6389ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 8 9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A
NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CABCO, INC. DBA
CALIFORNIA YELLOW CAB, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OPERATING TAXICAB SERVICE IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM; AND STATING THE TERM AND CONDITIONS
UPON WHICH SAID FRANCHISE IS GRANTED
WHEREAS, Section 1400 of Article XIV of the Charter of the City of Anaheim
(the "Charter") establishes procedures for the award of franchises by the City; provides that any
person, firm or corporation furnishing the City or its inhabitants with transportation may be
required by ordinance to have a franchise therefor; and further provides that the City Council is
empowered to grant such franchises and to establish additional procedures and terms and
conditions of such grants; and
WHEREAS the City Council has heretofore adopted Section 1.02.010 requiring
any person, firm or corporation furnishing the City or its inhabitants with transportation to have a
valid and existing franchise therefor; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 5765 adding
Chapter 4.73 of the Anaheim Municipal Code establishing additional procedures for the granting
of franchises for taxicab service in the City of Anaheim and establishing additional terms and
conditions of such grants; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to findings and determinations heretofore made by the City
Council as set forth in said Ordinance No. 5765, Section 4.73.045 of said Chapter 4.73 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code provides for the award of not more than three initial franchises for the
operation of a total of two hundred and thirty (230) taxicabs within the City (the "Initial
Franchises"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to findings and determinations heretofore made by the City
Council as set forth in Resolution No. 2009-039, Section 4.73.040 of said Chapter 4.73 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code provides that the City Council may determine that the public
convenience and necessity require the operation of additional taxicabs in the City and on
February 24, 2009, the City Council determined that the public convenience and necessity
require the operation of a total of two hundred fifty-five (255) taxicabs in the City of Anaheim
(the "Franchises"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore solicited competitive proposals from
interested persons, firms and corporations for the award of the Franchises pursuant to that certain
Request for Proposal issued by the City on March 5, 2012 (the "RFP"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the RFP, the City of Anaheim has heretofore received a
written proposal dated March 28, 2012, for a non-exclusive franchise to operate taxicab service
within the City of Anaheim (the "Proposal") from Cabco, Inc. dba California Yellow Cab, (the
"Franchisee"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Anaheim heretofore reviewed said
Proposal, and considered the information presented therein, and in the staff reports and
recommendations and other relevant information relating thereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Article XIV of the Charter, the
City Council did adopt its Resolution No. 2012-033 declaring its intention to grant a non-
exclusive franchise to the Franchisee for the purpose of operating taxicab service in the City of
Anaheim; stating the terms and conditions upon which it was proposed to grant the Franchise;
and establishing the date, hour and place when and where any persons having any interest therein
or objection thereto could appear and be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published and otherwise given in
the manner required by Article XIV of the Charter; and
WHEREAS, the Superior Court found that the rehearing held by the City on
August 21, 2012 in conjunction with the award of taxi franchises, did not comply with Anaheim
Municipal Code ("AMC") Section 1.12.100, and that the City's decision following the rehearing
was lacking in evidentiary support. The Court found that the City invited the four (4) companies
involved in the original RFP to submit new information in conjunction with the rehearing, but
that the City's Taxi Advisory Committee (TAC) did not re -score the new information, and the
City did not reevaluate the new information or the ranking of the four companies. The Superior
Court directed the City to set aside the previously -adopted franchise ordinances and conduct a
rehearing pursuant to AMC Section 1.12.100. The City is complying with the Superior Court's
order by conducting a de novo rehearing on the franchises following the TAC's rescoring of the
information submitted by the four companies in July and August of 2012.
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2016, the City Council commenced a duly noticed
public hearing upon said Proposal and the proposed grant of a Franchise to Franchisee to operate
taxicab service within the City of Anaheim, which public hearing was completed by the City
Council on October 18, 2016, and at which public hearing the City Council did hear testimony
and consider evidence from persons having any interest in the proposed franchise, and did
consider any and all objections thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby overrules all objections to the proposed
grant of a Franchise to the Franchisee to operate taxicab service within the City of Anaheim in
accordance with the terms and conditions and subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE.
The City Council hereby grants a non-exclusive franchise to Cabco, Inc., dba
California Yellow Cab, for the operation of seventy-five (75) taxicabs within the City of
Anaheim, and for temporary permits for large conventions or other similar events which
temporarily increase the demand for taxicabs beyond the number regularly franchised and when
specifically authorized by the Community Preservation Manager or her/his designee at such
times and upon such dates as specified in the Proposal and RFP.
SECTION 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF FRANCHISE.
The terms and conditions upon which said Franchise is granted, and with which
the Franchisee is hereby expressly required to comply, are each of those certain terms,
conditions, limitations, representations and requirements as expressly set forth in (i) the RFP; (ii)
the Proposal; and (iii) the regulations and requirements for the operation of taxicabs as set forth
in the Anaheim Municipal Code as amended from time to time (the "Regulations"). The
Proposal, the RFP and the Regulations are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in
full. The aforesaid documents are on file, and available for public inspection, in the Office of the
City Clerk of the City of Anaheim during regular business hours.
SECTION 3. TERM OF FRANCHISE, ANNUAL REVIEW
Upon timely acceptance hereof, the term of this franchise shall commence upon
the later of either the effective date of this ordinance or the date of acceptance of this franchise
by the Franchisee as required pursuant to Section 1403 of the Charter through and including
June 28, 2022, unless terminated sooner pursuant to the terms of Chapter 4.73 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
This franchise shall be subject to annual review as more particularly set forth in
Section 4.73.200 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. If, as a result of such annual review, the City
Council finds and determines that the franchisee has not complied in good faith with the terms
and conditions of the franchise, the City Council may initiate proceedings to terminate or
suspend the franchise.
SECTION 4. INDEMNIFICATION.
The Franchisee shall indemnify, hold harmless, release and defend the City its
City Council and each member thereof, and its officers, employees, commission members and
representatives from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, costs, expenses, fines,
judgments, settlements, charges or penalties whatever, including reasonable attorneys fees,
regardless of the merit or outcome of the same arising out of, or in any manner connected with,
any, any or all of the operations or services authorized, conducted or permitted under this
franchise.
SECTION 5. INSURANCE
The Franchisee shall provide and maintain in full force and effect during the term
of this franchise liability insurance in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section
4.73.180 of Chapter 4.73 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and RFP.
SECTION 6 CONFLICTS BETWEEN PROVISIONS.
In the event of any conflict between any provisions of this ordinance and any
provision of Chapter 4.73 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the provisions set forth in said
Chapter 4.73 shall prevail.
SECTION 7 SEVERABILITY.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section,
paragraph, sentence, phrase or word of this ordinance be declared for any reason to be invalid or
unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, it is the intent of the
City Council that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the
elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid.
SECTION 8 SAVINGS CLAUSE.
The adoption of this ordinance shall not in any manner affect the prosecution for
violations of ordinances which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor
be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any
violation thereof. The provisions of this ordinance, insofar as they are substantially the same as
ordinance provisions previously adopted by the City relating to the same subject matter, shall be
construed as restatements and continuations and not as new enactments.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the 18a' day of October, 2016, and thereafter passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 251' day of October, 2016, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Tait and Council Members Kring, Murray, Brandman,
and Vanderbilt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CITY NAHEI
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
119063.2
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
1, LINDA ANDAL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the
original Ordinance No. 6389 introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Anaheim, held on the 18th day of October, 2016, and that the same was duly passed and adopted
at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 251h day of October, 2016, by the following
vote of the members thereof:
AYES: Mayor Tait and Council Members Kring, Murray, Brandman and Vanderbilt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of October, 2016.
(SEAL)
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
1, LINDA ANDAL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the
original Ordinance No. 6389 and was published in the Anaheim Bulletin on the 3rd day of
November, 2016.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OFANAHEIM
(SEAL)
0 0 //(9
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. 6389
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, :" AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A
NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CASCO, INC. DBA
CALIFORNIA YELLOW CAB, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SS. ANAHE'IM; ANTING D STATING THE TERM EE IN THE
NO G NDITIONS'
County of Orange UPON WHICH SAID FRANCHISE IS GRANTS "
WHEREAS, Section 1406 of Article XJV of the Charter of the Cof Anaheim(fhe "Char-
ier") establiette procedures forthe oXfiYanchisea bythe C provides -that any per•
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident son; firm or g61,porafirm furnishing iris 6r iti Hnn§§b�tants with transportation may be re-
quired by ordmanae to nava fratrchi erdfor;- q,Iurther YoAdss that the City Council
is empowered"to grant sUlttt oh'iiea if'fo a b cab �ad +on6 procedure& and terms
of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of and conditions of such gr 1T_1 A:
WHEREAS the City Council hap herstofors adopted S�f. lrin 102.010 requiring: any per -
eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in son, firm or corporation furrtnshing the Crty or.lf, inhati�t a nVdFt transportation to nava a
valid and existing franchise therefiir;;and
the above -entitled matter. I am the principal WHEREAS, the City, Council has heretofore adopted bird ir[anae No. 5765 adding Chap-
tef 4.73 of the Anaheim Municip8l C6de establishing addinohal'piftwures for the granting
of franchises for taxieab service in the City of Anaheim and establishing additional terms
clerk of the Anaheim Bulletin, a newspaper that and conditions of such' grants; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to findings and determinations heretofore made by the CitvCouncil
has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general as set forth in said Ordinance No. 5765, Section 4.73.045 of said Chapter 4.73 oit,he Ana-
heim Municipal Code provides for the award.of not more than three initial franchises for the
circulation by the Superior Court of the County ��sesn)°and total of two hundred and thirty (230) taxicabs within the City (the "Initial Fran -
WHEREAS, pursuant to findings and determinations heretofore made by the C(fty Council
of Orange, State Of California, on December 28, as set forth in Resolution No. 2009.038, Section 4.73.040 of said Chapter 4.73 of the Ana-
heim Municipal Code provides that the City Council may determine that the public conven-
1951, Case No. A-21021 in and for the Ci ience and necessity require the operation of additional taxicabs in the City and on February
ty of 24,E4009, the CRY Council determined that the public convenience and,neo require
the operation of a total of two hundred fifty-five (255) taxicabs in the City of aheim (the
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California;ha
WHEREAS, fine City Copricil has heretofore solicited competitive proposals fro�ip,t interest -
that the notice of which the annexed is a true go parsorAe, firms and coipgra qhs for fne award of the`Franchie ursulantto�tklat certain
Ra Uestfar FtJoposai issued Hi a Cay on March 5, 2012 (the 'f#PP) and
WHEREAS, pursuant to th RFP; tii'e City of Anaheim has heretofore rived a written
printed copy, has been published in each regular r6 asai dated M ah 2s 2�i12v -far a rion=eX I 'rrI €ranohise to operate taxiaeb sense
g wlthpn ltig jlyof Anaheim 00.7'roposer.) from Gab6o, Inc dt LalHomia "fellow Cab,
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any (the "Franc it.as"),, and
WHEREAS,,; a City Counoi) of l;ne �FAnsheinr heretofore ravlgwed said Proposal,
supplement thereof on the following dates to and conglOaPa thadriformatiort preseritsO3I rain and in the staffreporis'and reCoinmen-
dations andomer relevant information relst rig thereto; and a
wit: WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedure gst forth in Article XIV of the Charter, the City
Coumll Old adopt!ts Resolution No:.R012-038- digolaring its tiara o-grent-a-non-
exclusive franchise, to the Franchisee for the purpose of operating taxicab service in the
November 3 2016 City of Anaheim; stating the terms and conditions upon which ft was proposed to grant the
Franchise; and establishing the data, hour and place when and where any persons having
any interest therein or objection thereto could appear and be heard thereon; and,
"I certify (or declare) under the penalty Of WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published and otherwise given in the man-
ner required by Article XIV of the. Charter; and
perjury under the laws Of the State of California WHEREAS, the Superior Court found that the rehearing held by the C% on August 21,
2012 in conjunction with the award of taxi franchises, did not comply With Anaheim Munici.
that the foregoing is true and correct": Rai Code ("AMC" Section 1.12.100, and that the City's decision following the rehearing was
g g lacking in evidentiary supppport. The Court found that the City invited the four (4) companies
involved in the original RPP to'submft new,lnformation in conjunction with the rehearing,
but that the City's Taxi Advisory Committee (TAC) did not restore the new information,
and the City did not reevaluate the new information or the ranking of the four companies.
The Supperlor Court directed the City to set aside the previously adopted franchise ordinan-
Executed at Santa Aria, Orange County, ces and.conduc t a rehearing pursuant to AMC Section 1,12.100. The City is complying with
he Supaerior CQurt's order by conducting,a de novo rehearing on the franchises following
California on t
the TAC's restoring of the information submitted by the four companies in July and Au-
gust of2012.
Date November 3 2016 WHEREAS, on September 27, 2016, the Cittyy Council commenced a duly noticed public
hearing upon said Proposal and the proposed grant of a Franchise to Franchisee to oper-
ate taxicab service within the City of Anaheim,, which ppubljc hr string was completed by the
C' Council on OctobAf t6n2016, and at which pubkfo hearing 1F+e 6' Couricik did hear
teimony and considerOvid
enoe ftompaison havi enY iniereat in fne protppsed fran-
'his
M andciid consider any and�al1 objet ons3
t WHEREAS, the City Councihnereby averrul6s elf obJebtigns to the, praposegrant of a
Franchise to the` Franchises to oper�t� taxieb servfae wlihLnthe City aff��ina' elimm in ac-
cordance with the terms andconditions andubteoCt$ lhe'Irmitatfbns neretnatteLset forth.
MOW
'rHEREFQRE, THE
CITY COUNCIL bF THE CITY QF ANAt�E1M DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOtiNS:
Signature SECTIONI. GRANT OF FRANCHISE.
The City Council hereby grants a non-exclusive franchise to Cabco, Inc., dba California
Yellow Cab, for the operation of seventy, -five (75) taxicabs within the City of Anaheim, and
Anaheim Bulletin for temporary permits for large conventions or other similar events which temporarily in-
crease the demand for taxicabs beyond the ntioumber regularly franchised and when specifi-
625 N. Grand Ave. tally authorized by the Community preservan Manager or her/his designee at such times
and upon such dates as specified in the Proposal and RFP.
Santa Ana, CA 92701 SECTION 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF FRANCHISE.
(714) 796-2209 The terms and conditions upon which said Franchise is granted, and with which the
Franchisee Is hereby expressly required to comply, are each of those certain terms condi-
tions, limitations, representations and requirements as expressly set forth in (i) the RFP; (ii)
the Proposal; and (iii) the regulations and requirements for the operation of taxicabs as set
forin in the Anaheim Municipal Code as amended from -time Wilms (the 'Regulations").
fh
Prgposal the lino and the Regulations are incorporated herein by this reference as it
GddfICN 3. TERM OF FRANCHISE; ANNUAL REVIi W.
U(iorl tinrely'acoeptanae hereof, the temp of this franchise shat) commenot'u . the lacer
of el ar the affective data of ns 9r�(inpnce do the date of acceptance ofthis flanchise by
the anchisee as required p i �nr+1'tp Sect+An 1A03 of the Charter through Na�o, Including
June 28, 2022 unless terminated saaFlsr pursuant to the terms of Chapter 4.73ot he Ana-
heim Municipal Cgde.<
This franchise shall be subject to annual review as more particularly set forth in Section
4.73.200 of the,Ajiaheim Municipal Code. If. as a result of sucjr annual review, the City '
17— i Wt 1 -tit 6f- 1. . G to m
r - r� .. -Q-0r, f, LIr. 11-.
$rm§ and'oon8ltlbns o'f the frahchise a iUnes m , ar
nate or suspend the franchise.. f
s�Ttvrt 4x�NDEfeanfi�l�pTtoN.: ` � .
The Franchisee shall indemnify, hold harmless, release and defend the City its City Coun-
cil and each member thereof, and its officers, employees, Commission members and rep-
resentatives from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, costs, expenses, fines,
udgments, settlements, charges or penalties whatever including reasonable attorneys
Uses, regardless of the meed or outcome of the same arising out of or in any manner con-
nected with, any, any or all of the operations or services authodzed, conducted or permit-
ted under this franchise.
SECTION 5. INSURANCE.
The Franchisee shall provide and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this
franchise liability insurance in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section
4.7$.180 of Chapter 4,73 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and RFP,.
SECTION B CONFLtOTS BETWEEN PROVISIONS.
In the event of anyeonflict tween any provision$ of this oMinance and apy provision of
Chapter 4.73 of the Anaheim- unicipal Coda, thisprgyi$16ns set forth in said Chapter 4.73
shall prevail.
SECTION 7 SEVERABILITY. y
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any-section, , para-
gr , h, sentence, pphrase or word of this ordinance be declared for any reason to be invalid
or�Ienforceable b the final iudgmeat of any court of coinpetant jurisdiction: it Is the intent
df fife•City council that a would 17ave,passed all other portions of this ordinance In
ant of the elimination l erefrom of any Such porton as maybe declered Invalid.'
SECTION 6 SAVINGS CLAUSE.
The adoption of this ordinance shall not inmanner affect the prosecution for viola-
tions of ordinances which violations, were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor
be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to
any violation thereof. The provisions of this ordinance, insofar as they are substantially the
same as ordinance provisions previously adopted by the City relating to the. same subject
matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations and not as new enactments.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a re ular meeting of the-City Council
of the City of Anaheim held on the 18th day of October, 2016, and thereafter passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 25th day of October, 2016,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Tait and Council Members Kring, Murray, Brandman, and Vanderbilt
NOES: None
ASSENT: .None
ABSTAIN: None : CITY OF ANAHEIM
MP� C
ATTEST:
CITY CLE K OF THE CITY OF A AHEIM