sr-101210-11aCity Council Meeting: October 12, 2010
Agenda Item: t~'-~'
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Carol Swindell, Finance Director
Subject: Resolution of Intention to Grant Taxicab Franchises
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution of Intention to grant
taxicab franchises to Bell Cab Company, Independent Taxi Owners Association, Metro
Cab Company, Taxi Taxi and Yellow Cab Company and set a public hearing on
November 9. 2010.
Executive Summary
On July 28, 2009, Council adopted an ordinance establishing a taxicab franchise
system to address various issues identified in an extensive study by Nelson/Nygaard.
Pursuant to the ordinance; staff completed a Request for Proposals process and
evaluated the responses based on the criteria specified in the ordinance. As a result,
this report recommends setting a public hearing at 5:30 pm on November 9, 2010 to
hear from those with an interest in or objection to the granting of taxicab franchises to
the proposed grantees. There are no budgetactions necessary as part of this report.
Background
In October 2006, the Task Force oh the Environment recommended to City Council that
it direct staff to develop an ordinance initiating a franchise system and awarding
franchises only to taxi companies whose fleets met specific emission and mileage
standards. At their February 10, 2009 meeting, City. Council reviewed a study by
Nelson\Nygaard related to taxicab operations in Santa Monica and directed staff to
return with additional information related to the operations, franchise system and
alternatives to franchising. At the March 3, 2009 Council meeting, Council directed staff
to move forward with the establishment of a taxicab franchise. On July 28, 2009,
Council adopted an ordinance establishing a taxicab franchise system.
1
Discussion
The City completed a competitive RFP process in order to provide recommendations for
the selection of firms to provide taxicab service in Santa Monica. The process and
evaluation was completed in accordance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Each
response was evaluated base on the following criteria:
• Proof of financial stability, demonstrating ability to provide taxicab services in
compliance with City ordinances and regulations and the bidder's proposal.
Experience in providing taxicab services during the last ten years, including
demonstrated quality of service and safety.
• Character of operator and drivers, including verification of insurance; record of
violations by the bidder or bidder's drivers of federal, state or local law, litigation
history, and compliance with rules and regulations relating to taxicab operations,
particularly safety operations.
• Proposed business and management plan.
• Extra services available to the public, including proposed discount fares for senior
and mobility impaired customers.
• Fleet composition, including annual minimum number. of vehicles meeting
ULEV/SULEV/LEV and other low-emission standards, use of alternative -fuel
vehicles and the age and condition of the proposed fleet.
• Driver training and qualifications, testing, supervision and life/healthldisability benefit
plans.
• Operator/driver financial relationships including leasing, fees, memberships and all
other relationships.
• Operator's business location and use of a centralized dispatch system; including a
local preference.
Based on the criteria listed above, the evaluation committee recommends Bell Cab
Company, Independent Taxi Owners Association, Metro Cab. Company, Taxi Taxi, and
Yellow Cab Company be considered for award of taxicab franchise.
Pursuant to Santa Monica Charter Article 16, Council must hold a public hearing to
provide an opportunity for any person with an interest or objection in the granting of a
franchise to appear and be heard before Council. In accordance with City Charter
Section 1601, the attached Resolution of Intention sets the public hearing at 5:30 pm on
2
November 9, 2010, states the .names of the proposed grantees and the terms and
conditions upon which the taxicab franchises are proposed to be granted, which will
include but are not limited to the following:
• The duration of the franchise.
• Required payments to the City. .
• The limitations upon the grantee's franchise rights and rights reserved to the City.
• Grounds for suspension or termination of the franchise.
• Operational and service requirements for taxicabs (including fleet size and makeup,
equipment, vehicle maintenance and inspection requirements, storage facilities)
taxicab drivers (including testing and training); dispatch and communication; and
records and reports.
Insurance and indemnification requirements.
Prior to the public hearing, a staff report will be released with additional information on
the selection process and resulting recommendations.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
A financial impact analysis will be presented as part of the recommendation to award a
franchise.
Prepared by: Donald Patterson, Business & Revenue Operations Manager
Approved:
1
f
- Carol Swindell
Director of Finance
Attachments:
1) Resolution of Intention to Grant Taxicab Franchises
2) July 5, 2010 Information Item -Additional Information
Process
3) Pulled June 22. 2010 Staff Report
4) Previously Evaluation Score Sheet
Forwarded to Council:
'~ `~'~\
Rod Gould
City Manager
Related to Selection
3
m~~z
~®
~;,yo, Information Item
Santa ~Ionica`°
Date: July 5, 2010
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Carol Swindell, Director of Finance
Subject: Additional Information on Taxi Franchise Selection Process
Introduction
On June 22, 2010, Council was scheduled to consider staffs recommendation for award
of taxicab franchises. Santa Monica Charter Section 1601 requires a second hearing
after 20 but not more than 60 days from Council declaring its intention to award
franchises. Due to summer scheduling conflicts, Council's consideration of the franchise
award was withdrawn by staff and will be rescheduled in September. The staff report
provides the same level of detail that is typical for award of contracts following a
Request for Proposals (RFP) process. Each proposal was carefully evaluated by the
committee using the criteria outlined in the RFP document and Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 6.49.040(b). The June 22 staff report reflects the recommendation of the
review committee and the same recommendation will be considered by Council in
September.
Discussion
Since the June 22, 2010 staff report was withdrawn, staff has received numerous
requests for information from the Council, public, taxicab companies and the press
regarding the specific ranking of companies and the weight of the various factors that
were considered by the committee in its evaluation. Although the previous staff report
provides the level o'F detail that is typical for contractual documents resulting from an
RFP process, staff has determined that due to the nature, size and complexity of this
franchise award, additional information may be helpful for the Council and community.
1
The evaluation criteria used by the committee was outlined in the RFP and included:
• Proof of financial viability, demonstrating ability to provide taxi services in
compliance with City ordinances and regulations and the bidder's proposal.(20%)
• Experience in providing taxicab services during the last ten years, including
demonstrated quality of service and safety. (20%)
• Proposed business and management plan. (20%)
• Fleet composition, including age and condition of taxicabs, annual minimum
number of vehicles meeting Ultra Low Emission Vehicle and Super Ultra Low
Emission Vehicle (ULEV/SULEV) and other low-emission standards. (15%)
• Local preference. (8%)
• Character of operator's owners/members/principals/partners, verifying
criminal/civil record, taxicab regulatory, franchising, licensing, insurance and
litigation history. (5%)
• Proposed discount fares for senior and mobility impaired customers. (3%)
• Dispatch and communication system. (3%)
• Driver training, testing, supervision and life/health/disability benefit plans. (3%)
• Operator/driver financial relationships including leasing, fees, memberships and
all other relationships. (3%)
Based on the written responses provided by individual taxicab companies and the
weighting of criteria, the specific rankings generated by the committee's evaluation are
as follows:
1) Metro Cab Co. 79.04%
2) Yellow Cab 78.82%
3) Independent Cab Co. (ITOA) 72.43%
4) Bell Cab 72.15%
5) TMAT Corp. dba Taxi Taxi 67.66%
6) All Yellow Taxi Inc. 65.46%
7) Beverly Hills Cab Co. 64.23%
8) San Gabriel Transit Inc./City Cab 62.13%
9) L.A. Checker Cab Co. 53.60%
10)S.M Yellow Cab 49.03%
11)Euro Taxi 45.21%
12)SMCC Yellow Cab 40.21
13)Lady's Yellow Cab dba Yellow United 25.88%
2
Next Steps
Staff will return to Council in late September with a recommendation for Council to
adopt of a Resolution of Intention to establish taxicab franchises with Bell Cab
Company, Independent Taxi Owners Association, Metro Cab Company, Taxi Taxi, and
Yellow Cab Company and to set a public hearing in late October or early November.
Staff plans to have the new franchises effective by January 1, 2011.
Prepared By: Donald P. Patterson, Business & Revenue Operations Manager
3
Award of Taxicab Franchises -City of Santa Monica
Page 1 of 9
r¢-.I(-a~rh vv~PYrF 3
~®
City of
Santa Monica
Clt~/ COUIICII R@pOt'"t
City Council Meeting: June 22, 2010
Agenda Item: 8-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Carol Swindell, Finance Director
Subject: Award of Taxicab Franchises
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council
1) Authorize the City Manager to execute non-exclusive taxicab franchise agreements with
Bell Cab Company, Independent Taxi Owners Association, Metro Cab Company, Taxi
Taxi, and Yellow Cab Company; and
2) Adopt the attached resolution setting annual taxicab franchise fees and taximeter rates.
Executive Summary
A 2008 study by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates of taxicab operations in Santa Monica
found that the City's open-entry taxicab permitting system allowed the operation of too many
cabs for the market, and prevented the City from reducing .vehicle emissions created by
taxicabs, setting uniform fares, enforcing requirements that taxicab companies meet specific
operating standards, and providing discounts for seniors and persons with mobility
impairments. Based on the study's recommendations, on July 28, 2009, Council adopted an
ordinance establishing a franchise-based system for the regulation of taxicabs, which limits
the number of taxicab companies to no more than eight companies, limits the total number of
vehicles in the taxicab fleet to 250, requires franchisees to meet standards for their vehicles
and drivers, and be self-supporting through franchise, vehicle permit and driver permit fees. In
compliance with the ordinance requirements, a Request for Proposals (RFP) for citywide
taxicab franchises was issued on January 14, 2010, with a response deadline of 3:00 pm on
March 19, 2010. Thirteen qualified proposals were received -and evaluated based on the
criteria specified in the ordinance and the RFP. Based on the evaluation, staff recommends
the award of franchises authorizing the operation of 50 vehicles each to Bell Cab Company,
Independent Taxi Owners Association, Metro Cab Company, Taxi Taxi, and Yellow Cab
Company, for a citywide total of 250 taxicabs: The attached resolution sets the annual taxicab
franchise fees and rates and reflect amounts published in the Request for Proposals (RFP)
document.
http://wwwOlsmgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2 0 1 0/2 0 1 0 0622/s2010062208-A.htm 9/27/2010
Award of Taxicab Franchises -City of Santa Monica Page 2 of 9
Background
In October 2006, the Task Force on the Environment recommended to City Council that it
direct staff to develop an ordinance initiating a franchise system and awarding franchises only
to taxi companies whose fleets met specific emission and mileage standards. At their
February 10, 2009, meeting City Council commented on the .excessive number of cabs,
especially in the downtown area, and the need to reduce their impact on the City and on the
environment. The City also received complaints regarding taxis: cruising for business, poor
customer service from drivers, confusing and high fees, lack of discounted services for senior
and disabled residents, and taxicabs with Santa Monica permits operating as "bandit" taxis in
Los Angeles and other cities. Traffic is an increasing concern and in the 2009 resident survey,
traffic continued to be at the top of the list of issues of most concern to Santa Monica
residents. Limiting the number of taxicabs and establishing enforceable standards would
promote the city's sustainability and traffic management goals.
In 2008, the City retained the services of Nelson/Nygaard to assess options for regulating
taxicab operations. The study concluded:
• Santa Monica has too many taxicabs and too many taxi companies for the population;
• The City's present open-entry form of regulation, which relies on market forces, does
not ensure either quality taxi service or a healthy taxicab industry;
• The City should establish a taxi franchise system which uses a competitive Request
For Proposals (RFP) process to award franchises to at least four but no more than eight
cab companies, each with a minimum fleet size of at least 25 vehicles, and which limits
the total number of authorized cabs to between 200 and 300;
• Franchised cab companies should be required to meet financial, technical and service
standards for themselves, their vehicles and their drivers as a franchise condition in
order to ensure quality services.
On July 28, 2009, Council adopted an ordinance establishing a franchise-based system for
the regulation of taxicabs, which limits the number of taxicab companies to at least one but no
more than eight companies, limits the total number of vehicles in the citywide taxicab fleet to
250, requires franchisees to meet standards for their vehicles and drivers, provides for
rules/regulations for enforcement of franchise requirements and be self-supporting through
franchise, vehicle permit and driver permit fees.
Discussion
On January 14, 2010, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for taxicab franchises and
held apre-proposal conference on January 21, 2010, which was attended by representatives
http://wwwOl.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2 0 1 0/2 0 1 0 0622/x2010062208-A.htm 9/27/2010
Award of Taxicab Franchises -City of Santa Monica
Page 3 of 9
of 33 taxicab firms/operators. Two subsequent rounds of written questions and answers
clarifying the RFP requirements were conducted and the initial response deadline of February
22, 2010 was extended to 3:00 pm on March 19, 2010, to provide all potential responders
adequate time to meet the RFP requirements. Thirteen proposals were received by the RFP
response deadline.
Evaluation
An interagency committee evaluated the thirteen proposals, based on the following criteria,.
contained. in SMMC 6.49.040(b) and detailed in the RFP:
• Proof of financial viability, demonstrating ability to provide taxi services in compliance
with City ordinances and regulations and the bidder's proposal.
• Experience in providing taxicab services during the last ten years, including
demonstrated quality of service and safety.
• Character of operator's owners/members/principals/partners, verifying criminal/civil
record, taxicab regulatory, franchising, licehsing, insurance and litigation history.
• Proposed business and management plan.
• Proposed discount fares for senior and mobility impaired customers.
• Dispatch and communication system.
• Fleet composition, including age and condition of taxicabs, annual minimum number of
vehicles meeting ULEV/SULEV and other low-emission standards.
• Driver training, testing, supervision and life/health/disability benefit plans.
• Operator/driver financial relationships including leasing, fees, memberships and all
other relationships.
• Local preference.
In summary, the thirteen proposals received were:
TABLE 1
Taxicab Franchise Proposal Summary
PROPOSER # Current # Now operating in Based
SM Cabs Proposed SM? in SM?
SM Cabs
All Yellow Taxi Inc 6 30 Yes No
http://wwwOlsmgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2010/20100622/x2010062208-A.htm 9/27/2010
Award of Taxicab Franchises -City of Santa Monica Page 4 of 9
Bell Cab 43 60 Yes No
Beverly Hills Cab Co 29 80 Yes No
Euro Taxi 28 60 Yes Yes
Independent Taxi Owners
Assoc. 12 50 Yes No
LA Checker Cab Co/VIP Yellow 0/40 40/40 No/Yes, under
new joint venture No
Lady's Yellow Cab dba Yellow
United 27 40 Yes Yes
Metro Cab Co. 20 100 Yes Yes
SM Yellow Cab 9 30 Yes No
San Gabriel Transit Inc/City Cab 0 36 No No
SMCC Yellow Cab 0 100 No No
Taxi Taxi* 59 100 Yes Yes
Yellow Cab 40 60 Yes No
'TMAT Corporation also includes Lotus Taxi with 6 licensed taxis.
As of March 2010, the 13 proposers operated 316 cabs in Santa Monica. Collectively, they
proposed to operate a total of 826 cabs, more than three times the statutory maximum of 250
cabs permitted to operate by all franchise holders. Two proposers do not currently operate
any cabs in Santa Monica. One additional proposer does not currently operate any cabs in the
City but put forth the formation of a new joint venture with a current operator, dependent on
award of a franchise. Four proposals were received from operators with business operations
currently based in Santa Monica.
Proof of Financial Viability
Firm structure was reflective of the taxi industry in general with proposals from
cooperativeslassociations, in which vehicles are owned by members and either operated by
the member owner or leased to an independent contractor driver, and firms in which one or
more partners own the vehicles and lease them to independent contractor drivers. Members of
cooperatives/associations are assessed annual fees to cover the organization's operating
costs and share in .the organization's profits. Taxi drivers are rarely, if ever, bona fide
employees. Almost without exception, taxis are either driven by the vehicle owner or leased to
an independent contractor taxi driver. The recommended firms most clearly demonstrated
financial capacity within their organizational structure to meet the franchise requirements, with
financing commitments where necessary to meet expansion of their present fleet or acquisition
of new technology.
http://wwwOl.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/20 1 0/20 1 00622/x2010062208-A.htm 9/27/2010
Award of Taxicab Franchises -City of Santa Monica Page 5 of 9
Experience Providing Taxicab Services
All but two proposers were experienced in providing taxicab services in Santa Monica. The
two proposers which have not operated previously in Santa Monica have significant
experience in other jurisdictions in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The recommended
firms, for the most part, demonstrated an objective history of quality operation both in Santa
Monica and in other jurisdictions. The two recommended firms whose experience is limited to
operations in Santa Monica made commitments to meeting new requirements for both
technology necessary to meet increased service standards and increased supervision of and
responsibility for driver adherence to City regulations.
Character of Operator's Owners/Members/Principals/Partners
All proposers objectively demonstrated that their ownership and principal investors of record
were of good character and background, appropriate to the operation of a taxicab franchise.
Of the recommended firms, most demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements of
both the jurisdictions in which they were authorized to operate and jurisdictions in which they
were not.
Proposed Business and Management Plan.
Not all proposers provided business plans which clearly demonstrate compliance with the City
regulations or the ability to provide the required increase in levels and quality of service.
Several proposals specified management personnel with minimal relevant experience in the
taxi industry. The recommended firms demonstrated their ability to provide appropriate and
experienced staffing, meet technological requirements, monitor and enforce a uniform
standard. of service from all drivers, maintain detailed records and provide meaningful reports
to the City, and to fund their proposed level of operation.
Proposed Discount Fares
All proposers specified some form of fare discount for senior citizens (persons age 65 or older
who present proof of age, such as a DMV ID card) and persons with disabilities (persons with
a LACTOA [Los Angeles County Transit Operators Association] Metro disabled ID card).
While proposed discounts ranged from 10% to 25%, some proposed discount schemes were
determined to be problematic. Several required advance purchase of a pre-paid "debit" card
with no information as to how the card was to be read or validated. One committed to
accepting discount media for which the City would be required to fund. reimbursement. Others
placed the full burden of the mandated discount on the driver with no support or
reimbursement from the franchise holder. These approaches fail to guarantee a transparent
fare discount that is easily understood by the target customer groups and is easily monitored
by the franchise holder and the City.
http://wwwOlsmgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2010/20100622/s2010062208-A.htm 9/27/2010
Award of Taxicab Franchises -City of Santa Monica Page 6 of 9
The evaluation committee concluded that a discount of 10% off of the metered fare for eligible
passengers, with a reimbursement to the driver by the franchise holder, should be required of
all franchise recipients. Higher discounts are not financially viable without funding by some
entity other than the franchise holders and their independent contractor drivers.
Dispatch/Communication System
Digital dispatching systems are a required feature of the RFP and all proposers stated their
commitment to acquiring this technology if it was not already in place in the company's
operations. The recommended firms more clearly demonstrated their understanding of this
technology and its ability to both communicate with drivers from a centralized computerized
dispatch location and to provide a backup communication systems in case of emergencies or
failure of the digital system.
Fleet Composition
Proposers were required. to specify a fleet of at least 25 vehicles, with specific number of
proposed vehicles in each of the SULEV/ULEV/other categories of fuel efficiency/emission
rating. In addition, each proposal was required to specify a number of wheelchair accessible
vehicles equal to at least 10% of the proposed fleet size. Wheelchair accessible vehicles were
not made subject to the fuel efficiency/emission ratings requirements since the required side-
loading vans are not currently available in economically viable high fuel efficiency/low
emissions models. Proposed fleets ranged from 30 to 100 vehicles, with all proposals based
on expansion of their existing- fleet, no matter its present size in Santa Monica. Proposers
were required to provide a specific deployment schedule with the full fleet in operation at the
end of five months. The evaluation committee gave the most weight to those proposals which
both proposed fleets with greater composition of the most fuel efficient/least polluting vehicles
and with the most aggressive deployment schedule. Staff recommends that the number of
vehicles authorized for each of the five recommended franchises be set at an individual fleet
size of 50 vehicles, of which 5 are to be wheelchair-accessible vehicles. The minimum vehicle
classification mix for each franchise fleet, as shown in Table 2 below, is recommended on the
basis of the original proposed fleet mix, as shown in Table 3.
TABLE 2 -RECOMMENDED FLEET
TOTAL ~ SULEV (ULEV
Bell Cab
FLEET
50 116 129
Wheelchair
Accessible
5
http://wwwOl.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2 0 1 0/20 1 0 0622/x2010062208-A.htm 9/27/2010
Award of Taxicab Franchises -City of Santa Monica Page 7 of 9
Independent Taxi. Owners Assoc 50 45 0 5
Metro Cab Co. 50 45 0 5
Taxi Taxi 50 45 0 5
Yellow Cab 50 25 20 5
TOTAL RECOMMENDEDVEHICLES 250 176 49 25
TABLE 3 -ORIGINALLY PRO POSED FLEET
TOTAL
FLEET SULEV ULEV Wheelchair
Accessible
Bell Cab 60 16 38 6
Independeht Taxi Owners Assoc 50 45 0 5
Metro Cab Co. 100 56 29 15
Taxi Taxi 100 50 40 10
Yellow Cab 60 25 25 10
TOTAL PROPOSED VEHICLES 370 192 132 46
The recommended total fleet would consist of 70% SULEV or higher standard vehicles, 20%
ULEV vehicles, and 10% wheelchair accessible vehicles. Franchisees will be strongly
encouraged to increase the number of SULEV or greater class vehicles in their individual
fleets. By recommending an equal fleet size for each of the five recommended franchise firms,
no one firm is given an advantage in size over another and all franchised firms are offered an
equal opportunity to serve the Santa Monica taxi customer. The recommended fleet size also
represents an increase for all but one firm and eases the financial burden which might be
encountered by those firms which proposed the greatest expansion of their existing fleet.
Driver Training. Testing, Supervision and Benefit Plans
Taxis are either driven by the vehicle owner or leased to an independent contractor taxi driver.
Taxi drivers are rarely, if ever, bona fide employees. None of the proposals stated that they
provide health insurance benefits to drivers. All but one of the recommended proposers
provide a level of accidental death/disability benefit with some medical benefit at either the
proposer's cost or, in the case of those with the highest benefit, a nominal cost (e.g. $20 per
month) to the driver. The recommended firms all had specific procedures for soliciting,
selecting, hiring and training drivers and complying with City and state requirements for drug
screening.
Operator/Driver Financial Relationships
http://wwwOl.sm~ov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/20 1 0/2 0 1 00622/x2010062208-A.htm 9/27/2010
Award of Taxicab Franchises -City of Santa Monica Page 8 of 9
Membership entities assess their member's annual fees to support the operation of the entity
and share back any annual profit. Ownership entities, such as LLC's and partnerships, own
the firm's assets and derive income from the lease payments for use of the vehicle and its
equipment. Leasing fees charged by the Santa Monica-based firms were consistently higher
than those charged by firms based elsewhere, but were within the range of fees generally
charged in the industry.
Taxicab Franchise Fees
On June 30, 2009, staff recommended that the franchise fee and vehicle and driver permit fees
be established at rates both comparable to surrounding cities as well as to fully cover the costs
of administering the franchise operations. At that time, staff presented the following fees:
Annual franchise fee per cab firm: $10,000
Annual vehicle permit fee per taxicab: $ 875
Annual driver permit fee per driver: $ 150
After receiving input from Council and in order to better encourage the use of environmentally
superior vehicles, staff developed a new proposed annual franchise fee schedule the was
published in the RFP documents, as follows:
Annual franchise fee per cab firm: $5,000
Annual SULEV/ULEV/Wheelchairuehicle permit fee: $1,200
Annual non-SULEV/ULEV/Wheelchairuehicle permit fee $1;800
Annual driver permit fee $ 150
This fee structure is expected to generate approximately the same revenue as that previously.
recommended and encourages the use of SULEV, ULEV and accessible vehicles.
Taximeter Rates
The Nelson/Nygaard Taxicab study, generally set forth two recommendations for setting
taxicab rates: (1) set a maximum rate; or (2) set a rate that is equal to LADOT which is widely
used in the subregion. Staff recommends that the most effective taxicab meter rate would be
option 2, which would minimize confusion for the public that often travels between jurisdictions
and for enforcement to ensure a consistent rate. Therefore staff recommends the following
taximeter rates; which are consistent with the current LADOT rates:
$2.85 flag drop (first 1/9th mile)
$0.30 for each additional 1/9th mile ($2.70 per mile)
$0.30 for each 37 seconds waiting/delay ($29.19 per hour)
http://wwwOlsmgov.net/cityclerk/counciUagendas/2010/20100622/s2010062208-A.htm 9/27/2010
Award of Taxicab Franchises -City of Santa Monica
Page 9 of 9
The study further recommended that passengers be given the option of electing at the
beginning of a trip to either the Bob Hope Airport or Los Angeles International airports to pay
the. metered rate or a flat rate, and with different flat rates for travel to LAX originating north or
south of the I-10 Freeway. Staff recommends the following airport flat rates:
North of I-10 to Los Angeles International: $45
South of I-10 to Los Angeles International: $35
Santa Monica to Bob Hope Airport: $75
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
Administration of the proposed franchise system will be performed by the Traffic Division of the
Police Department and wilt consist of annual review of the franchise-holder's performance, on-
going processing of vehicle and driver permits, and supervision of the vehicle
inspection/certification process by aCity-designated facility. The full cost of these functions
are to be supported by the franchise and permit fees paid by the franchise holders.
Prepared by: Pamela McGarvey, Revenue Collection Administrator
Attached: Proposed Resolution
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Carol Swindell
Finance Director
Rod Gould
City Manager
http://www0l.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/20 1 0/20 1 00 622/s2010062208-A.htm 9/27/2010
% POINTS FACTOR
GREATEST CONSIDERA TION
20% 40 Proof of financial stability and sufficiency of financial resources.
20% 40 Experience in providing taxicab services during the last ten years and demonstrating ability to
provide taxi services in compliance with City ordinances and regulations and the bidder's
proposal
20% 40 Proposed business and management plan:
MIDDLE CONSIDERATI ON
15% 30 Fleet composition, including annual minimum number of vehicles meeting ULEV/SULEV/LEV and
other low-emission standards.
8% 16 Operator's business location (local preference)
5% 10 Character of operator's owners/members/principals/partners, verifying criminal/civil, taxicab
regulatory, franchising, licensing, and litigation history.
LESS CONSIDERATION
3% 6 Proposed discount fares for senior and mobility impaired customers.
3%
3% 6
-- --
6 Dispatch and communication system.
Driver training, testing, supervision and life/health/disability benefit plans.
3% 6 Operator/driver financial relationships including leasing, fees, memberships and all other
relationships.
100% 200
~'
S
COMPOSITE
Metro Cab Co. 163.70 158.50 150.00 173.20 145.00 158.08 79.04%
Yellow Cab 162.00 149.50 .157.00 158.70 161.00 157.64 78.82%
Independent Cab Co. (ITOA) 148.50 146.00 149.00 152.80 128.00 144.86 72.43%
Bell Cab _ 138.50 130.50 145.00 150.50 157.00 144.30 72.15%
Taxi Taxi 128.50 130.50 126.00 148.60 143.00 135.32 67.66%
All Yellow Taxi Inc 111.50 147.50 131.00 136.60 128.00 ''.. 130.92 65.46%
Beverly Hills Cab Co 118.50_ 125.50 121.00 126.30 151.00! 128.46 64.23%
San GabrielTransit Inc/City Cab 105.70 136.00 118.00 138.60 123.00', 124.26 62.13%
L.A. Checker Cab Co. _ 106.50 116.00 103.00 121.50 89.00 107.20 53.60%
S.M. Yellow Cab 66.00 99.50 75.00 104.80 145.00 98.06 49.03%
Euro Taxi 80.50 100.50 86.00 100.10 _
85.00 90.42 45.21%
SMCC Yellow Cab __ 101.50 _ 115.50 102.00 12.05 71.00 80.41 40.21°~
Lady's Yellow Cab dba Yellow United 43.50 86.50 29.00 62.80 37.00 51.76 25.88%
Date: October 4, 2040
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Carol Swindell, Director of Finance
Subject: Petitions in Support of Applications for Taxicab Franchises
The City has received a number of letters and emails related to the proposed taxicab
franchise. The City is aware of multiple applicants for taxicab franchises that actively
solicited public support for their proposals through the circulation of petitions, outside of
the City's Request for Proposals process. To date, the City has only received one such
petition in the form of multiple form letters in support of the proposal submitted by the
Beverly Hills Cab Company. Attached is the correspondence received to date, as well
as the cover letter and a sample of the 556 form letters provided by Beverly Hills Cab
Company. The remainder of the form letters are available for review in the City Clerk's
Office.
1
.¢}.010 - To 11- ~
CT 12 2010
90~ 7 D 8-r4
~uN s s ~~s~
.:,
From: Tony and Helen Spaulding [ts533@verizon.netj
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 12:51 PM
To: C(edc Mailbox
Subject: Item 8A: Award of Taxi Cab Franchises
To the City Clerk, Please forward these comments to al( City Council Members before the next Council meeting. Thank
you.
We are very disappointed to see our favorite and most reliable cab company, Euro Taxi.-left off the list to do business in
Santa Monica!
Over the years we have found them fo be the most reliable, the most prompt,-the vehicles used are up-to-date, usually
very energy efficient, the drivers very prafessionaf and unfailingly courteous.
The reason we have come to use Eurd Taxi exclusively is that it is a Santa Monica Company. There dispatchers are
local, and are aware.of local address idiosyncrasies, so they are always on time. Our experience with Yellow cab,
although limited by our nerve-wracking experience. has been entirely opposite: We very nearly missed our flight because
neither the dispatcher or the taxi driver realized that 533 Lincoln, Santa Monica, is nat in Venice where the driver looked
for us.
Lwould think that Santa Monica businesses should get extra points for operating a taxi company in Santa Monica. I would
alse think that Council members could make mare informed decisions.if the scores of the evaluations as rated by City staff
were disclosed to them. Please reconsider. '
Thank ycu for your time.
Helen and Tony Spaulding
533 Lincoln Bivd.
Santa Monica, CA 90402
~~~ g = ~QTQ
~9D1~ % ~ 6LJ9
Y{z1 EMAIi_
June 17, 2010
Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Maih Street, Room 209
Santa Monica. CA 90401
RE: June 22, 2010 Counci! Agenda Item 8-R-Award of Taxicab Franchises
Dear Honorable Members ofthe Santa Monica City Council:
app ~ ~.~,51
3UN 8 ~ 2~1Q
0 F~ ESQ T~ E
CITY CLERti
2D#8 Jt7N 2 I AF! 8: 2 f
SANTA tit3NlCA, CAL4F.
All Yellow Taxi is one of the 13 proposers received by the City of Santa Monica in response to
the Taxicab Franchise tZFP. We want to raise concerns about the process undertaken by staff
in evaluating the proposals.
As the Santa Monica City Attorney articulated a# the November 10, 2009 Council meeting;
while Iocal preference may be considered as an evaluation criteria, the council cannot
construct an RFP that gives undue preference ar the perception of carving out a slot for Santa
Monica-based companies. Nonetheless, 40% of the taxicabs in the recommended flee# are
from Santa Monica-based companies.-
While we know the City included local preference as a one of the articulafed criteria, we are
very concerned that the staff recommendatiorcmayhove not adequately weighted.other
extremely important considerations in making its fleet~recommendations. The staff
recommendation does not fist any scoring or comparison between proposers, so it is
extraordinarily diffieuk to discern how aria proposer's quaycations differed from ono#her. We
would like there to_ be a review of the scoring process so that there may be mare transparency
moving forward.
Additionally, we are very disappointed ttiaf City staff did not do enough due diligence by
conducting a site visit to our headquarters to best evaluate our. corpora#e operations and our
top-notch communications and dispatch system- Knowing that a taxicab company has strong
management and operations is essential to propedy evaluate a taxicab company's:abiiify to
provide service.. In this case, the Counci! is being given a staff report that does not include
enough thorough information in additian to the RFP responses tfiat provide key indicafors
regarding proposers' qualifications.
t 7800 S. Main St Suite [ O F Gardena CA 9i 754
Phase (310} 807-$900-FAX (3 ] 0) 807-8940
~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~~~ Tt7 ~~
We know All Yellow Taxi's qualifications as submitted in the RFP response reflect the taxicab
industry's best practices in the following areas,- and we want to bring fo your attention some
highlights of our qualifications #hat we believe were not adequately assessed in the-staff
report:
Experience Providing Taxicab Services - Since 19g7, All Yellow Taxi has grown to
serve 'f 5 cities in Los Angeles County, including the cities of Hermosa Beach, Torrance,
Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Lawndaie, El Segundo, South Gate, Santa
Monica, Carson, Hawthorne, Rancho Palos Verdes, Lomita, Huritington Park,
Inglewood, Lynwood, Gardena, in addition to unincorporated Los Angeles Caurrty.
Many of these city officials have recognized and praised All Yellow Taxi for providing
safe, refiahle taxicab service.
Fleet Composition -Out of a proposed 30-vehicle fleet, All Yellow Taxi proposed 25
SULEV vehicles and 5 wheelchair accessible vehicles. Fully 17% of our proposed fleet
is wheelchair-accessible, notably exceeding the City's 10% requiremerrt.
Discounted Fare Program -Keeping in lirie with the City's recommendations, we
proposed a 10% fare discount to seniors and persons with disabilities, reimbursing our
drivers weekly. We would strong€y market the discount program to seniors at key
locations as welt.
DispatchiCommunication System -All AYT vehicles and dispatch stations are
equipped with the latest Global Positioning System, Transportation Software Solutiens
(TSS) advanced operationat control system, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD), and Digital Dispatch Service (DDS) Taxi Tracking Software, allowing
dispatchers to know the location of all Taxicabs at any given time. This technology
streamlines the dispatching system and assures the fastest possible pickup and drop
aff times:
We ask you to re-evaluate the staff recommendations as included in the staff report, and that
you consider including All .Yellow Taxi in the proposed fleet to ensure that Santa Monica
residents, businesses; and visitors alike will receive the best possible taxicab service.
Please cantaot us if you have any questions.
Sincerely.
ALI A. NASROLL4H1
President.
} 7800 S. ':Main St Suite t 03 Gazdena CA 41754
Phone {310) 807-8400-FAX (310) 807-8440
roposed Santa Monica Units 2010
# W EH NAME ~ VIN # ~ tJP EXP DATE YEAR MAKE MODEL FUEL TYP VEH TYPE
1 22 VARDANYAN,ARESEN JTDKN3DU05108762 TEMP TEMP 201D TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
2 3 MARCHENKO DMYTRO 4T16646K29U1D6107 8W65263 8131/2010 2009 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
3 13 WOLDTSADIKDAWIT 4T1B646K19V106869 6JWS821 7!2812010 2009 TOYT .CAMRY HYB SULEV
4 36 ROBERTGHARALIAN ~ 4T16B46K69U094485 8V28986 .1/31/2011 2008 TOYT CAMRV HYB SULEV
5 44 FRED SARKISSIAN - JTOKB20U497819180 TEMP TEMP 2009 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV.
5 83 PABLO GONZALEZ 1N4CL21E49C154299 TEMP TEMP 2009 NISS ALTIMA HY8 SULEV
7 81 HAYRIKYAN HOVANNES JHMFA382395013245 BT77345 6/3012010 2009 HOND CIVtC HYB SULEV
$ 1 SERGEIABAYEV 1FMCU49H88KA90544 BV97419 7/31/2010 2008 FORD ESCAPE ~ HYB SULEV
9 11 AGANES KIRAKUSYAN 1FMCU49HXSKA91484 8V97300 7/312010 2D08 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
10 18 JORGE COLONO 1FMCUd9HiBKA85153 8575997 7/31/2010 2006 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
11 27 ILDAR R FARKHUTDINOV 1N4CL21EXBC264207 8007441 8/31/2010 2008 NISS ALTIMA HYB SULEV
12 77 KO EUN KYU 1N4CL21E86C192844 ROKMO1 2/8/2011. 2008 NISS ALTIMA ..HYB SULEV
13 83 JAMILAH MUHAMMAD 1FMCU49H18KE85917 ~8VA7621 8/31/2010 2008 FORD ESCAPE ~ HYB SULEV
14 86 TWATCMAIMATHIYAKOM 1FMCU49H68KE88683 8U669D4 6/302D10 2008 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
15 98 MYONG WWANN LEE JTOK20U787716639 TEMP TEMP 2008 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV.
16 98 ARA KHURSHUDYAN JTOK624U583336179 8000378 1!31/2011 2008 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
17 100 VORK GEORGE MELKONY JTDK620U687699381 ~ TEMP TEMP 2D08 TOVT PRIUS .HYB SULEV
18 133 HALABIEH TALAL 1FMCU49H08KB04677 8007108 6/3112010 2008 'FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
19 17 ' ARA KHURSHUDYAN 1FMCU49H47KAfl4788 BT99644 51312011 2007 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
20 18 YHON ARANZABAL 4T1 B646K27U020008 $W88992 14!31/2010 2007 TOYT CAMRY HY8 SULEV
21 26 DAVITTOUNIAN 1N4CL21E47C182278 8000317 5!31/2010 2007 NISS ALTIMA ~ HYB SULEV
22 29 KIM~HYUNG WOO JTN6846K173D23820 TEMP TEMP 2007 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
23 34 HIMAYAKSAMSONYAN 1N4CL21E47C18359D 5YBN606 5!1012010 2007 NISS ALTIMA HYB ~ SULEV
24 38 CHABOUKABDEL 1FMCUd9N67KA78883 TEMP TEMP 2007 FORD ESCAPE HVB SULEV
26 92 ALEKSANIAN,.ARAIK JTOK820U777648034 TEMP TEMP 2007 TOYT PRIUS MYB SULEV
26 124 ERVANTAGAJVAN 1D4GP24R978171054 BV97765 3/31/2011 2007 DODG CARAVAN VAN wHEELCHAIR
27 23 REZA KALANTARNISTANA 1GBDV13L25D295444 8085938 7/31/2D1D 2005 CHEV VENTURE VAN WHEELCHAIR
~28 # To be purchased at a later date n/a ~ n/a # n/a n/a VAN wHEELCHaiR
29 # 7o ba purchased at a later date n/a ~ n/a # n/a. n/a VAN. WHEELCHAIR
30 # To be purchased at a later date ~ nla n/a # n!a n/a VAN WHEELCHAIR
VtA F£DE.k
June 17, 2010
Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: June 22, 2010 Council Agenda Item 8-A-Award of Taxicab Franchises
Dear Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
All Yellow Taxi is one of the 13 proposers received by the City of Santa Monica in response to
the Taxicab Franchise RFP. We want to raise concerns about the process undertaken by staff
in evaluating the proposals.
As the Santa Monica City Attorney articulated at the November 1Q, 2009 Council meeting,
while local preference may be considered as an evaluation criteria, the council cannot
construct an RFP that gives undue preference or the perception of carving out a scat for Santa
Monica-based companies. Nonetheless, 40% of the taxicabs in the recommended fleet are
from Santa Monica-based companies.
While we know the City included local preference as a one of the articulated criteria, we are
very concerned that the staff recommendation may have not adequately weighted other
extremely important considerations in making its flee# recommendations. The stall
recommendation does not list any scoring or comparison between proposers, so it is
extraordinarily difficult to discern how one proposer's qualifications differed from another. We
would like there to be a review of the scoring process so that there may be more transparency
moving forward.
Additionally, we are very disappointed that City staff did not do enough due diligence by
conducting a site visit to our headquarters to best evaluate our corporate operations and our
top-notch communications and dispatch system. Knowing that a taxicab company has strong
management and operations is essential to properly evaluate a taxicab company's ability to
provide service. In this case, the Council is being given a staff report that does not include
enough thorough information in addition to the RFP responses that provide key indicators
regarding proposers' qualifications.
17800 S. Main St Suite 101 Gardena CA 91754
Phone (310) 807-8900-FAX {310} 807-8440
We know All Yellow Taxi's qualifications as submitted in the RFP response reflect the taxicab
industry's best practices in the following areas, and we want#o bring to your attention some
highlights of our qualifications that we believe were not adequately assessed in the staff
report:
Experience Providing Taxicab Services - Since 1997, All Yellow Taxi has grown to
serve 15 cities in Los Angeles County, including the cities of Hermosa Beach, Torrance,
Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Lawndale, EI Segundo, South Gate, Santa
Monica, Carson, Hawthorne, Rancho Palos Verdes, Lomita, Huntington Park,
Inglewood, Lynwood, Gardena, in addition to unincorporated Los Angeles County.
Many of these city officials have recognized and praised All Yellow Taxi for providing
safe, reliable taxicab service.
Fleet Composition -Out of a proposed 30-vehicle fleet, All Yellow Taxi proposed 25
SULEV vehicles and 5 wheelchair accessible vehicles. Fully 17% of our proposed fileet
is wheelchair-accessible, notably exceeding the City's 10% requirement.
Discounted Fare Program -Keeping in line with the City's recommendations, we
proposed a 10% fare discount to seniors and persons with disabilities, reimbursing our
drivers weekly. We would strongly market the discount program to seniors at key
locations as welt.
Dispatch/Communication System -All AYT vehicles and dispatch stations are
equipped with the latest Global Positioning System, Transportation Software Solutions
(TSS) advanced operational control system, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD), and Digital Dispatch Service {DDS) Taxi Tracking Software, allowing
dispatchers to know the location of all taxicabs at any given time. This technology
streamlines the dispatching system and assures the fastest possible pickup and drop
off times.
We ask you to re-evaluate the staff recommendations as included in the staff report, and tha#
you consider including All Yellow Taxi in the proposed fleet to ensure that Santa Monica
residents, businesses, and visitors alike will receive the best possible taxicab service,
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~` ~
ALI A. NASROLLAHI
Presid ent
17800 S. Main St Suite 101 Gazdena CA 91754
Phone (310) 807-8900-FAX {310) 807-8940
roposed Santa Monica Units 201D
# VEH NAME VIN # LIP EXP DATE YEAR MAKE MODEL FUEL TYP VEH TYPE
1 22 VARDANYAN, ARESEN JTDKN3DUO5108762 TEMP TEMP 2010 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
2 3 NIARCHENKO DMYTRO 4T18646K29U1D8107 BW65283 8/31/2D10 2009 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
3 73 WOLDTSADIKDAWIT 4T1BB48K19V106669 8JWS821 7/28/2010 2009 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
4 35 ROBERT GHARALIAN 4T1B846K69U084485 8V28988 1/31/2011 2009 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
5 44 FRED SARKISSIAN JTDKB20U497819180 TEMP TEMP 2009 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
6 63 PABLO GONZALEZ 1N4CL21E49C154299 TEMP TEMP 2009 NISS ALTIMA HYB SULEV
7 81 HAYRIKYAN HOVANNES JHMFA362395013245 8T77345 8/30/2010 2009 HOND CIVIC HYB SULEV
8 1 SERGEIABAYEV 1FMCU49H88KA90544 SV97419 7131/201D 2008 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
9 11 AGANES KIRAKUSYAN 1FMCU49HXBKA91484 8V97300 7/31/2010 2008 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
10 16 JORGE COLONO 1FMCU49H18KA85153 8S75997 7!31/2010 2008 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
11 27 ILOAR R FARKHUTDINOV 1N4CL21EXBC284207 8007441 6/31/2010 2008 NISS ALTIMA WYB SULEV
12 77 KO EUN KYU 1N4CL21 E88C192844 ROKMC1 2/8/2011 2008 NISS ALTIMA HYB SULEV
13 83 JAMILAH MUHAMMAD 1FMCU49H18KEB5917 8V47821 8/31/2010 2008 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
14 B5 TWATCHAI MATHIYAKOM 1FMCU49H68KE68683 8085904 6/30/2010 2008 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
15 96 MYONG HWANNLEE JTDK20U767716839 TEMP TEMP 2008 TOYT PRIUS .HYB SULEV
16 98 ARA KHURSHUDYAN JTDKB20U683338179 8000378 1/31/2011 2008 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
17 10D VORK GEORGE MELKONY JTDK620U887899381 TEMP TEMP 2008 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
18 133 HALABIEH TALAL 1FMCU49HOBKB04677 8007106 8/31/2010 2006 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
19 17 ARA KHURSHUDYAN 1FMCU49H47KA04788 8T99544 5/31/2011 2007 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
20 19 YHON ARANZABAL 4T1BB46K27U020008 8WB8992 10/31!2010 2007 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
21 26 DAVIT TOUNIAN 1N4CL21E47C182278 8000317 5/31/2010 2007 NISS ALTIMA HYB SULEV
22 28 KIM HYUNG WOO JTNBB46K173023620 TEMP TEMP 2007 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
23 34 HIMAYAK SAMSONYAN 1N4CL21E47C183590 5YBN808 5/10/2010 2007 NISS ALTIMA HYB SULEV
24 38 CHABOUK ABDEL 1FMCU49H87KA78B83 TEMP TEMP 2007 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
25 92 ALEKSANIAN,ARAIK JTDK620U777648034 TEMP TEMP 2007 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
26 124 ERVANT AGAJYAN 1D4GP24R976171054 8V97765 3/31/2011 2007 DODG CARAVAN VAN WHEELCHAIR
27 23 REZA KALANTARNISTANA 1GBDV13L25D295444 8085938 7/31/2010 2005 CHEV VENTURE VAN WHEELCHAIR
28 # To be purchased at a later date n/a n/a # n/a n/a VAN WHEELCHAIR
29 # To be purchased at a later date n/a n/a # n/a n/a VAN WHEELCHAIR
30 # To be purchased at a later date n/a n/a # n/a n/a VAN WHEELCHAIR
AT Ct~Ultfit=2
RECEiitED
OFFICE OF THE
CSTY ~LERR
281U J!1#! 2 t A~ I~~ 55
SANTA NOFttCd. cAtlF,
June 1.7, 2010
Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Stree#, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: June 22, 2010 Council Agenda Item 8-A-Award of Taxicab Franchises
Dear Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
All Yellow Taxi is one of the 13 proposers received by the City of Santa Monica in response to
the Taxicab Franchise RFP. We want to raise concerns about the process undertaken by staff
in evaluating the proposals.
As the Santa Monica City Attorney articulated at the November 10, 2009 Council meeting,
while local preference may be considered as an evalua#ion criteria, the council cannot
construct an RFP that gives undue preference or the perception of carving out a slot for Santa
Monica-based companies. Nonetheless, 40% of the taxicabs in the recommended flee# are
from Santa Monica-based companies.
While we know the City included local preference as a one of the articulated criteria, we are
very concerned that the staff recommendation may have not adequately weighted other
extremely important considerations in making its fleet recommendations. The staff
recommendation does not list any scoring or comparison be#ween proposers, so it is
extraordinarily difficult to discern how one proposer's qualifications drffered from another. We
would like there to be a review of the scoring process so that there may be more transparency _
moving forward.
Additionally, we are very disappointed #hat City staff did not do enough due diligence by
conducting a site visit to our headquarters to best evaluate our corporate operations and our
top-notch communications and dispatch system. Knowing that a taxicab company has strong
management and operations is essential to properly evaluate a taxicab company's ability to
provide service. In this case, the Council is being given a staff report that does not include
enough thorough information in addition to the RFP responses that provide key indicators
regarding proposers' qualifications.
17800 S_ Main St Suite 101 Gardena CA 91754
Phone {310) 807-8900-FAX {310) 807-8940
1/Ue know All Yellow Taxi's qualifications as submitted in the RFP response reflect the taxicab
indusfry's best practices in the following areas, and we want to bring to your attention some
highlights of our qualifications That we believe were not adequately assessed in the staff
report:
Experience Providing Taxicab Services - Since 1997, All Yellow Taxi has grown to
serve 15 cities in Los Angeles Cour>fy, including the cities of Hermosa Beach, Torrance,
Manhattan Beach, Redonda Beach, Lawndale, EI Segundo, South Gate, Santa
Monica, Carson, Nawthome, Rancho Palos Verdes, Lomita, Huntington Park,
Inglewood, Lynwood, Gardena, in addition to unincorporated Los Angeles County.
Many of these city officials have recognized and praised All Yellow Taxi for providing
safe, reliable taxigb service.
Fleet Composition -Out of a proposed 30-vehicle fleet, AEI Yellow Taxi proposed 25
SULEV vehicles and 5 wheelchair accessible vehicles. Fully 17% of our proposed fleet
is wheelchair-accessible, notably exceeding the City's 10% requirement.
Discounted Fare Program -Keeping in line with the City's recommendations, we
proposed a 10% fare discount to seniors and persons with disabilities, reimbursing our
drivers weekly. We would strongly market the discount program to seniors at key
locations as well.
Dispatch/Communication System -All AYT vehicles and dispatch stations are
equipped wi#h the latest Global Positioning System, Transportation Soffinrare Solutions
{TSS) advanced operational control system, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD), and Digital Dispatch Service (DDS) Taxi Tracking Software, allowing
dispatchers to know the location of all taxicabs at any given time. This technology
streamlines the dispatching system and assures the fastest possible pickup and drop
off times.
We ask you to re-evaluate the staff recommendations as included in the staff report, and that
you consider including All Yellow Taxi in the proposed fleet to ensure that Santa Monica
residents, businesses, and visitors alike will receive the best possible taxicab service.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ALI A. NASROi_LAHI
President
I7800 S. Main St Suite 101 Gardena CA 91754
Phone (310) 807-8900-FAX (310) 807-8940
roposed Santa Monica Units 2010
# VEH NAME VIN # LIP EXP DATE YEAR MAKE MODEL FUEL 7YP VEH TYPE
1 22 VARDANYAN,ARESEN JTDKN30UO5108762 TEMP TEMP 2010 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
2 3 MARCHENKO DMYTRO 4T1B646K29U108107 8W65263 8/31!2010 2009 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
3 13 WOLDTSADIK DAWIT 4T18B48K19V108869 6JW5921 7/28/2010 2009 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
4 35 ROBERT GHARALIAN 4T1BB46K69U094485 8V28988 1/31/2011 2009 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
S
6 44
63 FRED SARKISSIAN
PABLO GONZALEZ JTDKB20U497819180
1N4CL21E49C154299 TEMP
TEMP TEMP
TEMP 2009
2p09 TOYT
NISS PRIUS
ALTIMA WYB
HYB SULEV
SULEV
7 81 HAYRIKYAN HOVANNES JHMFA362395013245 8777345 6/30/2010 2009 HOND CIVIC HYB SULEV
8 i SERGEIABAYEV 1FMCU49HBBKA90544 BV97419 7/31/2010 2008 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
9
10 11
16 AGANES KIRAKUSYAN
JORGE COLONO 1FMCU49HX8KA91484
1FMCU49H18KA85153 8V97300
8S75997 7/31/2010
7/31/2010 2008
2008 FORD
FORD ESCAPE
ESCAPE HYB
HYB SULEV
SULEV
11
12 27
77 ILDAR R FARKHUTDINOV
KO EUN KYU 1N4CL21EXBC264207
1N4CL21E88C192844 8007441
ROKMC1 8/31/2p10
2/8/2011 2008
2008 NISS
NISS ALTIMA
ALTIMA HYB
HYB SULEV
SULEV
13 83 JAMILAH MUHAMMAD 1FMGU49H18KE85917 8V47621 8/31/2010 2008 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
14
15 85
95 TWATCHAI MATHIYAKOM
MYONG HWANN LEE 1FMCU49H68KE68683
JTDK20U787716639 8085904
TEMP 6/30/2010
TEMP 2008
20D8 FORD
TOYT ESCAPE
PRIUS HYB
HYB SULEV
SULEV
16 98 ARA KHURSHUDYAN JTDKB20U583338779 8000376 1!31/2011 2008 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
17 100 VORK GEORGE MELKONY JTDKB20U687699381 TEMP TEMP 2008 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
18 133 HALABIEH TALAL 1FMCU49HOSK604677 8007108 8/3112010 200$ FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
19 17 ARA KHURSHUDYAN 1FMCU49H47KA04788 8799544 5/31/2011 2007 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
20 79 YHON ARANZABAL 4T1BB46K27U020008 BW88992 10!31/2010 2007 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
21 26 DAVIT TOUNIAN 1N4CL21E47C182276 8000317 5/31/2010 2007 NISS ALTIMA HYB SULEV
22 29 KIM HYUNG WOO JTNBB46K173023620 TEMP TEMP 2007 TOYT CAMRY HYB SULEV
23 34 HIMAYAK SAMSONYAN 1N4CL21E47C18359p 5YBN808 5/10/2010 2007 NISS ALTIMA HYB SULEV
24 38 CHABOUK ABDEL 1FMCU49H67KA76B83 TEMP TEMP 20p7 FORD ESCAPE HYB SULEV
25 92 AIEKSANIAN,ARAIK JTOKB20U777648034 TEMP TEMP 2007 TOYT PRIUS HYB SULEV
26 124 ERVANT AGAJYAN 1D4GP24R978171054 8V97785 3131!2011 2007 DODG CARAVAN VAN WHEELCHAIR
27 23 REZA KALANTARNISTANA 1GBDV13L25D295444 8085938 7/311201p 2005 CHEV VENTURE VAN WHEELCHAIR
28 # To be purchased at a later date n/a n/a # n/a n/a VAN WHEELCHAIR
29 # To be purchased at a later date n/a n/a # n/a n/a VAN WHEELCHAIR
30 # To be purchased at a later date n/a rVa # n/a n/a VAN WHEELCHAIR
ADD Td d~-~4
JEJ[~ 8 S ~ft1Q-
HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER Sz KOZAL, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL 1250 SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
(310) 260-3315 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90901-1602
7E LE P4 QNE (310) 393-1007
FACSIMILE (310) 392-3537
June 18, 2010
VIA MESSENGER DELIVERY
Mayor Robert Shriver and Gouncilmembers
Santa Monica City Council
1885 Main Street, 2"d Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Award of Taxicab Franchises
City Council Agenda [tern 8-A/June 22, 2010
Our File No. 22004.001
Dear Mayor Shriver and Gouncilmembers:
farmore@hikklaw.cam
Z .o
v `~ ~~
~ ~~
0 1 ~ ~`
~ f°<
'~
~ ~,
D S ~,
RZ
~ to =er's
s `
r ..
,,,
r
T '
This fetter is written on behalf of our client, TMAT Corp., a taxicab company with
its headquarters in Santa Monica which exclusively provides transportation service to
Santa Monica residents, visitors, hotels and other Iota( businesses under the name
Taxif Taxi!
Taxi! Taxi! has been proudly serving Santa Monica for over 20 years and was the
first such company to include hybrid vehicles in its fleet. The Company has received
several prestigious awards, including three Sustainable Quality Awards (the Grand
Prize in 2009}, the Blue Ribbon Small Business Award from the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce in 2010, and the Small Business of the Year Award in 2010 for the 41St
District from the California Small Business Associafion.
Currently, TMAT operates a fleet of 65 vehicles, 59 under the Taxi! Taxif name
and six under the "Lotus Taxi" name. In response to the City's RFP, TMAT proposed a
maximum fleet of 100 vehicles, 50 of which would have been Toyota hybrids qualifying
under the "SULEV" classification and 50 of which would have been ULEV vehicles,
including 40 vans, 10 of which would be wheelchair accessible. While Taxif Taxi! is
very pleased to have been one of the operators recommended to receive a franchise in
the Staff Report, it has a few concerns
1. Total Fleet Size. Staff recommends that each of the five designated
operators be awarded a franchise for a maicimum fleet size of 50 vehicles. However,
the only basis for this recommendation mentioned in the Report is to give all firms an
equal opportunity to serve focal customers. As the Report notes, however, there is one
firm -which happens to be Taxi! Taxif -that wilt be forced to reduce the size of its
:ICI ~ ~ ZQI~
,q,~i ?U u"-y4
HARDIIVG LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL. LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor Robert Shriver and Cauncilmembers
June 18, 2010
Page 2
current fleet. Despite a stated effort to be fair, the Staff has recommended a result that
gives each of the other four companies a greater share of the market than it currently
has while diminishing Taxi! Taxies share which it has built up over the years through its
reputation for excellence. This is clearly not fair, particularly given the disparity between
the current operating levels of the other four companies.
The following table, based upon the information contained in the tables set forth
in the Staff Report, shows the significant size increase advantage being given to the
other four companies when compared to Taxi! Taxi!:
Company Number of Current Cabs Number of Cabs
Recommended b Staff
Bell Cab 43 50
Independent Taxi Owners 12 50
Metro Cab 20 50
Taxi! Taxi! 65 (1) 50
Yellow Cab 40 50
(1) Includes the 6 cabs operated under the Lotus Taxi name.
Particularly surprising is the substantial increase being given to Independent Taxi
Owners Association despite the fact that it is not a Santa Monica-based company. We
believe that fundamental fairness would lead to a result that would not cause Taxi!
Taxi!, as a successful local company, to be forced to accept a 23°1° reduction in its
current capacity. In effect, it is being penalized for this very success.
Taxi! Taxi! requested an award for 100 vehicles and structured its business plan
around that number. The Staff Report claims that reducing the fleet size "eases the
financial burden which might be encountered by those firms which proposed the
greatest expansion of their existing fleet." However, exactly the opposite is frue. In
order to meet alt of the requirements imposed by the new regulations, such as the
digital dispatch system, Taxi! Taxi! has been required to incur significant capital costs.
If these costs are to be amortized over a smaller size fleet, the resuR is a significantly
greater financial burden.
Given these considerations, Taxi! Taxi! requests that its overall fleet size be
increased to 75. While it would prefer 100, as originally proposed, an increase of 10
vehicles above its current fleet size will enable Taxi! Taxi! to grow its business slightly
HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor Robert Shriver and Counciimembers
June 78, 2010
Page 3
and provide a greater base for covering its significant capital costs unrelated to the cost
of the vehicles fhemselves.
2. Fleet Allocation. Of equal concern to Taxi! Taxi! is the fact that the fleet
allocation indicated in Table 2 of the Staff Report effectively prevents Taxi! Taxil from
offering van service to its customers other than through five wheelchair accessible vans.
The effect of this allocation is to cause Taxi! Taxi! to lose a significant part of ifs current
business and to force it to refer customers needing vans to its competitors.
Currently, there are no vans which qualify as "SULEV" vehicles. Therefore, if a
company is to utilize vans which are not wheelchair accessible, the company would
need to have a "ULEV" allocation; however, as the following table demonstrates, the
only companies being given such an allocation are Bell Cab and Yellow Cab, two non-
Santa Monica companies.
-Name of Company Number of ULEV
Vehicles Requested Number of ULEV
Vehicles Awarded
BeII Cab 38 29
lnde endent Taxi Owners 0 0
Metro Cab 29 0
Taxi! Taxi! 40 0
Yellow Cab 25 20
The Staff Report contains no explanation for this obviously unbalanced allocation
but its effect is to cause Taxi! Taxi! to not only Pose the 40 ULEV vehicles it requested
but also its complete fleet ofnon-wheelchair accessible vans. This is a tremendous loss
because trips to LAX often require vans to transport families with luggage and,
therefore, they are critical to any operator's ability to provide satisfactory service.
The Staff Report states that the recommended allocation results in a total 250-
vehicle fleet that has 70%SULEV vehicles but never explains why it didn't, at least, give
each company an allocation of this size. Taxi! Taxi! is required to have a 90%SULEV
flee# with the other five vehicles being its wheelchair accessible vans - no ULEV
vehicles are permitted. If the City's goal is to start out with 70% of the fleet being
SULEV vehicles, then at least each company should be treated equally. What the Staff
is recommending is completely inconsistent with its stated intent not to give one firm an
advantage over another but to give each an equal opportunity fo serve the public.
If the City elects to adhere to the 70°!° SULEV allocation, then using the
recommended fleet sizes, Taxi? Taxi! would be required to have 35 SULEV vehicles and
HAItDfNG LARMOfZE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor Robert Shriven and Councilmembers
June 18, 2010
rage 4
could have 10 ULEV vehicles, which would include vans. With our requested increase
in Taxi! Taxi!'s fleet size to 75, the 70% standaid would require it to have 53 SULEV
vehicles, which would all be sedans, 14 ULEV vehicles, most of which would be vans,
and 8 wheelchair accessible vans.
3. Franchise Fees. Staff recommends a franchise fee schedule consisting of
an annual $5000 fee imposed on each firm plus an annual vehicle fee of $1200. (lt also
includes an annual vehicle fee of $1800 on each vehicle that does not qualify as a
SULEV, ULEV or wheelchair accessible. However, no such vehicles seem to be
permitted so this portion of the fee schedule seems irrelevant.)
The first problem with the Staff Report is that it makes no pretense ofjustifying
the fee amounts in light of the costs of servicing the franchise and licensing system.
Unless the amounts can be justified through some level of financial analysis, they risk
being considered a tax requiring voter approval.
Second, the Report stafes that this schedule will raise approximately the same
amount of revenue as the originally suggested schedule while encouraging the use of
SULEV, ULEV and accessible vehicles. However, the use of those types of vehicles is
effectively mandated by the manner in which the awards are made, so no further
"encouragement" is needed. Also, the arithmetic is incorrect. For example, under the
original schedule, with a fleet of 50 vehicles, Taxi! Taxi! would have paid a franchise
and permit fee for the cabs of $53,750 while under the new schedule, it will. be $65,000.
Since Phis is not a result unique to Taxi! Taxi! or to the number of authorized vehicles,
the new schedule will result in overall fees of $325,000 rather than $268,750, which
would have been the result under the previous schedule.
As stated earlier in this Fetter, Taxi! Taxi! is pleased that its successful business
model has been approved by Staff. However, we believe it is not fair to farce Taxi! Taxi!
to operate at a lower level than it does currently or be forced to give. up the use of non-
wheelchair accessible vans. Finally, the Staff Report is incredibly deficient in providing
details regarding its recommendations as to the fleet sizes, the fleet allocations or even
the amounts of the recommended fees.
Sin rely,
f~ ~\, p~~JVYH*~.
Thomas R. Larmore
HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor Robert Shriner and Councilmembers
June 18, 2010
Page 5
cc: Rod Gould
Caro! Swindell
Don Patterson
Elaine Polachek
Pamela McGaivey
Ayman Radwan
Wendy Radwan
22004.001 /CorlGou nci 1.1001.tr1
/~l~D 7D 6t-s4
Beverly I-Tills Transit, Cooperntive Tnc. dba ~~~ ~+ 2 ZO~~
REG€1YE[3
01?FICE QF rHE
P CITY CLERK
6102 Venice Boulevard, l..os Angeles, California 90034-2218 ~~ 2 ~ ~~~~~- 3
Offices (310) 837-0260 Fax (323) 931-4172
.r11j1 ~'~{~ f~or~if;A• GA6lIF.
June 21, 2010
Santa Monica Gity Council
Santa Monica Gity Hall
1685 Main 5~eet, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
~~~_.
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Santa Monica
Re: OBJECTION TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AWARD OFTAXI FRANCHISE
Dear Honorable Councilmemher"s:
This.letter is written on behalf of Beverly Hills Transit Cooperative, Inc., dba Beverly Hills Cab Company
("BHHC"j. BHCC submitted a proposal for a Taxi Franchise in the City of Santa Monica.
BHCC strongly objects to the Staff Recommendation. Furthermore, the Staff Recommendation fails to
provide arty information upon which BHCC can effectively challenge the Staff Recommendation. In
particular, the Staff Recommendation completely fails to disclose any data regarding scoring and any
specifics regarding the differences in evaluation of each proposer. The Staff Recommendation is
materially deficient and we will be denied due process of law if BHCC is required to respond to a Staff
Recommendation which is devoid of any material details, data or information upon which to base our
response. How can we request reconsideration or modifications of a Staff Recommendation if the data
and factual basis forthe Staff Recommendation is not provided?
At a minimum, we requestthat the Staff be required to make a disclosure ofthe scoring and data upon
which its recommendations are based, in advance of any public hearing on this Issue.
We also believe that the failure to make a full disclosure of such data and scoring will effect a denial of
the public's right to be heard at a public hearing in violation of California law.
Alternatively, we request that the City Council reconsider andJor modify the Recommendation of Staff
to include an Award of a Franchise to BHCC.
Respectfully submitted,
Vrej Alvandian, President
Beverly Hills transit Cooperative, Inc
dba Beverly Hills Gab Co.
cc Ken Spiker
~Q~Q
~~ 7~ ~-,q
f'.d~ TD ~ ~9
JUN 2 2 2018
Latin Business Association (LBAj
In response to the Taxicab Franchise RW issued by the Cty of Santa Monica
R€CEIYED
OfF1CE Of THE. `~,
CITY CLERK __
June 21, 2010
Mayor Bobby Shriver
Santa Monica City Council
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
SdkTA tiQN1CA. CAl:If
.~__,~
via a-mail @ council(a)smirov.net
Dear Honorable Mayor Shriver and Santa Monica City Councilmembers:
The Latin Business Association (LBA) is writing to oppose the recent staff recommendation which
excludes EURO TAXI, LLC {EIJRO) from a taxicab franchise award, which is very surprising and
obviously extremely disappointing in light of the many years EURO has served the City of Santa
Monica with premium taxicab service. EURO has the experience, financial capability, commitment to
clean air and wheel chair accessible vehicles and a track record of quality service to the City of Santa
Monica for aver five years which more than qualifies them to be selected as a franchisee.
EURO currently is the second largest locally based taxicab fleet operating in Santa Monica and for
years has prided itself on providing the highest level of customer service and notably being the local
industry pioneer championing clean and environmentally friendly fuels.
It is unimaginable that City staff would recommend outside (LA based) taxi companies be awarded
taxicab franchises, while excluding a qualified locally based taxicab operator (EIJRO}. These same
outside companies ham a long track record of selectively picking up prime hoteUairport fares in the
early morning and then returning to the City in the evening, leaving EURO and other local operators to
primarily serve the City's residents and most transit dependant populations, seniors and the disabled
community, during the day.
Additionally, EURO, as part of its proposal, included a group of (10) Latino taxicab owners (currently
operating 23 taxicabs in Santa Monica). This outreach was done to embrace these dedicated
individuals who would be disenfranchised by the constraints of the RFP process, namely their inability
to assemble the minimum number of taxicabs required to bid fora franchise. If EURO were to be
excluded from this franchise award, these {IO) small businesses, who have diligently served the City of
Santa Monica for the past (10) years on average, will also be forced out of business.
Furthermore, EURQ is far more compliant {action over commitments- see Agenda Item: $-A) than any
other local taxicab operator with the City's own RFP requirements, having previously contracted for
computerized dispatch service {in order to meet increased service standards) in advance of the RFP and
hired experienced taxicab management {providing for increased supervision of and responsibility for
driver adherence to City regulations).
JUN 8 2 20f0
~,~ 70 ~~
Latin Business Assoda[ion (LBA) _ ~ _
In response to the Taxigls Franchise RFP issued by the ary of Santa Monica --.
_ ~,
The LBA is one of the country's most active Latino- business organizations on the basis of its
membership and overall outreach to Latino business owners. The Latin Business Associarion was
established in 1976 as a private non•profR organization to foster growth and draw awazeness to Latino
enterprise, as well as provide advocacy and business education to its membership and the community
at large.
We respectfully request that Members of the Santa Monica City Council summazily reject the
recommendations of City staff, reevaluate what's best for the City of Santa Monica and include EURO
as a franchised taxicab operator.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ruben Guerra
Chairman and CEO
Latin Business Association
120 S. San Pedro St., Ste. 530
Los Angeles CA 900]2
Tel: 213.628.8510
Fax: 213.628.8519
Email: rauerra~a,lbausa.com
www.LBAUSA.com
9Do ~-o ~q
dUN 2 2 2010
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:24 AM
To: Maria Dacanay
Subject: FW: Questions #or the faxi cab overhaul
Maria: Add to 6/22
From: Austin [mailto;austin.Johansen@canyon-news.com]
Sent: Saturday, ]une 19, 2010 10:51 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Subject: Questions for the taxi cab overhaul
As a staff writer for Canyon News, I"m writing a short article on the taxi cab franchising overhaul taking
place in Santa Monica. If possible, I`d like to establish contact with at least one member of the Council,
either via a-mail (at any time) or a quick phone interview this Monday afternoon. If answering questions
via a-mail is more preferable to any Council members due to understandably busy schedules, that is
perfectly acceptable. My article deadline is Tuesday evening, and I can be reached through this a-mail at
any time, as well as through the phone number fisted below.
I appreciate any help that can be offered, and I hope I can speak with one of you soon. Thank you again!
Austin Johansen
9437 Santa Monica Blvd Suite 208
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 277-6017 Telephone
www.canVOn-news.com
~~~ a ~ 2~i0
~Dl> Tt7 ~-~9
rom: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:21 AM
To: Maria Dacanay; Bobby Shriven, Gleam Davis; Gleam Davis; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam
OConnor, Richard Boom Fwd; Robert Holbrook; Robert Holbrook; Rod Gould; Terry O'Day
Subject: FW: proposed taxi overhaul plan
Council: FYI
Maria: Add to 6{22
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bartelt [mailto:mark@cacr.caltech.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 8:27. PM
To: Council Mailbox
Subject: proposed taxi overhaul plan
Dear councilmembers:
I fail to see how the proposed taxicab overhaul plan, as reported in Friday's Daily Press,
would benefit us.
On the contrary, one nice thing about Santa Monica is the fact that it's one of the few
places in southern California where it's possible to stand at the curb and hail a taxi --
just like in a real city E! Zt's always easy in the downtown Santa Monica area; but I've
often been able to flag down a cab on Lincoln near ocean Park, on-Main near Ashland, and
elsewhere.
If the number of taxis is greatly reduced, will this still be possible? It seems unlikely to
me. Rather, the fact that one can grab a taxi on short notice is probably a side-effect of
the taxicab glut, why does the city consider this a bad thing?!?
So the proposed plan would jeopardize something nice.
And what positive thing(s) do we get in return? I'm hard pressed to think of any.
I feel that whoever came up with this plan should be told to go back to the drawing board.
Mark Bartelt
634 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, Califbrnia 40405
626 395 2522 (work)
310 450 4877 (home)
1
South Bay Latino Chamber of CQinm~~~ cl.eax
California Non-Profit Corporation ~ ~~ ~ ~~
P.O. Box 4523'31 ~t~
Los Angeles, CA 90445 SANTA MflNigq, GlillF.
(31#}) 676-8646
-- -~ Cr1g. Tin,nim De iaC[iiz -
:-lfi~;tiesrdcni _
-- _Boardi4embcra-.
Ms Nicta?vkmidZa -
-~~Mr. Fiaixk Uribe-
~:~-.;wti~-7es3e"~seeas -
- _' h'ri:Tt'nxi I'nnenez Esq.
:~~ ~anuraro Boanf +'.lexrhrrs
xa~,:z~ry caraer4,~
dL_EYrnr -
iSasomlily hlemEer
iey~flrapeza-
~=ASs i Rorseru
--7chm4ro7o -.
tcene 2i, 20ID
ti+eayor Bobby Sirrlaer
Saeifa Nlonira Citq Councif via a-maim tavncil@smgov.net
sarita Monica-City Hail
1685 Main Street, Room' 2~
Barite Monica, California 90doi
Dear Honorable Mayor Shriven and Sarrta Monica City Councilmembers:
The retest staff retammendaUon excluding EURO TkXI, LLC (EURfl} from a taxicab
€ranchlse award is eery surprising and obviousty extremely disappointing in light of
the marry years EURO has served the City of Santa Monica with premnimn taxicab
service. €URfl has the experiente, financial capability, a commitmen# to being
environmentally responsible, wheel their attesslblevehides and a track record of
quality service to the City of Santa Monica for over five years- €URfl TAX€, LLC is
more than qualiFed to be selected as a franchisee.
€i3RC+ turrenNy is the second largest locali}rltased taxicab fleet operating=in Santa
FAOnica and foryears has prided ifse{f on proving fhehighest level ofcustomer
service and natabiy being the local industty pioneerchamploning dean and
er€vironmentallyfriendly fuels.
tt is.unimaginable that- city staff would recommend outside (LA based} taxi
companies be awarded taxicab franchiser while excluding a qualified locally based
taxicab operator {Et1Rfl}. These same outside companies have a bng-track retord of
selectively picking up prime hotel/airport fares in the early morning and then
returning to the City in the eveniag,.leauirrg EURO.andotherlotai operatars to
priman'iy serve the. City's residents and most transit dependant:populatiorrs; seniars
-and the disabled community; duringihe day.
Additionally, €tlRO, as partof its proposal, inclvdad a group of {10~.tatino taxicab
owners (currently operating 23 taxicabs in Santa Monica}. This outreach was done
to embrace these dedicated individuals who would be disen#ranchised by the
tonsiraints of the RFP process, namely their inability to assemble the minimum
number ofi taxicabs nsquired to-bid fora franchise. if ELIRfl were to be ezduded
from this franchise award, these (it3} small businesses, who have diligentty served
the Gry of Santa Monica for the past (14} years on average, will also be forced out
of business.
Page 1 of 2
.~ sn.ne
~°~T~ ~~p ~uti~ Bay La~ant~ ~habe~ t~f ~oan~erce
Catifomia Non-Profit Corporation
~ ~
~ ~ P.O. Box 452392
'` ~
fl~
d~~ Los Ange)es, CA 90(')45
(310) b76-8646
~ G
~R,~
g . '
&~ ty Furthermore, EURO is far more compliant (action over commitments- me.Agenda
Item: &R} #ban any other (oval taxicab operator with the C'~s own RFP
featly Saenz requirements,. booing previously contracted for computerized dispatch service {in
~6' orderto meet increased service standards) in advance of the RFP and hired
~r ~"~"~~: experienced taxicab management {providing for lntreased supervision of and
~~'°°°~t°`
:.. respons9Eiility for driver adherence to City reguEations}.
;j4r.~Rarlwn3~t7e [s Civi
Ymt Prr.:u~
We'respecifully requestthat Meriilx;rs of tiie Santa tyloniea City Council summarily
s«+ra ~remeer, reject the recommendations of Crty staff, reevaluate ovhaz is best forthe Cty of
l~s.Alicla;~lenGuza SantaMon'~caandinctudeEURCiasafranchi~dtaxipfroperator.
'r9~`Ilsdi::Tmrnez ~W-. Sincerely, _ _ -
~AOIiII~'Ai'r$ietti~el~CtR/~CiS
-t2i~H ~~l}'GuF$Wi~ic
/
' ~~ ~'~F°~'
- ~2ga
€riek Xerduzca-
'-~g~p~:~Fy VISA president/CEO
xos Boii~td:i. -zar
- South Bay Eatino Chamber of Commerce
wxx~?~a
~:;=iva. tamcBHatin
.xa4: J:,az ~El~iv~an
;e,~ ~~~~
'age 2 of 2
.~ s~-u
EURO TAXt, LLC -
In response to the Taxicab Franchise RFP issued by the City of Santa Monica
Due: March 19, 2010
N
June 17, 2010 - ~ °
0
a C - <?,~ ~
Ma or Bobb Shriver ~ a' ~"~
Y Y ~ ~ ;~~
Santa Monica City Council via a-mail @ councilte~smeov.net ~ r*:
Santa Monica City Halt ? i ~.~,~.5
1&85 Main Street, Room 209 y ~ ~~f+'=
Santa Monica, Galifomia 90401 E7 ~ xrx~
Dear tionorabte Mayor Shriver and Santa Monica City Councitmembers: ~_
The recent staff recommendation exctuding EURO TAXI, LLC (EURO) from a taxicab franchise award is very
surprising and obvious{y extremely disappointing in light of the many years EURO has served the City of Santa
Monica with premium taxicab service. EURO has the experience, financial capabitity, commitment to clean air and
wheel chair accessible vefiicles and a track record of quality service to the City of Santa Monica for over five
years which more than qualifies them to be selected as a franchisee.
EURO currently is the second largest locally based taxicab fleet operating in Santa Monica and for years has
prided itself on providing the highest level of customer service and notably being the local industry pioneer
championing clean and environmentally friendly fuels.
It is unimaginable that City staff would recommend outside (LA based) taxi companies be awarded taxicab
franchises, while excluding a qualified locally based taxicab operator (EURO). These same outside companies
have along track record of selectively picking up prime hoteUairport fares in the early morning and then returning
to the City in the evening, leaving EURO and other local operators to primarily serve the City's residents and mast
transit dependan# populations, seniors and the disabled community, during the day.
Additionally, EURO, as part of its proposal, included a group of (10) Latino taxicab owners (currently operating 23
taxicabs in Santa Monica). This outreach was done to embrace these dedicated ind'nriduals who would be
disenfranchised by the constraints of the RFP process, namely their inability to assemble the minimum number of
taxicabs requited to bid for a franchise. tf EURO were to be excluded from this franchise award, these (10) small
businesses, who have diligently served the City of Santa Monica for the past (10) years on average, will also be
forced out of business.
Furthermore, EURO is far more compliant (action over commitments- see Agenda Item: 8-A) than any other local
taxicab operator with the City's own RFP requirements, having previousty contracted for computerized dispatch
service (in order to meet increased service standards} in advance of the RFP and hired experienced taxicab
management (providing for increased supervision of and responsibility for driver adherence to City regulations)-
We respectfully request that Members of the Santa Monica City Council summarity reject the recommendations of
City staff, reevaluate what's best for the City of Santa Monica and include EURO as a franchised taxicab operator.
Sincerely,
EURO TAXI, LLC
/""'7 SULL~IALQlL
Craig Smedman
VP/General Manager
2928 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90404-2414
csmedmari@gmail.com
Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
5anfa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Taxicab Franchises
Dear Councilmembers:
We received the July 5, 2010 communication from the Director of Finance, "Additional Information on
Taxi Franchise Selection Process," that provides some critical information with respect to the
evaluation criteria percentages and scoring rarilci:~gs. However,. there are key questons and concerns
that remain based on the initial recomruendations outlined in the Finance Director's June 22, 2010
report, "Award of Taxicab Franchises," that have come into even greater focus now that we have some
evaluation and scoring data available to us.
We have three major areas of concern which we have detailed below. The first area of concern is how
as-yet unfulfilled "commitments" by recommended Earns in key scoring areas may have equaled or
possibly outweighed the scores of other taxicab companies. The second area of concern brings up the
issue of taxicabs presumably serving the City of Santa Monica that may in fact be deployed at LAX at
the expense of 5anfa Monica residents, businesses, and visitors. Our third area of concern is that the
current taxicab fleet as recommended by staff does not maximize the number of SULEV vehicles to
minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible. -
"Commitments" should not be used as afaetor in scoring process
The June 22, 2010 Staff Report, "Award of Taxicab Franchises," included a passage on Page 4 stating
that two recommended firms "made commitments to meeting new requirements for both technology
necessary to meet increased service standards and increased supervision and responsibility for driver
adherence to regulations."
We are very concerned that in the scoring process, suck recommended fuYrts holding out only a future
"commitment" may have scored as well or higher in these categories than firms such as All Yellow Taxi
that already fiave tke latest, most up-to-date dispatch technology and the highest service standards and
supervision systems in place. Considering that dispatch and communication accounts for 3% of the
overall score and driver training, testing, and supervision accounts for an additional 3%, up to 6°/u of
the scoring for these two areas must be called into question, inasmuch as one firm's future
commitments should not outweigh ono#her's current capabilities. Such questions are especially
important due to the fact that fewer than 7 total percentage points separate tha 4th-ranked and 6th-
rankedtaxicab companies. Simply put, mere "commitments" should not be used as a factor in the
scaring process.
17800 S. Main St. Suite ? 01, Gardena, California 90248
Tel {310) 807-8500 Fax (310)807-8940
www. allyellowtaxi. corn
e
Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
Taxicab Franchises
Page 2
Number of taxicabs that will be at L1LI'and other key City afLos Angeles destinations, not serving
Santa Monica's residents, businesses, or visitors
Two of the taxicab companies recommended by staff proposed to operate their taxicabs that aze
currently licensed in the City of Los Angeles. In the City of Los Angeles' franchise system, taxicabs
are allawed to work at LAX one out of every five days - 20% of the time. Due to the lucrative nature
of LAX-related business, based on longer trips and resultant higher fares, taxicabs given the
opportunity to rotate into LAX service will not, as a rule, serve other areas on those days. Effectively,
this means that out of 100 total taxicabs purportedly serving the City of Santa Monica, 20 will not be
available due to the fact that they are occupied doing LAX-related trips. Of the 80 remaining taxicabs
currently licensed in the City of Los Angeles, regional tourist areas, business hubs, and destination
areas (such as Hollywood, Century City, Westwood, and azeas of downtown including Staples Center
and the L.A. Convention Center} will create an additional demand on those particular taxicab resources
- all at the expense of the City of Santa Monica. -
In other wards, out of 250 taxicab vehicles, only a maximum of 230 vehicles would effectively be
available to serve the City of Santa Monica -and of those 230 vehicles, an additional 80 taxicabs
would often be drawn to competing business in other jurisdictions, reducing the effective total fleet in
Santa Monica to as low as I50 on high-demand days such as those with major sporting events or
conventions. The City of Santa Monica's residents, businesses, and visitors deserve to have reliable
taxicab service. This service should be consistent and predictable, without other regional factors
putting a strain on resources that would ultimately negatively impact taxicab availability and response
time. Including taxicab firms like All Yellow Taxi (whose fleet does not include City of Los Angeles-
licensedtaxicabs) in the overall Santa Monica taxicab fleet would help ensure that Santa Monica`s
taxicab transportation needs would be met on an ongoing basis.
Staff recommendation does not maximize number of super-ultra low emission (SULEY) vehicles to
further lower vehicle emissions in City
The 2008 NelsonlNygaazd taxicab study conducted for the City of Santa Monica cited vehicle emission
reduction as one of the key reasons for moving away from anopen-entry system and moving toward a
franchise system. We couldn't agree more. Recognizing that wheelchair-accessible vehicles are not
currently manufactured in ULEV or SULEV forms, that leaves 225 vehicles out of the total proposed
fleet of 250 vehicles that could be SULEV vehicles to substantially reduce overall emissions by
taxicabs in Santa Monica.
17800 S. Main St. Suite I01, Gardena, California 9024$
Tel {3I0) 807-8900 Fax (314)807-8940
www. allye I Zowtax i. co m
e
f~ Xt
Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
Taxicab Franchises
Page 3
However, in the staff recommendation, 49 of the proposed vehicle fleet (nearly 22% of the 225) are
merely ULEV vehicles, not the lower-emission SULEV vehicles. Fleet composition scoring, which
was 15% of the total used in the evaluation criteria, should reflect higher scores by those taxicab firms
like All Yellow Taxi that maximize the number o_r"SULEV vehicles in its fleet. Additionally, we
encourage Councilmembers to take a close look at the total fleet composition and consider including
more SULEV vehicles in its fleet from companies like All Yellow Taxi that have SULEV vehicles at
the ready. By adhering to these high standards and "setting the bar" for low-emission taxicab fleets, the
City of Santa Monica could further advance its clean air goals and further demonstrate its role as an
environmental leader in Southern California.
Thank you for your attenfion to this matter. We are available to discuss each of these issues with you in
greater detail, and we also encourage you to ask additianai questions of staff and to consider modifying
the staffrecommendation to address the issues we have raised.
Please feel free to contact us. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
ALI A. NASROLLAHI
President
AlI Yellow Taxi
17806 S. Main St. Suite 101, Gardena, California 90248
Tel (310) 807-8900 Fax (310)807-8940
www.allyellowtaxi. com
Beverly Hills Transit, Cooperative Inc. dba
RECEjyED
' rc~ o>: THE
"ccE~x
6102 Venice Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90034-2218 ZD~~SEP
Offices (310) 837-0260 Fax (323) 931~I172 g Q~ ta; 2&
August 31, 2010 $ArtifTA MONiCA, C
AEtP.
Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council
Re: Reconsideration of the RFP by Beverly Hills Transit cooperative
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are respectfully requesting reconsideration ofthe Staff Recommendation for new Taxi Franchises,
which excludes Beverly Hills Transit Cooperative, Inc.
Our company has developed over several decades, substantial goodwill in the City of Santa Monica. This
good will cannot be measured or evaluated; it must be observed, felt and appreciated.
In this regard, we hereby respectfully submit a petition with more than 550 signatures from residents
and businesses in the City of Santa Monica, along with other letters of recommendation, which should
be the basis for reconsideration of the Staff Recommendation, in favor of an award of a franchise to
Beverly Hills Transit Cooperative, Inc.
We urge the City Council to reconsider and change the Staff Recommendation to include. an award of a
Taxi Franchise to the Beverly Hills Cab Company.
Respectfully submitted, -•
~~ .
Vrej Alvandian
President
Beverly Hills transit Cooperative, Inc.
d.b.a. Beverly Hills Cab Company
cc: Ken Spiker
7!22/2010 17:03 3108677158 LZVENATION PAGE 01/01
Beverly Hills Tfansit, C ooperative Inc. dba
,,,~~
• 6102. Venice Soulevacd, Los An.;eles, California 90036-2218
JUna? 30, 2Q10 dffiCes (310} 837-0260 Fax (373) 9311172
Dear Vaiued Customer:
t3pveriy Hills Cab needs your help in the Gty of :Hants Monica.
Recentiy, the City of Santa Monica decided to o~`fer a Franchise to certairu ta.>Ki cab operators
within the City limits. It appears the City does trot drrtend to offer the Fra3nchal5e to. Beverly
H91is Cab company.
We are proud to have provided Taxi services in i~he ~Cfty of Santa Monica For aver 1.5 years.
we appreciate the many loyal clients we have served, and we want to f>'re ort~e of the
franchised operators in the City of Santa Mottic;n going forward.
Please sign the following petitiortif Beverly Hill: Carr has given you professis~nal service and
you wish to cont'snue receiving Taxi services froth Smvert~ifls Cab.
We look forvrard to the opportunity to serve you in the future.
Name:
Address:
Signature:
Years of Beetles (circle one?
~~~~
Q - 5 .- 6 - lp 11 or more
~,.~,
PLEASE RESPOND
BY FAX '- (323) 931-1757
~~cyy
BY 11IIAIL - 6142 VENICE BLVD, LOS AN~GEILES, CA 90Q3~4
BY SCAN/EMAIL - LGEI~BER~ABE1tERi:t(HnLLSCABCO.COM
Date>
,~.~.~.
., ,.
Beverly Hflls'IY~nsitr Gaa~a~rat~ve Ins. dbg
r
.,.. ~ :: ,
6102 Venlee Boulevard, toS Att6ctr~9; Cal4(as~'afa 4(k034; '
Qiflee 1310} 839.OZGQ ~Ea c t3~a1931-4172
;}~j~~;•,~i,,,Ztd;~0
:~~~rY171~.ed C~,~kej'r'tere
;B;~~eriy;,Hi~Ic,Ceh,n~eds your h,e{p MLT t~ of 5~0~ ~fNip113ca.
,a ,..,
~~..~~lg, ~@ •~Y of Saute Mort~ic0 decided,vo; offer a ~fraAChisa to ce~~'I~' cab;'~aPp~°!'
.'Ifi 4r?4~~'.er .
:,~~he City taaa~s: it e~pears the City does scat irr~nd to of~Br ~ie• Frs~na~l~ to,.;Be-~ .
;i~~I~a;,r~~mpa!~i•
.:~,~rd~ud xa have pr~ovid,eti Taxi ,servi,~es in,~'ae.t~l~jr wf SaiY~ ,1~'RO~iCa.f~lA3'.6~N'~r fS:~eers.
"". "" of 'ciienks 1Ne• haena•,sert~l, aid 1Ne N10ti1:~xibe~l~ anq* of the
,;.pc~~iate,ti>I¢ rc~ar-y ioy forrnrard.
''I~ised,a~pera'~IS in the Ci#g !~ 5etlta •Mgrllca,,irk~
ii ;r..~.~:.d.}°,..:.~ ... ,
' ~ etition~ if Be~ueriy-klE~is ~..ab his tghret~ y~,,~rnfp~~sia~~ai setvlee,,atfr!
I~F~wr?rrtbe ~'biip~ P (eriv Fi~ilis„~; .
:y~ra~,~is~:k+n;cotue.~+cei~ting'1'axi ~z~-ices`~cx~',,.~- ,
,.'.11~~;~ook,fgrward to .th!c ~p'p¢~~~H,y'~o ser~,e Yap 8n :tire future.
r pate; 7 ~ ~~~
Isle: ,~~~ ~ O ~- - ~ G ~i .,.._.~._:.-_ ~--
` L..
.. ~L~O.4M1111'F•
.~~ of So'NiC~ tICIr ®on~e~
~ ~ ~ 6 ~ Sb 1t, pr mare
;~~r.~~x - (~~~ 937.-x~~~
~'g,f11:. 8~:(~.~'~1#C~ Bk'1~D, I,C~S ~G~II.~. CA 3!~D34
,~,.,...!t1~1~~L -' LG ~B~~l~i~ 1LLaCQ.,CA~/6
Reference Resolution No.
10533 (CCS).