. He asked
the City Council to approve the hazard pay for grocery workers. He explained the past year has been
difficult because going to work puts his family at risk. He advised many of his coworkers contracted
COVID-19, many without even knowing it, and exposed them all. He encouraged the City Council to
support the essential workers who put themselves and their families at risk to serve the community
during the pandemic.
CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE:
City Manager Jim Vanderpool reported a recent partnership with Union Pacific to address citizen
complaints of encampments along the railroad right of ways in two areas: along the 1-5 Freeway from
Magnolia Avenue to Lincoln Avenue and north of Katella Avenue from Brookhurst Street to Euclid
Street. He explained the Community Care Response Team (CCRT) gave notice, provided outreach
services, offered shelter beds, which two people accepted, and removed discarded furniture, refuse,
and graffiti. In response to Council Member Moreno, Mr. Vanderpool explained the private property
owner would not go through the process on their own but the City was thankful for the access and
cooperation provided for the CCRT to address the issue through hiring the railroad's contractor and
flag personnel
CONSENT CALENDAR: At 6:29 P.M., the consent calendar was considered.
MOTION: Council Member Diaz moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt
the consent calendar as presented, in accordance with reports, certifications, and recommendations
furnished each City Council Member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council
Member O'Neil. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Diaz,
Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried
B105 1. Receive and file minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting of March 24, 2021.
D160 2. Authorize an appropriation adjustment to increase the Police Department's revenue and
expenditure appropriations in Fiscal Year 2020/21 by $38,000, under the Fiscal Year 2020
Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant.
AGR- 3. Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Fame Legacy, in the amount
12689 of $526,132.95 plus a 10% contingency, for the Anaheim Resort Safety Bollards Project
Phase I; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any related
documents, and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract;
determine that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality
Act pursuant to Sections 15301 Class 1(c) and Section 15303(d) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement
pertaining to contract retentions.
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 6 of 13
AGR- 4. Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R.J. Noble Company, in the
12690 amount of $1,682,309.05, for the Orangethorpe Avenue Rehabilitation Project from Lakeview
Avenue to Imperial Highway; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract
and any related documents, and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the
contract; determine that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement
pertaining to contract retentions.
AGR- 5. Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Hardy & Harper, Inc., in the
12691 amount of $5,806,000, for the Residential Street Improvement Project — Lotus & Torry —
Group 13; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and any related
documents, and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract;
determine that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality
Act pursuant to Sections 15301, Class 1, and 15302, Class 2, of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement
pertaining to contract retentions.
AGR- 6. Approve the Acquisition Agreement with Axis Campus Owner, LLC, in the acquisition payment
12692 amount of $13,100, for the purchase of real property located at 2390 East Orangewood
Avenue for a Temporary Construction Easement for the Orangewood Avenue Widening
Project from State College Boulevard to the Santa Ana River (R/W ACQ2018-01013).
P124 7. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real
properties or interests therein [City Deed No. 12522 (2390 E. Orangewood Ave.) in
conjunction with the Orangewood Avenue Widening Project from State College Boulevard to
the Santa Ana River].
P124 8. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve, accept, and consent
to easements, grant deeds, quitclaim deeds, other conveyance instruments, and fee simple
dedications for streets, roadways, utilities, rights -of -way, and other purposes on behalf of the
City.
9. ORDINANCE NO. 6510 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
C280 amending portions of Ordinance No. 6506, nunc pro tunc, to correct clerical drafting errors in
Ordinance No. 6506, pertaining to the amendment of certain sections the Anaheim Municipal
Code [certain sections of Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone)
and Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading) of Title 18 (Zoning)]; (introduced at Council meeting
of April 27, 2021, Item No. 19).
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
D116 10. Discussion regarding elements and options related to hazard pay ordinances applicable to
grocery, retail and drug store workers.
Assistant City Manager Greg Garcia advised this is a discussion item regarding options for a hazard
pay ordinance applicable to grocery, retail, and drug store workers. He reported Council Member
Moreno requested this discussion at the April 27, 2021 meeting. He advised several local jurisdictions
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 7 of 13
have implemented such an ordinance over the past several months and noted staff is aware of 25
such ordinances statewide with 47 jurisdictions at least discussing one. He reported the neighboring
cities of Irvine, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, and Buena Park have passed such ordinances.
Mr. Garcia explained the ordinances vary from one jurisdiction to another but generally contain similar
parameters. He advised they include the scope of which employers are included, the amount of
hazard pay, and the duration of the ordinance.
Mr. Garcia compared the ordinances from the Orange County cities of Irvine, Santa Ana, Costa
Mesa, and Buena Park, noting they are fairly similar. He advised all four ordinances look at the size of
the employer on a local and national level based upon the number of employees, but advised he has
seen examples where the square footage of the store is a factor. He explained the hazard pay is an
additional $4 per hour in all four ordinances and the duration is either 90 or 120 days for each. He
advised the City of Irvine used a regular ordinance whereas the cities of Santa Ana, Buena Park, and
Costa Mesa did theirs by an emergency ordinance. He advised some jurisdictions, including the City
of Oakland, tied the timeline to the State's color -coded tier system.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno explained his preference is to have a discussion first before
formulating ideas for an ordinance, which is why this was agendized as a discussion item and not an
action item. He advised the City remains amid the pandemic and people are struggling to work with
customers who may not believe in vaccines or masking. He advised the work of those who kept
grocery stores open through the pandemic was heroic. He advised many of them suddenly became
single -wage earners for their homes with so many people being laid off. He noted these workers put
their best foot forward for the community and now face economic hardship. He advised it was
important to consider the hazard pay in a modest way to help the City avoid an economic catastrophe
by workers who stepped up for the City over the past 14 months.
Council Member Valencia thanked staff for compiling the information and Council Member Moreno for
agendizing the issue. He advised, at the onset of the pandemic, grocery stores and retail pharmacies
were the only place you could purchase essential items ranging from food to toilet paper and noted it
is to the credit of the workers who have been on the job throughout the health crisis. He advised it
was important to recognize the hard work and the risks they took for the good of the community. He
suggested a potential ordinance should focus the language on grocery, retail, and retail pharmacy
stores.
Council Member Valencia reported vaccines are now widely available, the City's COVID-19 data has
greatly improved, they are approaching a potential complete reopening on June 15, and proposed a
$3 hazard pay rate for 60 days. He noted many grocery retailers and retail pharmacies have seen
greatly increased profits due to the pandemic, but they cannot implement a blanket approach for all.
He reported, through his family, he has first-hand experience with the challenges of small business
owners. He proposed the hazard pay apply only to companies with at least 50 locations nationwide.
Council Member Diaz explained Anaheim has a free market economy. He advised there are many
countries where the government determines how much employees are paid, and they do not want to
be like Cuba, North Korea, and others. He advised the proper way to do this is through negotiations
between employees and their employers. He noted he was not confident of the constitutionality of
government picking at a specific industry and advised the City does not have the resources for
litigation. He reported the industry spent billions of dollars making the workplace safer for both
employees and customers and noted the solution is vaccination. He questioned why this would not
apply to police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, sanitation workers, and other essential workers.
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 8 of 13
He expressed concern that this move would increase the price of groceries and advised the City does
not need more regulations.
Council Member Moreno explained he called for this discussion item in part so the City Council could
all look together at the examples from other Orange County cities. He thanked Council Member
Valencia for his thoughts and noted he was open to his suggestions, especially the 50-store threshold
to ensure this did not impact small localized businesses. He advised reports of the immense profits by
corporate grocers were the impetus for discussion, as those corporations do stock buybacks in the
billions whereas workers receive little. Council Member Moreno explained the role of government is to
help its people and advised when workers were needed they stepped up even though it meant being
put in harm's way. He reported the City never adopted an ordinance making mask -wearing
mandatory.
Council Member Moreno reported this would help the City's economy, as there is research saying pay
increases given to hourly wage earners tend to be spent locally. He advised he would like to look at
both an emergency ordinance and a regular ordinance. He explained that helping these essential
workers is an urgent matter that would help them survive an anticipated upcoming turbulent economy
and noted it would be a good way to say thank you.
City Attorney Rob Fabela advised it was unclear if this was being agendized as discussion only or if
an action would be brought. He advised an emergency ordinance was not part of the original
agendizing request and urged Council Member Moreno or another to re -raise the agendizing
opportunity during Council Communications to provide staff guidance with where to go from here.
Council Member O'Neil reported thousands of workers have lost their jobs during the pandemic and
now City Council is discussing more money for a small number of people who were lucky to keep
their jobs. He expressed appreciation for their service to the community and their value. He advised
everyone knows someone who has lost a job, lost a loved one, is essential and worked through the
pandemic, or is on the list of professions provided by Council Member Diaz. He questioned why the
City Council was now talking about one narrow class of essential workers. He advised it was wrong
for the City Council to interfere with the private sector employer -employee relationship. He explained
government's role is to create a level playing field but not tip the scales in favor of one business. He
advised there would be consequences of reduced hours, job cuts, store closures, litigation, and
higher prices.
Council Member O'Neil expressed concern that unions were looking to the City to interfere in the
collective bargaining process. He advised the union had failed its workers by not being able to
negotiate this on its own and noted workers could opt out of paying union dues. He advised the
argument that a highly profitable company should pay workers more is an economic fallacy rooted in
the Marxian principle and noted he would not support the item.
Council Member Diaz advised countries that have tried to do this have failed their people. He
explained he escaped this system in Cuba and urged workers to not fall for this and suffer failing
policies. He advised the government does not determine how much the workers get paid but rather
their employer.
Council Member Moreno called for a point of order because Council Member O'Neil negatively
invoked his name. Mayor Sidhu denied the request and Council Member O'Neil advised he would
object to the question of privilege.
Mayor Sidhu recessed the City Council meeting at 6:59 P.M. and reconvened at 7:04 P.M.
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 9 of 13
DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno called for a Point of Privilege because his name was invoked
negatively by Council Member O'Neil. Mayor Sidhu denied the request.
Council Member Moreno expressed concern that Council Member O'Neil invoked his name knowing
he may not be allowed to respond. He thanked Mayor Sidhu for allowing him to speak and in
response to Council Member O'Neil's comments, he quoted Adam Smith from "The Wealth of
Nations" about owners discussing the interrelation of wages and the price of goods but nothing of
their profits.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel advised he had a 50-year career in retail and was uncomfortable,
philosophically, ' , in getting the City government involved in the area of wages. He noted he did not
support Proposition L for the same reason. He advised he was uncomfortable selecting specific
businesses to have a salary increase when other groups of workers assumed the same risks staying
on their jobs through the pandemic. He advised he could not support the item.
Council Member Brandman agreed with Council Member Valencia's statements.
Mayor Sidhu reported the City has worked since day one to fight the pandemic and restore the City's
economy. He noted the City was in a much different place now and has made great progress. He
advised the vaccine is now widely available and noted Anaheim residents are getting vaccinated in
significant numbers, with a focus on the hardest -hit neighborhoods. He reported residents are going
back to school and work while the major tourist attractions are coming back up to speed.
Mayor Sidhu reported hazard pay ordinances are winding down to an end as things will fully reopen
either June 15th or July 315t. He advised they are on a path forward to put the crisis behind them for
good. He explained Governor Newsom's plan is to reopen the economy and end the color code
system with ongoing common-sense public health measures. He explained now was not the time to
move forward with a hazard pay ordinance and risk counter -productive consequences by singling out
one industry. He further explained this move could lead to higher prices, place the City in the middle
of the collective bargaining process, and lead to potential lawsuits at a time when the State is
planning to fully reopen on June 151.
Discussion item — No action taken.
D116 11. Update on the City's response to COVID-19.
Mayor Sidhu advised they continue to see improvement in the fight against COVID-19. He reported
today Orange County reached numbers allowing it to move into the yellow Tier 3 if it says at that level
for another week. He praised the City's ability to reopen while driving down cases. He advised the
City is on track to reopen ahead of Governor Newsom's Beyond the Blueprint plan's schedule of June
15.
Mayor Sidhu reported vaccines are working and thanked those who have been vaccinated. He
explained there is no reason for residents to wait any longer if they have not been vaccinated and
noted it has never been easier. He advised the City will be going deeper into neighborhoods to put
herd immunity within reach for the City.
Chief Communications Officer Mike Lyster presented the City and County primary data points,
reflecting numbers low enough to potentially move to the yellow Tier 3 on May 19. He advised the
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 10 of 13
seven zip codes all post very low numbers for case rate and positivity rate. He advised 92802 and
92808 show slight increases but within a standard fluctuation.
Mr. Lyster reported the City is nearing 500,000 vaccinations administered in Anaheim, with a sum of
494,000 including 257,000 at the Anaheim Convention Center and 5,000 in neighborhood clinics. He
reported the Convention Center site will close on June 5.
Mr. Lyster presented the percentages of vaccinated residents by zip code, with those 65 and over
ranging from 75% to 86% and those under 65 years of age ranging from 34% to 44%. He advised the
City would continue to see incremental gains in these numbers and reported 60% of Anaheim's
eligible residents have received at least one shot with an assumption most of them are fully
vaccinated.
Mr. Lyster detailed the 2,267 vaccines administered through the Community Services Department
and its partnerships since January. He advised the City is doing 2-3 vaccination clinics a week. He
directed residents to the City's website for information on when and where the neighborhood clinics
would be held. He explained residents do not need an appointment and reported the City has begun
going deeper into neighborhoods through micro clinics using mobile equipment and pop-up tents.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tern Faessel praised Mr. Lyster's updates and the City's website. He
advised the City is achieving what he always wanted in getting resources deep enough into
neighborhoods to give shots on the curb. He advised the ability to take walk-ups is a significant
achievement, noting the challenges of registration a few months ago.
Council Member Valencia commended the City team for the citywide expansion of vaccine service to
the point they can have walk-ups. He encouraged residents to do their part to keep the City safe.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Lyster advised the Convention Center remains
a great option through June 5. He explained the best way for residents to get information on micro
clinics in their neighborhood is through the City's website and noted Community Services would be
having 2-3 clinics per week. He advised residents could make an appointment if so desired. He
reported the County was looking to do more neighborhood clinics as well and encouraged residents
to check the County's website for its vaccine opportunities.
Informational item — No action taken.
PUBLIC HEARING:
13137.1 12. This is a public hearing to consider the approval of the issuance of tax-exempt solid waste
disposal revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority in an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $703,700,000 for the financing of certain costs by Republic
Services, Inc., in conjunction with improvements to an existing hauling/collection/transfer
station/material recovery facility, located at 1131 N. Blue Gum St., Anaheim, CA 92806, in an
amount not to exceed $18,000,000.
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a plan of finance for the issuance of California Municipal
Finance Authority Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not
to exceed $703,700,000 for the purpose of financing and refinancing the acquisition,
construction, installation, rehabilitation, improvement and/or equipping of solid waste disposal
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 11 of 13
facilities by Republic Services, Inc. and certain affiliates thereof, and certain other matters
relating thereto.
Finance Director Debbie Moreno reported the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) has
requested the City hold a Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing on behalf of
Republic Services, Inc. to issue tax-exempt bonds. She advised the hearing is an opportunity for
members of the community to speak on the use of bonds. She noted the bonds would come from the
CMFA, not the City, and be payable solely from revenues pledged by Republic Services.
James Castro, Republic Services, advised that the funds would allow flexibility to help them improve
their facilities and possibly invest in environmentally -friendly trucks. He advised this would allow them
to best serve Anaheim customers and meet State mandates.
Mayor Sidhu opened the public hearing.
No in -person public comments were made regarding Public Hearing Item No. 12.
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that a total of two (2) public comments were received electronically
prior to 7:00 P.M. related to Public Hearing Item No. 12. [A final total of two (2) public comments were
received electronically and distributed to the City Council and made part of the official record]. — See
Appendix.
Mayor Sidhu closed the public hearing.
DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tern Faessel's inquiry, Ms. Moreno confirmed a portion of
the money is for refinancing.
In response to Mayor Pro Tern Faessel's inquiry, Anthony Stubbs, CMFA representative, confirmed
the original bond sale was in 2012.
Council Member Moreno praised the work of Republic Services during the pandemic.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Stubbs confirmed the refinancing would not
create a rate increase and clarified they are revenue bonds that are repaid by revenue generated by
the facility. He clarified there is no assurance in the documents it would not result in a rate hike but he
advised this is a standard practice of the industry. He confirmed there is no direct rate increase
relative to this bond issuance. He clarified today's revenues are sufficient to repay the bonds and
advised the savings from the refinancing helps Republic Services with its operating costs, which
keeps the rates from going up. Ms. Moreno explained Republic Services' ability to issue tax-exempt
bonds helps keep the rates down. Mr. Stubbs advised Republic Services would be the obligated party
if there was a default on the bonds.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Faessel moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2021-043 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a plan of finance for
the issuance of California Municipal Finance Authority Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Bonds in an
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $703,700,000 for the purpose of financing and refinancing
the acquisition, construction, installation, rehabilitation, improvement and/or equipping of solid waste
disposal facilities by Republic Services, Inc. and certain affiliates thereof, and certain other matters
relating thereto, seconded by Council Member Valencia. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 12 of 13
and Council Members Faessel, Diaz, Brandman, Moreno, Valencia, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion
carried
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (non -agenda items): None
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA REQUESTS:
Council Member Moreno requested an agenda item for May 18, 2021, to consider both an urgency
and traditional ordinance related to hazard pay including the suggestions from Council Member
Valencia of $3/hour for 60 days and reviewing the threshold of 50 or more stores, concurred by
Council Members Valencia and Brandman. He requested the City Clerk provide a memo covering
requirements, options, and timelines for the redistricting process. He announced a District 3
neighborhood Zoom meeting with the Anaheim Police Department regarding street racing on May 13
at 6:30 P.M., with details available via Facebook, the webpage, or by calling his office. He thanked
Anaheim Public Utilities and staff for facilitating a conversation with the City of Fullerton regarding
PFAs at the La Palma Water Wells to address neighborhood concerns about the height of the tanks.
He congratulated all graduating seniors, university graduates, and all those promoting between
grades for their accomplishments.
Council Member Diaz requested staff bring an item back to Council for a review of current ordinances
related to street vendors with recommendations to address community concerns and the safety of
residents and the vendors, concurred by Council Members Brandman and O'Neil.
Council Member Valencia acknowledged the Housing Authority staff and the City management team
for mitigating challenges in the Hermosa Village neighborhood. He congratulated graduates, wished
a Happy Teachers Day to all educators, and wished his wife, Monica, a happy second anniversary.
Mayor Pro Tern Faessel requested the meeting adjourn in memory of Boys and Girls Club Executive
Director John Machiaverna, a leader in revitalizing Manzanita Park, former chairperson of the
Anaheim Public Utilities Board, and local businessman. He also asked that the meeting adjourns in
memory of Paul Van Doren, co-founder of Anaheim business Vans Shoes, who recently died at the
age of 90. He offered congratulations for the reopening of Disneyland and Disney California
Adventure on April 30, reported his attendance last Saturday at the ABC SoCal Craft Championship
competition for electrical and plumbing work, thanked Public Works for cleaning graffiti off the newly
reopened Underhill Bridge that serves Sunkist School, acknowledged he celebrated Mother's Day
with his wife, Susan, announced the groundbreaking of 39 Commons on Wednesday, and the YMCA
ribbon -cutting ceremony later this week.
Council Member O'Neil requested the review of street vending also includes labor trafficking and he
hoped to work with Council Member Diaz and staff on the item. The addition of labor trafficking was
concurred by all original approving council members. '
Council Member Brandman shared his experiences with John Machiaverna and offered thoughts and
prayers to his family. He thanked all those who reached out to him regarding the last statement and
noted he was almost fully recovered.
Mayor Sidhu noted the Resort was partially reopened with safety precautions and limited capacity,
congratulated the Disneyland Corporation, acknowledged the Angels for playing well, and looked
City Council Minutes of May 11, 2021
Page 13 of 13
forward to entering the Yellow Tier soon and fully reopening on June 15. He encouraged everyone to
get the vaccine.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 7:55 P.M., Mayor Sidhu adjourned the City Council meeting in memory of Paul Van Doren and
John Machiaverna.
Re ully submitted,
sa ss, CMC
City Cie k
Jennifer L. Hall
Subject: FW: Ralphs and Food 4 Less in Anaheim
From: Votava, John <lohn.votava@ralphs.com>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 10:09 AM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz
<JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Jordan Brandman <JBrandman@anaheim.net>; Avelino Valencia <AValencia@anaheim.net>;
Trevor O'Neil <TONeil@anaheim.net>; Jose Moreno <JMoreno@anaheim.net>
Cc: Annie Mezzacappa <AMezzacappa@anaheim.net>; Amanda Edinger <AEdinger@anaheim.net>; Sarah Bartczak
<SBartczak@anaheim.net>; Claudia Perez <ClPerez@anaheim.net>; Luiz Torres <LTorres2@anaheim.net>; Justin Glover
<JGlover@anaheim.net>; Karen Romero Estrada <KRomeroEstrada@anaheim.net>; Rosales, Vanessa E
<vanessa.rosales@food4less.com>
Subject: Ralphs and Food 4 Less in Anaheim
Honorable Mayor Sidhu and Distinguished Members of the Anaheim City Council,
Ralphs Grocery Company and Food 4 Less thank you and the City Council for your leadership throughout the COVID-19
pandemic, in addition to your care and concern for grocery workers in the City of Anaheim. While we appreciate the
upcoming discussion that is anticipated tomorrow regarding Extra Pay for Grocery Workers, we have not received any
outreach from the city and I wanted to ask that you not make any policy decisions before first speaking with the
businesses that will be impacted by your decision.
Our associates are our greatest asset. Since the start of the pandemic, Ralphs, Food 4 Less and all Kroger frontline
associates have received a series of rewards in the form of one-time cash payments, temporary hourly wage increases
and store credits. I urge you to visit https://www.thekrogerco.com/life-at-kroger/ to learn what has already been
accomplished to date with regard to rewarding associates for a job well-done.
In order to protect our associates, customers and communities, the cost of doing business expanded greatly in 2020. Our
company rose to meet the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic head on by investing $2.5 billion to both reward our
associates and strengthen pensions, while also implementing dozens of safety measures for the protection of our
associates and customers.
For more than 147 years, Ralphs and Food 4 Less have been strong community partners by offering competitive wages,
world -class medical benefits and a stable pension for retirement. But sustainable operations are becoming more
difficult. You may have seen that the City of Los Angeles' mandate requiring an extra $5 an hour will create an additional
$20 million in operating costs over the 120 day span of the order. This is on top of the average total compensation of
$24 an hour for Ralphs and Food 4 Less associates in the city— one of the highest in the industry. In fact, the city's own
Economic Impact Report advised against moving ahead with the mandate. If you'd like to learn more about grocery
retail and the financial effects of Extra Pay ordinances, please visit this link.
To be clear, Ralphs, Food 4 Less and Kroger are committed to long-term wage increases. In fact, our company
announced recently that we will be investing another $350 million in associate wages this year nationwide. However, we
are opposed to mandated increases that apply to some, but not all frontline workers and not all companies that employ
frontline workers. As an example, several extra pay ordinances, including the increases in Long Beach, Seattle and other
West Coast cities don't include popular big box retailers, nor do most of the ordinances include any business outside of
grocery and drug retail that were considered essential and remained open during the pandemic.
Of the nearly 1,500 cities in California, only 25 have voted to enact an Extra Pay ordinance. And with Governor
Newsom's announcement to fully open California by June 15, the timing of such an ordinance is questionable.
While extra pay for grocery workers won't make them any safer, the vaccine will. Ralphs and Food 4 Less are offering a
$100 payment to associates who get vaccinated, as we are committed to be part of the solution and safeguard the
health and safety of our communities.
Thank you for reading and for giving this topic the care and consideration it requires. We look forward to hearing from
you regarding a meeting to discuss this matter in depth. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Kindest regards,
John
Josliii n Votciva I Director, C`orrj.)orzfe Affairs
R alphs I Lh e Kroger Co.
so
I lnus e ima� lil message, liugr,llu6igp any Hac,lnirneiqu s, us ft)r fl] ne soy e use ()i fllne liuqisuqdr.d ur;r;uplieigq (s) and im y coiq� liuq
uInft)II'lin trlion flIn � lis r,onfiden li 11 and pr()iecied by Il es fi,()im uiga uilh()i zed 6sck)suuure Any uiga uilln()iJzed ureve , use,
6sck)suuuire or 6storvlilbLifiion lis prollnlibl bed I�:: you are flhe uuqieiigded urvr:.r,upueiq�, I�)lre se coiq� r,i flhe sender by ureply e irnalil nd
destroy IIII copl s ()� flhe ourvlipliuq 11 message
Public Comment
From: Ryan Allain <ryan@calretailers.com>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 11:53 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment in Opposition to Item #10 -- Premium Pay Ordinance
Attachments: Ahaheim Letter - 5.10.21.pdf
Hello --
On behalf of the California Retailers Association and Californians for a Safe and Rapid Recovery, please see the
attached letter in respectful opposition to Item #10 the proposed premium pay ordinance scheduled to be
heard at the May 11th City Council meeting.
Please reach out if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Ryan Allain
Manager, State and Local Government Affairs
California Retailers Association
1121 L Street, Suite 607
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 443-1975
Job s IN ot lPo I I tics. co rTI
May 10, 2021
The Honorable Harry S. Sidhu
Mayor
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Mayor Sidhu and Members of the City Council:
Californians for a Safe and Rapid Recovery represents a diverse and growing coalition
that opposes government -mandated premium pay ordinances (see attached for a full list
of our coalition members). While mandated premium pay ordinances vary, the effects and
unintended consequences of increasing labor costs on retailers by as much as 30 percent
are the same:
Counterproductive for Workers
• 66,000 Californians could lose their jobs if premium pay mandates are enacted
statewide on top of postponing hiring, promotions, and raises for employees.'
• Five grocery stores have already closed in other cities as a result of government -
mandated premium pay.
Increases the Cost of Living
• Adds about $400 to the annual cost of food and household supplies for the typical
family of four in California.2
• Higher costs for food, diapers, and clothes will disproportionately impact those who
can least afford it.
Hurt Communities
• A final blow to stores under financial pressure — forcing them to close and creating
voids for the communities that rely on them.
• Vacant storefronts will further depress struggling neighborhoods and worsen
pressing issues like homelessness.
• Local retail stores are part of the fabric of communities — often giving back to
schools, supporting food banks, and contributing to non -profits.
Reports of windfall profits are over simplified. In 2020, food retailers supported employees
by providing over $17 billion in added benefits, bonuses and voluntary premium pay on
top of regular wages, while also hiring a record number of new employees.3 Retailers also
invested $4 billion in personal protective equipment and other safeguards to protect both
their workers and customers.4 Further, the.City co Ik�in�iin�pq„p ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„, ,„,r,
"CC,fp,s„Ly,trl,t,falnd C O,frl,trl,tuArky Oirri2acts of Hazard Play Mandates," Capitol Matrix Consulting, January 2021
z C22_ u�rl,t,f,,,InLl„_Q2m.trl,Li.nJ,ty Lim acts of Hazaird Pay Mandates," Capitol Matrix Consulting, January 2021
3 ",IEII,,E,t,Derriainds And 011:)erate Safe0y Arriud Covud19,"
By The Food Industry Association, March 31, 2021
4 ",I ,t w„_I,W;,IUA,�,,,,f�,t,�ort 1=u�ods G��oce�s O�ovested $24 C�u00uo�o I o IUleet O�oc�eased C;o�osu�rie� Derriainds And C7�erate Saf fly Airriud C;ovud..10,"
By The Food Industry Association, March 31, 2021
A project of the Cafifornia RetaHers Association.
found mandated premium pay would "eliminate all current profit margin" for retailers —
forcing them to raise prices or close stores.
Premium pay mandates put local governments in the middle of employer and labor
bargaining processes. Rather, local governments should be focusing on quickly
administering vaccinations to keep California's COVID-19 positivity rate low, while
ensuring a rapid economic recovery.
With Governor Newsom committing to remove the tier system and reopen the state on
June 15 and COVID-19 deaths and positivity rate steadily declining in Orange County,
now is not the time to risk the unintended consequences of government -mandated
premium pay.
We are encouraged by the cities of Arcata, Eureka, Fresno, Morgan Hill, Pasadena, San
Carlos and Whittier who recognized that government -mandated premium pay is
counterproductive.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rachel Michelin
President
California Retailers Association
Attached:
• Californians for a Safe and Rapid Recovery coalition list
The following organizations are members of Californians for a Safe and Rapid Recovery and
opponents of government -mandated premium pay that is counterproductive for workers and hurts
consumers and our communities.
• Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
• Antelope Valley Chamber of
Commerce
• Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce
• Brea Chamber of Commerce
• Building Owners and Managers
Association, Orange County
• California African American Chamber
of Commerce
• California Asian Pacific Chamber of
Commerce
• California Business Properties
Association
• California Business Roundtable
• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Hispanic Chambers of
Commerce
• California Retailers Association
• California Taxpayers' Coalition
• California Taxpayer Protection
Committee
• Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
• Central Valley Business Federation
• Central Valley Taxpayers Association
• Century City Chamber of Commerce
• Chamber of Commerce and Civic
Association of Pasadena
• Consumer Choice Center
• Culver City Chamber of Commerce
• Family Business Association of
California
• Fountain Valley Chamber of
Commerce
• Fresno Chamber of Commerce
• Fresno County Farm Bureau
• Gardena Valley Chamber of
Commerce
• Gilroy Chamber of Commerce
• Greater San Fernando Valley
Chamber of Commerce
• Kern County Taxpayers Association
• LAX Coastal Chamber of Commerce
• Long Beach Area Chamber of
Commerce
• Los Angeles County Business
Federation
• Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of
Commerce
• National Association of Chain Drug
Stores
• National Federation of Independent
Business - California
• National Retail Federation
• Norco Area Chamber of Commerce
• Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
• Orange County Business Council
• Orange County Taxpayers
Association
• Placer County Taxpayers
Association
• San Diego Tax Fighters
• San Gabriel Valley Economic
Partnership
• San Leandro Chamber of Commerce
• San Pedro Chamber of Commerce
• Santa Maria Valley Chamber of
Commerce
• Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association
• South Orange County Economic
Coalition
• Southwest California Legislative
Council
• Torrance Area Chamber of
Commerce
• Valley Industry and Commerce
Association
• West Hollywood Chamber of
Commerce
• Wilmington Chamber of Commerce
• Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce
A IpiroUect of the California If�etaiilleirs Association.
Public Comment
From: Tim James <tjames@CAGrocers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 12:36 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Jose Diaz; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno;
Avelino Valencia; Trevor O'Neil
Cc: Public Comment; City Clerk
Subject: Grocery Worker Pay - 5-11 Agenda
Attachments: Anaheim Grocery Pay LTR 5-11-21.pdf, CGA - Letter to Anaheim City Council -
4485352.pdf, 2021- Extra- Pay- Mandates-Economic-Study.pdf
Councilmembers, please accept the attached letters and documents regarding the grocery pay worker. Please contact
me directly to discuss. Thank you for your consideration. Tim
Timothy James
Director, Local Government Relations
California Grocers Association
916-448-3545
May 11, 2021
The Honorable Harry Sidhu
Mayor, City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Grocery Worker Pay
Dear Mayor Sidhu,
On behalf of Anaheim grocers, I write to ask the Council to not move forward with the proposed grocery worker premium pay
ordinance given the numerous negative consequences to grocery workers, neighborhoods and the grocery industry. Based on
the consequences experienced in other jurisdictions with similar ordinances, we must oppose the ordinance for both policy
and legal reasons.
We agree that grocery workers serve a vital and essential role during the pandemic. They have worked tirelessly to keep
stores open for consumers, allowing our communities to have uninterrupted access to food and medications. To protect our
employees, grocery stores were among the first to implement numerous safety protocols, including providing PPE and masks,
performing wellness checks, enhancing sanitation and cleaning, limiting store capacity, and instituting social distance
requirements, among other actions.
On top of increased safety measures, grocery employees have also received unprecedented amounts of supplemental paid
leave to care for themselves and their families in addition to already existing leave benefits. Grocers have also provided
employees additional pay and benefits throughout the pandemic in various forms, including hourly and bonus pay, along with
significant discounts and complimentary groceries. All of these safety efforts and additional benefits clearly demonstrate
grocers' dedication and appreciation for their employees. Most importantly the industry has been fierce advocates for grocery
workers to be prioritized for vaccinations.
Unfortunately, a Grocery Worker Pay ordinance would mandate grocery stores provide additional pay beyond what is feasible,
which would severely impact store viability and result in increased prices for groceries, limited operating hours, reduced hours
for workers, fewer workers per store, and most concerning, possible store closures. These negative impacts from the
ordinance would be felt most acutely by independent grocers, ethnic format stores, and stores serving low-income
neighborhoods. The Cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Seattle, who have passed a similar ordinance, have already suffered
the permanent loss of several full -service grocery stores as direct result.
We request the City of Anaheim perform an economic impact report to understand the true impacts of this policy. If you
choose not to understand specific impacts for Anaheim, then we refer you to the economic impact report from the City of Los
Angeles Legislative Analyst Office and the San Francisco Office of the Controller. These reports make it clear that the impact of
this policy will severely impact workers, consumers, and grocery stores.
In their own words the Los Angeles City Legislative Analyst clearly states that grocery "companies would be required to take
action to reduce costs or increase revenue as the labor increase will eliminate all current profit margin." The report recognizes
that "affected companies could raise prices to counteract the additional wage cost." This type of ordinance would put "more
pressure on struggling stores (especially independent grocers) which could lead to store closures" and that "the closure of
stores could lead to an increase in 'food deserts' that lack access to fresh groceries."
The San Francisco Controller's Office in their Economic Impact Report urges decision -makers to consider "the distributional
impact of having local consumers, including low-income households, pay for wage mandates that lead to higher labor costs
for business." The report identifies the ordinance will "possibly lead to reduced employment and higher consumer prices.
These costs would generate negative multiplier effects on other local industries and sectors of the local economy."
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION 1 1005 12th Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814
P: (916) 448-3545 1 F: (916) 448-2793 1 www.cagrocers.com
May 11, 2021
PAGE 2
It is important to recognize the current state of COVID. All grocery employees have been able to receive the vaccine since
February 28. Orange County will soon be entering the Minimal Risk Tier which is the lowest risk available to any California
community. As part of your current status Anaheim has chosen to reopen or decrease restrictions for a significant portion of
the economy including venues previously closed or limited such as bars, restaurants and entertainment venues. These
openings are a clear signal that throughout Anaheim both visitors and workers across all business activities are now
considered safe from COVID with proper precautions.
Specific to ordinance language, there are numerous policy and legal issues which unnecessarily single out the grocery industry
and create significant burdens. The ordinance fails to recognize the current efforts grocers are making to support their
employees and requires grocers add significant costs on to existing employee benefit programs.
Furthermore, passing this ordinance improperly inserts the city into employee -employer contractual relationships. The
ordinance also ignores other essential workers, including city employees, that have similar interaction with the public. Taken
in whole, this ordinance is clearly intended to impact only specific stores within a single industry and fails to recognize the
contributions of all essential workers. Based on language specifics, this ordinance misses a genuine effort to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the public.
Emergency passage of the ordinance also ignores any reasonable effort for compliance by impacted stores, as several grocery
stores will be operating at the time of passage. By implementing the ordinance immediately there is literally no time to
communicate to employees, post notices, adjust payroll processes, and other necessary steps as required by California law.
Grocery workers have demonstrated exemplary effort to keep grocery stores open for Anaheim. This why the grocery industry
has provided significant safety measures and historic levels of benefits that include additional pay and bonuses. It is also why
vaccinating grocery workers has been our first priority. Unfortunately, this ordinance is a significant overreach of policy and
jurisdictional control. This will result in negative consequences for workers and consumers that will only be compounded by
the pandemic.
We respectfully implore the Council to not move forward with the grocery worker pay ordinance at this time. We encourage
you to recognize and understand the impacts of this ordinance on workers and the community by accepting our invitation to
work cooperatively with Anaheim grocers. CGA is submitting additional information from our legal counsel for your
consideration.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to combating the pandemic in partnership with the City of Anaheim.
Sincerely,
TimotyJames
Y
California Groc s ssociation
CC: Members, Anaheim City Council
City Clerk, City of Anaheim
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION 1 1005 12th Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814
P: (916) 448-3545 1 F: (916) 448-2793 1 www.cagrocers.com
425 MARKET STREET
F Q E R S T E, R SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000
FAC SB1I LE: 415.268.7522
V"- Ixtiw'.i�I()F().(:)i�I
May 11, 2021
Via Email
The Honorable Harry S. Sidhu
City Hall Council Chambers
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
First Floor
Anaheim, California 92805
NIORRISO\ & 10I RST I LLP
13I I]I\0, 13IIRIA\, 130S'10\, 13R1'SSI: LSD
llI^\\+I R 110\G h0\G 1,0\1)0\
L0S A GI'LI S \I:\ 1'0RI� PA LT 0 AL0
S ;1\ DIII00 S�1\ I R;1\(.IS (:0 I11A G11A1
S I\GA 0R I's 'I()K 0, UAS II\0T0\1), C,
Writer's Direct Contact
+1 (415) 268.6358
WTarantino@mofoxom
Re: Hazard Pay for Grocery, Retail, and Drug Store Workers Ordinance
Dear Council Members:
We write on behalf of our client, the California Grocers Association (the "CGA"), regarding
the proposal on the City Council's May 11, 2021 agenda to consider a "hazard pay"
ordinance for grocery workers in Anaheim. Any hazard pay ordinance will compel grocers
in Anaheim to spend less on worker and public health protections in order to avoid losses
that could lead to closures. In addition, an ordinance would interfere with the collective -
bargaining process protected by the National Labor Relations Act (the "NLRA"), and unduly
targets certain grocers in violation of their constitutional equal protection rights. We
respectfully request that the City Council take a careful and considered look at these issues
before making any decision on a hazard pay ordinance.
Hazard pay ordinances do not address frontline workers' health and safety. The purported
purpose of these ordinances are to protect the public health and safety, but these ordinances
as proposed in every city have been devoid of any requirements related to the health and
safety of frontline workers or the general public and instead imposes costly burdens on
certain grocers by requiring them to provide mandatory wage increases of up to $5.00 per
hour for all hours worked. A wage increase does not play any role in mitigating the risks of
exposure to COVID-19, nor is there any evidence that grocery store workers are exposed to
higher risks than other essential workers. If anything, an ordinance could increase those
risks, as it may divert funds that otherwise would have been available for grocers to continue
their investments in public health measures recognized to be effective: enhancing sanitation
and cleaning protocols, limiting store capacity, expanding online orders and curbside pickup
service, and increasing spacing and social distancing requirements.
sf-4485352
MORRISON I FOERSTER
These ordinances choose winners and losers among frontline workers in mandating wage
increases. Other retail and health care workers are ignored, despite the fact that those same
workers have been reporting to work since March.
Hazard pay ordinances are unconstitutional. By mandating hazard pay, the City would
improperly insert itself into the middle of the collective bargaining process protected by the
National Labor Relations Act. Grocers have continued to operate, providing food and
household items to protect public health and safety. In light of the widespread decrease in
economic activity, there is also no reason to believe that grocery workers are at any particular
risk of leaving their jobs, but even if there were such a risk, grocers would have every
incentive to increase the workers' compensation or otherwise bargain with them to improve
retention. A hazard pay ordinance would interfere with this process, which Congress
intended to be left to be controlled by the free -play of economic forces. Machinists v.
Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976).
For example, in Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Bragdon, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals held as preempted an ordinance mandating employers to pay a predetermined wage
scale to employees on certain private industrial construction projects. 64 F.3d 497 (9th Cir.
1995). The ordinance's purported goals included "promot[ing] safety and higher quality of
construction in large industrial projects" and "maintain[ing] and improv[ing] the standard of
living of construction workers, and thereby improv[ing] the economy as a whole." Id. at
503. The Ninth Circuit recognized that this ordinance "differ[ed] from the [a locality's]
usual exercise of police power, which normally seeks to assure that a minimum wage is paid
to all employees within the county to avoid unduly imposing on public services such as
welfare or health services." Id. at 503. Instead, the ordinance was an "economic weapon"
meant to influence the terms of the employers' and their workers' contract. Id. at 501-04.
The Ninth Circuit explained that the ordinance would "redirect efforts of employees not to
bargain with employers, but instead, to seek to set specialized minimum wage and benefit
packages with political bodies," thereby substituting a "free -play of economic forces that was
intended by the NLRA" with a "free -play of political forces." Id. at 504.
While the City has the power to enact ordinances to further the health and safety of its
citizens, it is prohibited from interfering directly in employers' and their employees'
bargaining process by arbitrarily forcing grocers to provide wages that are unrelated to
minimum labor standards, or the health and safety of the workers and the general public.
While minimum labor standards that provide a mere backdrop for collective bargaining are
consistent with the NLRA, local laws such as a hazard pay ordinance, which effectively
dictate the outcome of the college bargaining process, are preempted. An ordinance such as
the one proposed here imposes unusually strict terms on a narrow band of businesses without
any allowance for further bargaining. By enacting an ordinance such as this, the City would
end any negotiations by rewriting contracts.
Hazard pay ordinances also violate the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution's Equal
Protection Clauses (the "Equal Protection Clauses"). The Equal Protection Clauses provide
sf-4485352
MORRISON I FOERSTER
for "equal protections of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Cal. Const. art I, § 7(a).
This guarantee is "essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated
alike" and "secure[s] every person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional and
arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper
execution through duly constituted agents." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473
U.S. 432, 439 (1985); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). No law
may draw classifications that do not "rationally further a legitimate state interest."
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992). By requiring that any classification "bear a
rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, [courts] ensure that
classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by law."
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).
As discussed above, these ordinances unfairly target traditional grocery companies and
ignore other generic retailers and other businesses that employ frontline workers. See Fowler
Packing Co., Inc. v. Lanier, 844 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2016) ("[L]egislatures may not draw
lines for the purpose of arbitrarily excluding individuals," even to "protect" those favored
groups' "expectations."); Hays v. Wood, 25 Cal. 3d 772, 786-87 (1979) ("[N]othing opens
the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow [state] officials to pick and choose only
a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that
might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected."). Moreover, as an ordinance
that would impinge on fundamental rights to be free of legislative impairment of existing
contractual agreements, this ordinance would be subject to heightened scrutiny by courts.
See, e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982); Hydrick v. Hunter, 449 F.3d 978, 1002
(9th Cir. 2006); Long Beach City Employees Ass'n v. City of Long Beach, 41 Cal.3d 937, 948
(1986). The City's unilateral modification of contractual terms governing wages and hours
of grocery employees would go to the very heart of bargained -for agreements.
For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully request that the City Council reject any
proposal for a hazard pay ordinance.
Sincerely,
�V&_
William F. Tarantino
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Stephen Faessel
Jose Diaz
Jordan Brandman
Jose F. Moreno
sf-4485352
MORRISON I FOERSTER
Avelino Valencia
Trevor O'Neil
sf-4485352
onsumer and ommun ty Impacts1
Hazard Pay Mandates
,;,p i
Californiar Association
Prepared by:
Brad Williams, Chief Economis)
Michael C. Genest, Founder 1 Chairman
Capitol1 g
C.'a sur it and C.'arnirnuirift Ilir 11 act f 111azair IIPay Mandates
The authors are partners with Capitol Matrix Consulting (CMC), a firm that provides consulting
services on a wide range of economic, taxation, and state -and -local government budget issues.
Together, they have over 80 years of combined experience in economic and public policy analysis.
Mike Genest founded Capitol Matrix Consulting (originally Genest Consulting) in 2010 after concluding
a 32-year career in state government, which culminated as Director of the California Department of
Finance (DOF) under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Prior to his four-year stint as the Governor's
chief fiscal policy advisor, Mr. Genest held top analytical and leadership positions in both the executive
and legislative branches of government These included Undersecretary of the Health and Human
Services Agency, Staff Director of the Senate Republican Fiscal Office, Chief of Administration of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and Director of the Social Services section of
California's Legislative Analyst's Office.
Brad Williams joined Capitol Matrix Consulting in 2011, after having served in various positions
in state government for 33 years. Mr. Williams served for over a decade as the chief economist for
the Legislative Analyst's Office, where he was considered one of the state's top experts on the tax
system, the California economy, and government revenues. He was recognized by the Wall Street
Journal as the most accurate forecaster of the California economy in the 1990s, and has authored
numerous studies related to taxation and the economic impacts of policy proposals. Immediately
prior to joining CMC, Mr. Williams served as a consultant to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, where he advised leadership of the majority party on proposed legislation relating to
taxation, local government, labor, and banking.
C.'ainsurn it and C.'arnirm uirift limpacts ct f 1-11azaird Pay Mandates
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 4
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 6
BACKGROUND - GROCERY IS A LOW -MARGIN, HIGH -LABOR COST BUSINESS ................................ 6
COVID-19 TEMPORARILY BOOSTED PROFITS........................................................................................................................ 6
BUT THE INCREASES ARE SUBSIDING........................................................................................................................................ 7
MANY STORES INCUR LOSSES IN NORMAL YEARS................................................................................................................... 8
MANDATED WAGE INCREASES WOULD PUSH MOST STORES INTO DEFICITS...................................................................... 8
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CONSUMERS, WORKERS AND COMMUNITIES ............................................. 8
HIGHER COSTS PASSED ALONG TO CONSUMERS...................................................................................................................... 9
HIGHER COSTS ARE OFFSET BY JOB AND HOURS WORKED REDUCTIONS............................................................................ 9
SOME COMMUNITIES WOULD LIKELY BECOME FOOD DESSERTS........................................................................................10
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Executive Summary
Hazard -pay mandates passed in the City of Long Beach and under consideration in the City of Los
Angeles and in other local jurisdictions would raise pay for grocery workers by as much as $5.00 per
hour. Since the average pay for grocery workers in California is currently about $18.00 per hour, a
$5.00 increase would raise store labor costs by 28 percent, and have major negative impacts on
grocery stores, their employees and their customers. Specifically:
Average profit margins in the grocery industry were 1.4% in 2019, with a significant number
of stores operating with net losses. While profits increased temporarily to 2.2% during early
to mid 2020, quarterly data indicates that profit margins were subsiding to historical levels as
2020 drew to a close.
Wage -related labor expenses account for about 16 percent of total sales in the grocery
industry. As a result, a 28 percent increase in wages would boost overall costs 4.5 percent
under the City of Los Angeles proposal of $5.00 per hour. This increase would be twice the size
of the 2020 industry profit margin and three times historical grocery profit margins.
In order to survive such an increase, grocers would need to raise prices to consumers and/or
find substantial offsetting cuts to their controllable operating expenses, which would mean
workforce reductions. As an illustration of the potential magnitude of each of these impacts,
we considered two extremes:
1) All of the higher wage costs (assuming the $5.00/hour proposal) are passed through to
consumers in the form of higher retail prices:
• This would result in a $400 per year increase in grocery costs for a typical family of
four, an increase of 4.5 percent.
• If implemented in the City of Los Angeles, its residents would pay $450 million more
for groceries over a year.
• The increase would hit low- and moderate -income families hard, particularly those
struggling with job losses and income reductions due to COVID-19.
• If implemented statewide, additional grocery costs would be $4.5 billion per year in
California.
2) Retail prices to consumers are not raised and all the additional costs are offset through a
reduction in store expenses:
• Given that labor costs are by far the largest controllable expense for stores, it is
highly likely that the wage mandates will translate into fewer store hours, fewer
employee hours, and fewer jobs.
➢ For a store with 50 full-time equivalent employees, it would take a reduction of
11 employees to offset the increased wage costs, or a 22% decrease in staff.
➢ If the mandate were imposed statewide at $5.00 per hour, the job loss would be
66,000 workers.
IN
➢ If imposed in the City of Los Angeles, the job loss would be 7,000 workers.
➢ And in the City of Long Beach, the job impact of its $4.00 per hour mandate
would be 775 jobs.
➢ Stores could alternatively avoid job reductions by cutting hours worked by 22
percent.
• For the significant share of stores already operating with net losses, a massive
government -mandated wage increase would likely result in store closures, thereby
expanding the number of "food deserts" (i.e. communities with no fresh -food options).
C.'an uir it and C.'arnirnuirifty Ilirnpa t of 111azaird IlFlay Mandates
WITMITO
The Long Beach City Council has passed an ordinance that mandates grocers to provide a $4.00 per
hour pay increase - "hazard pay" - to grocery workers. The mandate expires in 120 days. Two
members of the Los Angeles City have introduced a similar measure for a $5.00 per hour increase
for companies that employ more than 300 workers nationwide. Grocery workers in California
currently earn about $18.00 per hour.' Therefore, the Los Angeles proposal would increase average
hourly pay to $23.00 per hour, an increase of 28 percent. Several other cities in California have
discussed $5.00/hour proposals similar to Los Angeles.
This report focuses on the impact of hazard pay mandates on grocery store profitability and on the
sustainability of an industry with traditionally low profit margins. It also assesses the potential
impact of the proposed wage increases on consumers, especially lower -income consumers (a cohort
already hit hard by the COVID lockdowns and business closures).
r
The grocery business is a high -volume, low -margin industry. According to an annual database of
public companies maintained by Professor Damodaran of New York University (NYU),2 net profit
margins as a percent of sales in the grocery industry are among the lowest of any major sector of the
economy. Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA) averaged 4.6
percent of sales in 2019, and the net profit margin (which accounts for other unavoidable expenses
such as rent and depreciation) was just 1.4 percent during the year. This compares to the non-
financial, economy -wide average of 16.6 percent for EBITDA and 6.4 percent for the net profit
margin. The NYU estimate for public companies in the grocery industry is similar to the 1.1 percent
margin reported by the Independent Grocers Association for the same year.3
COVID-19 temporarily boosted profits
In the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, sales and profit margins spiked as people stocked up on
household items and shifted spending from eating establishments to food at home. According to data
compiled by NYU, net profit margins in the grocery industry increased to 2.2 percent in early to mid
2020.4 Although representing a substantial year-to-year increase in profits, the 2.2 percent margin
remains quite small relative to most other industries. This implies that even with the historically high
rates of profits in 2020, there is little financial room to absorb a major wage increase.
1 $18.00 per hour is consistent with the responses we received to our informal survey. It is also consistent with published
contract agreements we reviewed. See, for example, the "Retail Food, Meat, Bakery, Candy and General Merchandise
Agreement, March 4, 2019 - March 6, 2022 between UFCW Union Locals 135, 324, 770,1167,1428,1442 & 8 - GS and Ralphs
Grocery Company." In this contract, hourly pay rates starting March 2, 2021 for food clerks range from $14.40 per hour (for
first 1,000 hours) up to $22.00 per hour (for workers with more than 9,800 hours), The department head is paid $23.00 per
hour. Meat cutter pay rates range from $14.20 (for the first six months) to $23.28 per hour (for those with more than 2 years
on the job). The department manager is paid $24.78 per hour. https://ufcw770.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Ralphs-
Contract-2020.pdf
' Source: Professor Aswath Damodaran, Stern School of Business, New York University.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/—adamodar/
' Source: "2020 Independent Grocer Financial Survey." Sponsored by the National Grocer's Association and FMS Solutions
Holding, LLC
4 Supra 2.
6
C'iirisuirn it airid C.'arnirnuirifty Ilit 11 act 1 111azaird Flay Mairidate
But the increases are subsiding
Moreover, quarterly data indicates that the sales and profit increases experienced in early 2020
were transitory and were settling back toward pre-COVID trends as 2020 drew to a close. This
quarterly trend is evident in quarterly financial reports filed by California's two largest publicly
traded companies in the grocery business: The Kroger Company (which includes Ralphs, Food for
Less, and Fred Meyers, among others) and Albertsons (which includes Safeway, Albertsons, and
Vons, among others). Figure 1 shows that the average profit margin for these two companies was
3.6 percent of sales in the Spring of 2020, declining to 1.9 percent by the fourth quarter of the year.5
Monthly sales data contained in the 2020 Independent Grocer's Financial Survey showed a similar
pattern, with year -over -year sales peaking at 68 percent in mid -March 2020, but then subsiding to
12 percent as of the first three weeks of June (the latest period covered by the survey).6
Figure 1
Combined Net Profit Margins During 2020
Albertsons and The Kroger Companies
4.0%
x 3.5%
0)3.0%
co12
2.5%
2.0%
M
1.5%
0-1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
Spring 2020 Summer202O Fall 2020
While grocers continued to benefit from higher food and related sales during the second half of
2020, they also faced higher wholesale costs for food and housing supplies, as well as considerable
new COVID-19 related expenses. These include expenses for paid leave and overtime needed to
cover shifts of workers affected by COVID-19, both those that contracted the virus and (primarily)
those that were exposed and needed to quarantine. Other COVID-19 costs include those for intense
in-store cleaning, masks for employees, new plastic barriers at check-outs and service counters, and
additional staffing and capital costs for scaling up of e-commerce, curbside and home delivery.
5 In their SEC 10-Q quarterly report for the four -month period ending in June 2020, Albertsons reported that consolidated
sales were up 21.4 percent from the same period of 2019 and before -tax profits were 3.5 percent of total sales. In the
three-month period ending in mid -September, the company reported year -over -year sales growth of 11.2 percent and
before -tax profits equal to 2.5 percent of sales. In their 10-Q report filed for the three-month period ending in early
December, Albertsons showed year -over -year sales growth of 9.3 percent, and profits as a percent of sales of just 1.0
percent. Data for the Kroger Company indicates that year -over -year sales growth subsided from 11.5 percent for the three-
month period ending in May 2020 to 8.2 percent for the three-month period ending in August, and further to 6.3 percent
for the three-month period ending in November. Profits as a percent of sales fell from 3.8 percent to 3.5 percent, and
further to 2.8 percent during the same three quarterly periods. (Source: EDGAR Company Filings, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/ companysearch.html.
6 Supra 3
'7
C.'airiuir it aired C.'ar irnuirift Ilir 111 act of 111azaird Flay 11 airidate
Many stores incur losses in normal years
The 1- to 2-percent net profit levels cited above reflect industry averages. There is considerable
variation around these averages among individual stores, with some doing better and some doing
worse. As one indication of this variation, the 2020 Independent Grocer Financial Survey found that,
while the nationwide average profit before tax for all stores was 1.1 percent of sales in 2019, about
35 percent of the respondents reported negative net profits during the year.? This national result is
consistent with feedback we received from California grocers, which reported that even in profitable
years, anywhere from one -sixth to one-third of their stores show negative earnings. While chain
operations can subsidize some store losses with earnings from other stores, a major mandated wage
increase would eliminate earnings for even the most profitable stores, making cross- subsidies within
supermarket chains much less feasible. As discussed below, the consequence would likely be a closure
of some unprofitable stores.
Mandated wage increases would push most stores into deficits
The grocery business is very labor intensive. Labor is the industry's second largest cost, trailing only
the wholesale cost of the food and other items they sell. According to a benchmark study by Baker -
Tilly, labor expenses account for 13.2 percent of gross sales of grocers nationally.8 The Independent
Grocer Survey, cited above, found that labor costs account for 15 percent of sales nationally and 18.4
percent for independent grocers in the Western region of the U.S.9
Respondents to our survey of California grocers reported that labor costs equate to 14 percent to 18
percent of sales revenues. For purposes of this analysis, we are assuming that the wage base
potentially affected by the mandated hourly pay increase is about 16 percent of annual sales.lo
A mandatory $4-$5 per hour increase, applied to an average $18.00 per hour wage base, would
increase labor costs by between 22 percent and 28 percent. This would, in turn, raise the share of
sales devoted to labor costs from the current average of 16 percent up to between 19 percent and
20.5 percent of annual sales. The up-to-4.5 percent increase would be double the 2020 profit
margin reported by the industry, and three times the historical margins in the grocery industry.
In order to survive such an increase, grocers would need to raise prices to consumers and/or find
substantial offsetting cuts to their operating expenses. As an illustration of the potential magnitude of
each of these impacts, we considered two extremes: (1) all of the higher wage costs are passed
through to consumers in the form of higher retail prices; and (2) prices are not passed forward and all
the additional costs are offset through a reduction of jobs or hours worked.
' Supra 3
'White Paper, "Grocery Benchmarks Report", November 5, 2019, Baker Tilly Virchow Krause LLP.
9 Supra 3
io This recognizes that not all labor costs would be affected by the hazard pay proposal. Grocers report that both in-store and
warehouse staff would receive the increase, as would supervisors and managers, although some executive and
administrative staff may not. In addition, costs for health coverage would probably not be affected, at least not immediately,
but payroll taxes and some other benefit costs would be.
M
C.'airiuir it aired C.'arnirnuirifty Ilirnpa t of 111azaird Flay 11 airidate
Higher costs passed along to consumers
Aggregate impacts. If a $5.00 per hour wage increase were imposed statewide and all of the
increase were passed along to customers in the form of higher product prices, Californians would
face a rise in food costs of $4.5 billion annually. If imposed locally, the City of Los Angeles's $5 per
hour proposal would raise costs to its residents by $450 million annually, and the $4.00 per hour
increase in Long Beach would raise grocery costs to its residents by about $40 million annually."
Impact on household budgets. The wage increase would add about $400 to the annual cost of food
and housing supplies for the typical family of four in California.12 While such an increase may be
absorbable in higher income households, it would hit low- and moderate -income households
especially hard. The impact would be particularly harsh for those who have experienced losses of
income and jobs due to the pandemic, or for those living on a fixed retirement income including
many seniors. For these households, the additional grocery -related expenses will make it much
more difficult to cover costs for other necessities such as rent, transportation, utilities, and
healthcare.
According to the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, California households with annual incomes of
up to $45,000 already spend virtually all of their income on necessities, such as food, housing,
healthcare, transportation and clothing.13 For many of these households, a $33 per month increase
in food costs would push them into a deficit.
These increases would add to the severe economic losses that many Californians have experienced
as a result of government -mandated shutdowns in response to COVID-19. According to a recent
survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, 44 percent of households with incomes under
$20,000 per year and 40 percent with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 have reduced meals or
cut back on food to save money.14 Clearly, imposing a $4.5 billion increase in grocery prices would
make matters worse, especially for these lower -income Californians.
Higher costs are offset by job and hours -worked reductions
If grocers were not able to pass along the higher costs resulting from the additional $5/hour wage
requirement, they would be forced to cut other costs to avoid incurring financial losses.ls Given
11 Our estimates start with national U.S. Census Bureau estimates from the Annual Retail Trade Survey for 2018 (the most
current data available), which indicates that nationwide sales by grocers (excluding convenience stores) was $634 billion
in 2018. We then apportioned this national data to California as well as the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach based on
relative populations and per -household expenditure data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey. We then updated the
2018 estimate to 2021 based on actual increases in grocery -related spending between 2018 and 2020, as reported by the
U.S. Department of Commerce, and a projection of modest growth in 2021. Our estimate is consistent with the industry
estimate of $82.9 billion for 2019 that was by IBISWorld, as adjusted for industry growth in 2020 and 2021. (See
IBISWORLD Industry Report, Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in California, Tanvi Kumar, February 2019.)
12 Capitol Matrix Consulting estimate based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Report, 2019.
https:ll www.bls.gov/onub/reports/consumer-expenditures/2019/home.htm
13 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, State -Level Expenditure Tables by Income.
https://www.bls.gov/cex/csxresearchtables.htm#stateincome.
14 "Californians and Their Well -Being", a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. December 2020.
http s: //www.pp i c. o rg/publi cati o n/pp ic-statewi de-survey-califo rni ans-and-the it-eco no mic-well-being-de cember-2 02 0/
is Circumstances where stores would not be able to pass forward high costs include communities where customers are
financially squeezed by pandemic -related losses in jobs or wages, or where the increased is imposed locally and customers
are able to avoid higher prices by shifting purchases to cross -border stores.
C
C'iirisuirn it arid C.'arnirnuirifty Ilit 11 act of 111azaird IlFlay Mairidate
that labor costs are by far the largest controllable expense for stores, it is highly likely that the
wage mandates will translate into fewer store hours, fewer employee hours, and fewer jobs. For a
store with 50 full-time equivalent employees, it would take a reduction of 11 employees to offset
the increased wages, which is about a 22 percent decrease in staff/hours.
Aggregate impacts. As an illustration, if the full California grocery industry were to respond to a
statewide $5.00 wage mandate by reducing its workforce, we estimate that up to 66,000 industry
jobs would be eliminated. This is about 22 percent of the 306,000 workers in the grocery industry in
the second quarter of 2020 (the most recent quarter for which we have detailed job totals).16 If the
mandate were imposed locally in the City of Los Angeles, the impact would be about 7,000 workers,
and in the City of Long Beach (at $4.00 per hour), the impact would be about 775 jobs. Stores could
alternatively avoid job reductions by cutting hours worked by 22 percent across-the-board.
Under these circumstances, some workers receiving the wage increases would be better off, but many
others would be worse off because of reduced hours or layoffs. Customers would also be worse off
because of reduced store hours, and fewer food choices and services.
Without any external constraints imposed by the local ordinances, it is likely some combination of
higher prices and job and hour reductions would occur. Stores within some jurisdictions imposing
the mandatory wage increase might be able to raise retail prices sufficiently to cover a significant
portion of the mandated wage increase, thereby shifting the burden onto customers. However, the
degree to which this would occur would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, depending on the
price -sensitivity of their customers and (if the mandate is imposed locally) the availability of
shopping alternatives in neighboring communities that have not imposed the wage mandate.
Of course, if the local ordinances contain provisions prohibiting stores from cutting hours, then
stores would be forced to pass costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices, or to close stores
in those jurisdictions.
Some communities would become food deserts
Many of the up -to one third of stores already incurring losses may find it impossible to raise prices or
achieve savings that are sufficient to offset the higher wage costs. For these stores, the only option
would be store closure. Indeed, a consistent theme of feedback we received from California grocer
representatives is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to justify continued operation
of a significant portion of their stores following a government -mandated 28-percent increase in
wages. This would leave some communities with fewer fresh food options.
According to the Propel LA: "The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines a food
desert as 'a low-income census tract where either a substantial number or share of residents has
low access to a supermarket or large grocery store.' There are a large number of census tracts in Los
Angeles County, including Antelope Valley and San Fernando Valley, that are considered to be food
deserts. The population of food deserts is predominantly Hispanic or Latino, followed by Black and
White, respectively."17 The map also shows several food deserts in and around the City of Long
Beach. The hazard pay proposal would exacerbate this problem.
16 Employment Development Department. Labor Market Information Division. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/qcew/cew-select.asp
17 "Food deserts in LA, an Interactive Map." Propel LA, https://www.propel.la/portfolio-item/food-deserts-in-los-angeles-
county/
'1
Closing even one supermarket in many neighborhoods would result in residents having to commute
significantly farther to find fresh and healthy food at reasonable prices. Tulane University studied
the impact of food deserts and concluded that while the majority of items at smaller stores are
priced higher than at supermarkets, price is a consideration in deciding where to purchase staple
foods, and transportation from a food desert to a supermarket ranges from $5 to $7 per trip.18
Thus, mandating hazard pay would likely impose significant hardships on some communities,
especially in lower -income areas. The loss of a grocery store means both fewer jobs for members of
the community and higher costs for all residents in the community, who must pay higher local prices
or incur additional time and expense to shop.
we"I
Hazard pay initiatives like those passed in the City of Long Beach, and proposed in the City of Los
Angeles and in other local jurisdictions, would have far-reaching and negative consequences for
businesses, employees and customers of grocery stores in the jurisdictions where levied. They
would impose an up-to-28 percent increase in labor costs on an industry that is labor-intensive and
operates on very thin profit margins. The increases would be more than double the average profit
margins for the grocery industry in 2020, and triple the margins occurring in normal years, and thus
would inevitably result in either retail price increases or major employment cutbacks by grocery
stores, or a combination of both. If the increased costs were passed forward to consumers, a typical
family of four in California would face increased food costs of $400 per year. This would intensify
financial pressures already being felt by millions of low- and moderate -income families, many of
whom are already cutting back on basic necessities like food due to COVID-19-related losses in jobs
and income. Establishments not able to recoup the costs by raising prices would be forced to reduce
store hours and associated jobs and hours worked by employees. For a significant number of stores
that are already struggling, the only option may be to shutter the store. This would be a "lose -lose"
for the community. It would mean fewer jobs with benefits, less local access to reasonably -priced
food, and more time and expense spent by customers that would have to travel greater distance to
find grocery shopping alternatives.
11 "Food Deserts in America (Infographic)," Tulane University, School of Social Work, May 10, 2018.
https://socialwork.tulane.edu/blog/food-deserts-in-america
II II
Public Comment
From: Heather Sievers <heather@anaheimchamber.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 12:56 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Letter from Anaheim Chamber Chairman, Ross McCune
Attachments: 5.11.21 Anaheim Hazard Pay Oppose.pdf
Please see attached letter for tonight's City Council meeting from Ross McCune, Chairman, Anaheim Chamber of
Commerce.
Best Regards,
Heather Sievers
Director of Events
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
2099 S. State College, Ste. 650
Anaheim, CA 92806
he2.thr(nhirnch rnr.:_corg
714.758.0222
May 11, 2021
Mayor Harry Sidhu
Members of the Anaheim City Council
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim CA 92805
Dear Mayor Sidhu and members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, which represents the business community in
this great city, I urge you to reject any form of a proposed "hazard pay" ordinance.
These premium pay ordinances are misguided and counter -productive. They are bad public
policy that are harmful to employers, workers and ultimately working families.
It is unnecessary, for one thing. The average pay for Southern California grocery workers, for
example, is above $18 per hour — well above the minimum wage. In fact, since the pandemic
began, grocers have increased hourly wages at times by an average of an extra $2-$3, as well
as increased paid time off and sick leave, spot bonuses and other benefits. Grocers have also
invested heavily in worker safety.
The rhetoric of hazard pay proponents ignores the economic reality that supermarkets, retailers,
etc. — whether large chains or small mom -and -pops - are thin -margin businesses. Labor costs
are already one of their biggest costs, and premiums pay will spike those costs by 25% to 30%.
Targeting these businesses for a large wage hike will result in layoffs or reduced hours for
workers, or even store closures — as has happened in Los Angeles County in the wake of similar
"hazard pay" ordinances.
The misleading Brookings Institute study cited by Councilman Jose F. Moreno doesn't include
smaller ethnic and family -owned grocery stores. These are the stores that serve communities
like West Anaheim that have lost chain supermarkets. Premium pay is a very real threat to their
ability to continue serving the communities that depend on them. Government actions do not
take place in a vacuum. Experience in Long Beach provides a cautionary tale -- unfunded
mandates will have negative consequences.
We are already experiencing rising food prices locally and nationwide. This increases
disproportionately hurt poor and working families. Business targeted by these "hazard pay" wage
increases will defray the additional cost by passing it along to consumers in the form of higher
prices.
Build a Strong Local Economy Promote and Brand the Anaheim Community
Create Networking through Business Development Opportunities
Represent Business Interests in Government Political Action
Page 2
Proponents of premium pay claim grocery and retail employees were in greater danger by being
at home. According to a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, workers were
4-5 times safer at their workplaces due to investments in safety protocols by employers.
The COVID-19 pandemic economic lockdowns have been devastating for Anaheim businesses,
hundreds of which have closed forever, while hundreds more have struggled to keep their doors
open and their employees working. Thankfully, Anaheim's economy is turning the corner, led
by the phased re -opening of the Disneyland Resort. More than 60% of Anaheim residents have
received at least their first COVID-19 vaccination shot — which provides in excess of 80%
protection against the virus. Vaccinations will continue, and the focus on the hardest hit Anaheim
neighborhoods is accelerating.
At long last, our businesses see a light at the end of the tunnel as state -imposed operating
restrictions are being lifted. The last thing these weakened and still -struggling businesses need
is to be walloped with an arbitrary and unnecessary wage increase.
A premium pay ordinance would also undermine revitalization efforts in West Anaheim,
especially efforts to lure grocers and retail. Its adoption would send a powerful signal to those
looking at investing in Anaheim that they should look for more business -friendly communities.
This is a cynical union ploy to exploit the tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic to secure by
government fiat wage increases they cannot obtain at the bargaining table. This "hazard pay"
ordinance is a true example of picking winners and losers.
This economically destructive proposal is unjust, unfair and unnecessary. No one is helped by
store closures, lost jobs and higher food prices. We urge you to vote against any further
consideration of this terrible policy proposal.
Sincerely,
Ross McCune
Chairman
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Build a Strong Local Economy Promote and Brand the Anaheim Community
Create Networking through Business Development Opportunities
Represent Business Interests in Government Political Action
Public Comment
From:
Kevin Sanchez
Sent:
Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:06 PM
To:
Public Comment
Subject:
Public Comment on Agenda Item 10
Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Kevin Sanchez, and I am here to speak on item 10 on behalf of
the California Grocers Association. CGA respectfully asks you to not move forward with the grocery worker pay
ordinance given the state of the reopening of the economy combined with the negative consequences to grocery
workers, neighborhoods and the grocery industry.
We agree that grocery workers serve a vital and essential role during the pandemic. They have worked tirelessly to keep
stores open for consumers, allowing our communities to have uninterrupted access to food and medications.
To protect our employees, grocery stores were among the first and continue to implement numerous safety protocols,
including providing PPE and masks, performing wellness checks, enhancing sanitation and cleaning, limiting store
capacity, and instituting social distance requirements.
Grocery employees have also received a minimum of 160 hours of additional supplemental paid leave to care for
themselves and their families. This is on top of their already existing leave benefits.
Grocers have also provided employees additional pay and benefits in various forms, including hourly and bonus pay
averaging an extra $2 to $3 along with other significant forms of support that reduce their expenses and increase their
safety.
Most importantly, the industry fought for early access to the vaccine for all grocery workers who have been eligible since
February. Across California all grocery workers have been able to receive the vaccine and take paid leave to do so.
A broad reopening of the economy in Anaheim and across California is currently underway. We believe it is inconsistent
and harmful to reopening efforts for a local jurisdiction to label grocery stores as a hazard when it is not supported by
evidence and while simultaneously pushing to reopen hospitality, entertainment and other retail operations.
Finally, this policy would increase employment costs to grocers by as much as 30% overnight. This significant increase
would severely impact store viability and result in increased prices for groceries, limited operating hours, reduced hours
for workers, fewer workers per store, and most concerning, possible store closures.
We respectfully implore the Council to not move forward with the grocery worker pay ordinance at this time.
Sincerely,
Kevin
Public Comment
From: Ms. Mel
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 10:20 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Solid Waste Agenda Items
Attachments: utilities increase notice.pdf
We received a notice of intent to raise prices last week from the utilities department on the price to
collect trash. Now I see part of why on your agenda. I think approving projects before residents are
able to comment on any proposal that spends its citizens money is irresponsible and should not be
discussed at this time. Once the comment period has ended, then decide on the issue.
Try not to put the cart before the horse when spending money coming directly from residents of our City. I have
attached a pdf copy of the public hearing notice.
I appreciate your time and attention to this matter.
Melody Marler
Anaheim, CA 92805
City of),krudit"M
RO, Mm 32,22
A vialterm, ("A 92803
CITY OF AWN "AEI
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
I - I l I l I I I I � � I - I s i I s 0 I I I I I I - l l a I I I I a 6 1 I I � 0 11 N I � I I - , � I � I a I I c I l I I l l 4
-"'Ni'"* * 41* * * * w * 111 41 * 1v 10 * * * - * * " E CR W S �i * *( 1 0 55
C'URRENT RESIDENT
ANNIEW CA 92805-3923
K�rrx
a�j
Propo�sed Fee Increase for Solid Waste
PRS STO
US, POSTAGE
PAID
SANTA ANA, CA
p RMI
N N 0110E IS HEREBY (AVEN That oil 'I'viesday, June 22, 2021, at
5 P.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter inay he heard, a public
heanng to consider a proposed increase for solid vaste fees, wah a proposed
effectwe (late ol'Juiv I r 2021, will be held f6r all interesro,,[
parties in the Council C hambers, City aheim Blvd- Anaheim,
1 11 all, 200 S Arl,
( A 92805
P P UBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMEN-T
[45
r
Protems weceived by te�ephone, Oecrronic nuail (C-rmfil), of'
c"
C, mia State Law m.julrcs the mailing of notices (no less than
Califtrt
Analwim Anviinte wfll NO'Uhc� accepted, All interested parties are
days in advance ofa fie,
aring) of proposed umeases for "ater,
invilcd to attend the public hearing and present writterr protests
S, ates/fees
solid waste and wastewater r,
11111"111
andior wrnten and/or oral comments on the proposed rate
7a
incfeases, However, orA cornments made at the pubbc hearing %Vdl
EXPLANAT'llON OF R.A'TE INCREASES
� �
not quahfy as a kmmd protest of the rate increases unless
1"he City ot'Anaheirri (tile "Cit)'") levics monlifly, and hi-y-nontiflY
accompamed by a written protest setfing forth the required
fees for solid waste collection and disposal servaces promied w its
s I
m cm n"�'no,
in If m-Aten protests are received from a majority ofthe
customers, Tbese fees reflect the cost of provi(fing solid waste
affected parcels, the rmuposed rates will not be implemented.
collection, disposal, and recycling SerVICe 10 CUSUIMers, including
the cost of: (A ) an annual CM adjustment to the City's waste hakder
'I'he City of Am,-0min wishes to inake all ofits public itiectings and
as required by the solid Nvaste franchise agreement: (2) contractual
hearings accessible w all members ofthe public. lfrequested, the
payments to the ('try's waste hauler fim collecoon, processing.,
Nofi(."e and supportmg materials will be made availaffle in
transfer, and disposal smices of refuse citywide, (3) tipping fees
approptime alternative formats t.o persons with a disability, as
at the County of Orange ow,ned and operated landfilis and
I`CtjUired by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
undependently owned transfer stations; (4) collection air(.] disposal
1990 (42 LJ&C', Section 12132), and the Federal Rules and l
cif sofid vvaste in Cily's right - of -moral ,,^1 (5) solid waste and i ecycling
Regulations adopted in hnpieflnitmaflcin tht,g eof' AnN pmon who
collection vehicle irnpact; (6) cost to implement and comply with
requires a disability -related modification or accommodation,
State mandates, and (7) labor and admirnstrative costs.
including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate ifl the I
public meeting may request such modification, accommodation,
'rhe pro1w)sed Solid Waste Collection Fees for said services are oil
aid or service by, contacting time Public Works Operations and
the reverse side of this Notice
Maintenance Division either in person at 400 Flast Vermont
Avenue, Anaheim, CA, or by telephone it 714-765-6883, no later
PROTES"TOF PROPOSED RATE INCREASES
than 10:00 a.m. on the day preceding the scheduled public hearing-
'ro protest the proju)scd rate increases, written protests must be
increase s to solid
received by the close ofthe Public hearing, which is scheduled for
If you have arty questions regarding the proposed
PrOte,
` t,
June 22, 2021 at 5 p,rn,, or as socal thereafter as the matter may be
Mjra,",tc rates or have questmus (to Itow to submit a mpritten
heard. If' mailed, they must be sent to the City Clerk, P.O. Box
please contact 714-765-6883.
3222, Anaheim, CA 92903, or, if hand delivered: City Clerk, City
I
de este docurriento ell
Hall, 200 South Anaheirn Blvd., 2nd floor, Anaheim, CA 92805.
EN ESPASOL. Para recibir una COPia
incremeinar 8,q.s &,,s de 10
Each written protest must identify the affected property (by
Espahol sobre la propuesta de
llimenosal 714-765-601
assessor's parcel number, or street address), and include the
colecci6n & hasura pair favor
srl:ature of the record Property owner or tenant, as applicable.
Public Comment
From: Ms. Mel
Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 10:55 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: Solid Waste Agenda Items- Bonds and a rate increase?
Attachments: utilities increase notice.pdf
Those bonds and a rate increase is wrong. Especially when residents are asked to pay more and you discuss
issuing bonds before we get a chance to speak about them. In June.
Can you tell us how much of those bonds are going to be paid for by the residents of our City and how much
will be financed by businesses?
It is wrong to ask the people who actually live here to pay for both a rate increase AND the bonds,
administrative costs and percentage returns promised at the sale of those bonds.
Thanks again,
Melody Marler
Anaheim, CA 92805
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ms. Mel
Date: Sat, May 8, 2021, 10:19 PM
Subject: Solid Waste Agenda Items
To: <publiccommentganaheim.net>
We received a notice of intent to raise prices last week from the utilities department on the price to
collect trash. Now I see part of why on your agenda. I think approving projects before residents are
able to comment on any proposal that spends its citizens money is irresponsible and should not be
discussed at this time. Once the comment period has ended, then decide on the issue.
Try not to put the cart before the horse when spending money coming directly from residents of our City. I have
attached a pdf copy of the public hearing notice.
I appreciate your time and attention to this matter.
Melody Marler
Anaheim, CA 92805
City of),krudit"M
RO, Mm 32,22
A vialterm, ("A 92803
CITY OF AWN "AEI
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
I - I l I l I I I I � � I - I s i I s 0 I I I I I I - l l a I I I I a 6 1 I I � 0 11 N I � I I - , � I � I a I I c I l I I l l 4
-"'Ni'"* * 41* * * * w * 111 41 * 1v 10 * * * - * * " E CR W S �i * *( 1 0 55
C'URRENT RESIDENT
ANNIEW CA 92805-3923
K�rrx
a�j
Propo�sed Fee Increase for Solid Waste
PRS STO
US, POSTAGE
PAID
SANTA ANA, CA
p RMI
N N 0110E IS HEREBY (AVEN That oil 'I'viesday, June 22, 2021, at
5 P.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter inay he heard, a public
heanng to consider a proposed increase for solid vaste fees, wah a proposed
effectwe (late ol'Juiv I r 2021, will be held f6r all interesro,,[
parties in the Council C hambers, City aheim Blvd- Anaheim,
1 11 all, 200 S Arl,
( A 92805
P P UBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMEN-T
[45
r
Protems weceived by te�ephone, Oecrronic nuail (C-rmfil), of'
c"
C, mia State Law m.julrcs the mailing of notices (no less than
Califtrt
Analwim Anviinte wfll NO'Uhc� accepted, All interested parties are
days in advance ofa fie,
aring) of proposed umeases for "ater,
invilcd to attend the public hearing and present writterr protests
S, ates/fees
solid waste and wastewater r,
11111"111
andior wrnten and/or oral comments on the proposed rate
7a
incfeases, However, orA cornments made at the pubbc hearing %Vdl
EXPLANAT'llON OF R.A'TE INCREASES
� �
not quahfy as a kmmd protest of the rate increases unless
1"he City ot'Anaheirri (tile "Cit)'") levics monlifly, and hi-y-nontiflY
accompamed by a written protest setfing forth the required
fees for solid waste collection and disposal servaces promied w its
s I
m cm n"�'no,
in If m-Aten protests are received from a majority ofthe
customers, Tbese fees reflect the cost of provi(fing solid waste
affected parcels, the rmuposed rates will not be implemented.
collection, disposal, and recycling SerVICe 10 CUSUIMers, including
the cost of: (A ) an annual CM adjustment to the City's waste hakder
'I'he City of Am,-0min wishes to inake all ofits public itiectings and
as required by the solid Nvaste franchise agreement: (2) contractual
hearings accessible w all members ofthe public. lfrequested, the
payments to the ('try's waste hauler fim collecoon, processing.,
Nofi(."e and supportmg materials will be made availaffle in
transfer, and disposal smices of refuse citywide, (3) tipping fees
approptime alternative formats t.o persons with a disability, as
at the County of Orange ow,ned and operated landfilis and
I`CtjUired by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
undependently owned transfer stations; (4) collection air(.] disposal
1990 (42 LJ&C', Section 12132), and the Federal Rules and l
cif sofid vvaste in Cily's right - of -moral ,,^1 (5) solid waste and i ecycling
Regulations adopted in hnpieflnitmaflcin tht,g eof' AnN pmon who
collection vehicle irnpact; (6) cost to implement and comply with
requires a disability -related modification or accommodation,
State mandates, and (7) labor and admirnstrative costs.
including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate ifl the I
public meeting may request such modification, accommodation,
'rhe pro1w)sed Solid Waste Collection Fees for said services are oil
aid or service by, contacting time Public Works Operations and
the reverse side of this Notice
Maintenance Division either in person at 400 Flast Vermont
Avenue, Anaheim, CA, or by telephone it 714-765-6883, no later
PROTES"TOF PROPOSED RATE INCREASES
than 10:00 a.m. on the day preceding the scheduled public hearing-
'ro protest the proju)scd rate increases, written protests must be
increase s to solid
received by the close ofthe Public hearing, which is scheduled for
If you have arty questions regarding the proposed
PrOte,
` t,
June 22, 2021 at 5 p,rn,, or as socal thereafter as the matter may be
Mjra,",tc rates or have questmus (to Itow to submit a mpritten
heard. If' mailed, they must be sent to the City Clerk, P.O. Box
please contact 714-765-6883.
3222, Anaheim, CA 92903, or, if hand delivered: City Clerk, City
I
de este docurriento ell
Hall, 200 South Anaheirn Blvd., 2nd floor, Anaheim, CA 92805.
EN ESPASOL. Para recibir una COPia
incremeinar 8,q.s &,,s de 10
Each written protest must identify the affected property (by
Espahol sobre la propuesta de
llimenosal 714-765-601
assessor's parcel number, or street address), and include the
colecci6n & hasura pair favor
srl:ature of the record Property owner or tenant, as applicable.
Public Comment
From: Jewls Krueger
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 1:37 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Larry Larsen
Hello city council members,
I was so disappointed reading Sister City Commissioner Larry Larsen's racist comments on the Coronavirus and
China. The recent explosion in the number of attacks and violence against Asian members of our community
stems from comments just like these. The city council has claimed to want to make sure that people of Asian
descent in our community feel safe, but if the council does not take action when racism is as blatant as this, then
the city council is not only not doing its job, but perpetuating the idea that being racist against APAC people is
acceptable in our city.
If you truly want Anaheim to be a city that welcomes all individuals, as I surely hope you do, Mr. Larsen should
immediately be removed from his position. Further, anyone who makes comments such as the ones made by
Mr. Larsen regarding any race, religion, creed, sexuality, etc should be immediately removed from whatever
role they're in. Anaheim should not stand for this type of behavior.
Anaheim Resident,
Julia Krueger
Jennifer L. Hall
From:
Sara Windal
Sent:
Wednesday, April 28, 2021 4:04 PM
To:
Public Comment
Subject:
Fwd: Anaheim Ballet
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sara Windal
Date: April 27, 2021 at 1:03:58 PM PDT
Dear friends,
I am writing to implore you to maintain your relationship with Anaheim ballet and to work hard
to keep them in their present home or to find something better for their use. I was one of the
original principle dancers that moved with them from South Orange County to Anaheim. I have
taught at the school for many years and still do, performed in two recent tree lighting
ceremonies, helped in youth performances and school visits, and worked behind the scenes at the
highly successful Anaheim International Dance galas. I have witnessed first hand the
indomitable spirit of the directors,Larry and Sarma Rosenberg. It's impossible to relate to you
the amount of work they put into creating and sustaining all that goes into and comes out of
Anaheim Ballet. To say blood sweat and tears doesn't cover it. But what comes out of it?!!
Whole hearts, beautiful dancers, better human beings, joy, beauty, creativity,
values... life... love!!! I can't put it into words for you all that it means but I guarantee you it's
worth saving. Affordable housing is important and I trust you will find solutions to that urgent
need but you can build or find buildings, you can't rebuild or replace what Anaheim ballet gives
and does for the members of the community. It is a gem, a treasure and as their motto states
,'more than dance!" If you think of this in your minds and in your deliberations "dance school vs
housing" you will miss it. It's so very much more. What their Step up program has done for kids
is unbelievable. Every community needs to find and keep things that work and this works! The
directors keep the city of Anaheim and their community in thought at all times and constantly
seek ways to add value to it.
So the shorter version of my wish and hope is to say Save it! Support it! Value it! And move
ahead together to make Anaheim even better.
With hope and warm wishes to you all,
Sara Windal
Sent from my iPhone
Public Comment
From:
Elizabeth Aitken
Sent:
Thursday, April 29, 2021 2:25 PM
To:
Public Comment
Subject:
Please Help Anaheim Ballet
Dear Council Members,
The Anaheim Ballet has been an important Anaheim institution for over 20 years. It's a world renowned training
facility that brings prestige to our city through its reputation for excellence.
Beyond the high level of dance, the Anaheim ballet provides community support by being a safe haven for
youth, and serving vulnerable youth through the Step -Up program. It would be a loss for the community if the
Anaheim Ballet were no longer a part of our city. Every year, Anaheim residents are privileged to see a world -
class performance of the Nutcracker, and I urge you to approve the Cooperative Agreement so we do not lose
this asset.
Please vote in support of the Cooperative Agreement with Anaheim Ballet. Thank you for your
consideration.
-Bette and Wylie Aitken
Public Comment
From: leticia
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 12:24 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: District 5 miraloma park.
To whom it may correspond:
I live on 2534 E terrace st and its ridiculous how the city, the police do not do anything to protect our neighborhood.
Park In, terrace Lawrence e.t.c streets are full of trash, gangs writing on our alleys, trash cans. All this bad living situation
comes from the quantity of people that lives in each apartmet for example in 2 bedroom apt, 2 or 3 families sharing that
apt. I know this 2 bedroom apartment that has 12 people living in and bad people gangsters parents do not care that all
her kids are in drugs on the streets all day for not having any kind of privacy in their own home. I have called the city
about this living situation and they said they can't do nothing about it. I have called the city about people parking all
over the alleys over night leaving just a tiny space to go in or out of the alleys sometimes blocking our garages no
solution yet, why is it so hard for the city and the police to get involve in this ugly living situation.? There is apartments
in really bad shape, with tons of people living in one apartment, thats why there is no parking, no respect, no peace
specially with the gangs when will someone pay attention to this neighborhood.? There is also families like mine that
would love to live in a peaceful and clean neighborhood. There is no money to move out and i do not think that people
needs to move out because a a bad neighborhood that no one can control. There is something that authorities can do
for this neighborhood. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
a, Anaheim City Council
meetin j
tease z 1Z-cv-u1Zb1-u5r-Z:ih uocumeni « rhea 1z/zunz rage iy or zz rage iu i
1 charges;�emotional distress and the loss of enjoyment of life, for which Plaintiff is
2 entitled to compensatory damageslas provided by law and subject to proof at trial.
4 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief
5 alleges that by reason of the foregoing, including his willful and intentional
6 misconduct, Defendant Sanders acted with reckless or callous disregard, and with
7 deliberate indifference, for Plaintiffs constitutional rights, with an evil motive or
8 intent to censor Plaintiff and prevent him from exercising his Right to Free Speech,
9 Right of Assembly and Right to Due Process, with malice and oppression, and with
10 the intention of thereby depriving Plaintiff of his legal and constitutional rights or
11 otherwise causing injury; for which Sanders is liable to Plaintiff for an award of
12 punitive and exemplary damages
1...3_....................._.._........................--..._.........-.._............................SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF...............-_...... __...-.......-....
14 Violations of First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Article Section_
15
2 of the California. Constitution Regarding Enforcement of. U.ncnnstitution111
"Rules of Decorum"
16 33. The foregoing allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated into
17
the Second Claim for Relief as though fully set forth herein
18
19 34. The Rules of Decorum and their enforcement violate the First Amendment
20 because they contain provisions which constitute impermissible prior restraints on
21 speech. The terms are vague and lack adequate standards or guidelines for
22 enforcement. City officials have unbridled discretion to enforce these Rules. The
23,acts complained of herein were directed towards intimidating Plaintiff from the
24 lawful exercise of his constitutional rights.
25 35. The failure to enact laws and rules that give reasonable notice activities
26 subject to criminal penalties and the failure to adopt precise standards and
27
28
z, 19
COMPLAINT 42 U.S.C. §1983
tease
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.............. .11.
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 z-cv-u i;eei-uz5r-z5h uocumeni L4 r-nea i uLun z rage i y or « rage w ivej3
70mitted at Anaheim City Council meetin
5,( /'� _ t�l— -4 Item#
charges; emotional distress and the loss of enjoyment of life, for which Plaintiff is
entitled to compensatory damages�as provided by law and subject to proof at trial.
32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief
alleges that by reason of the foregoing, including his willful and intentional
misconduct, Defendant Sanders acted with reckless or callous disregard, and with
deliberate indifference, for Plaintiffs constitutional rights, with an evil motive or
intent to censor Plaintiff and prevent him from exercising his Right to Free Speech,
Right of Assembly and Right to Due Process, with malice and oppression, and with
the intention of thereby depriving Plaintiff of his legal and constitutional rights or
otherwise causing injury; for which Sanders is liable to Plaintiff for an award of
punitive and exemplary damages
SECOND CLAIM FO RELIEF
Violations of First Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Article Section
2 of the California Constitution, Regarding Enforcement of _[unconstitutional
"Rules of Decorum"
33. The foregoing allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated into
the Second Claim for Relief as though fully set forth herein
34. The Rules of Decorum and their enforcement violate the First Amendment
because they contain provisions which constitute impermissible prior restraints on
speech. The terms are vague and lack adequate standards or guidelines for
enforcement. City officials have unbridled discretion to enforce these Rules. The
acts complained of herein were directed towards intimidating Plaintiff from the
lawful exercise of his constitutional rights.
35. The failure to enact laws and rules that give reasonable notice activities
subject to criminal penalties and the failure to adopt precise standards and
19
COMPLAINT 42 U.S.C. §1983
tease 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Submitted at Anaheim City Council mee4inr.
of Q�ZCP—A It m#
c c�
' z-cv-uiLb1-uar-br-i uocumenr Z4 rhea i zizui11 rage i y or zt rage iu #:266�;��
charges; emotional distress and the loss of enjoyment of life, for which Plaintiff is
`entitled to compensatory damageslas provided by law and subject to proof at trial.
32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief
alleges that by reason of the foregoing, including his willful and intentional
misconduct, Defendant Sanders acted with reckless or callous disregard, and with
deliberate indifference, for Plaintiffs constitutional rights, with an evil motive or
intent to censor Plaintiff and prevent him from exercising his Right to Free Speech,
Right of Assembly and Right to Due Process, with malice and oppression, and with
the intention of thereby depriving Plaintiff of his legal and constitutional rights or
otherwise causing injury; for which Sanders is liable to Plaintiff for an award of
punitive and exemplary damages
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of First Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Article Section
2 of the California Constitution Regarding Enforcement of. Unconstitutional
"Rules of Decorum"
33. The foregoing allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated into
the Second Claim for Relief as though fully set forth herein
34. The Rules of Decorum and their enforcement violate the First Amendment
because they contain provisions which constitute impermissible prior restraints on
speech. The terms are vague and lack adequate standards or guidelines for
enforcement. City officials have unbridled discretion to enforce these Rules. The
acts complained of herein were directed towards intimidating Plaintiff from the
lawful exercise of his constitutional rights.
35. The failure to enact laws and rules that give reasonable notice activities
subject to criminal penalties and the failure to adopt precise standards and
COMPLAINT
19
42 U.S.C. §1983