11-05-1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

companies; and B) Legal and illegal operations by Blue and White and legal operations by Yellow Cab Co; that there was no necessity for additional taxicab permits to be granted; that it was to the point where the operating companies were unable to offer reasonable benefits, salaries or income to individuals operating the taxicabs; that the reason his client had not been using all of his permits was the fact that the other companies were operating and picking up some of his client's potential customers; that he felt there were some major weaknesses in the Hearing Officer's report, even though the Hearing Officer had done an excellent job in accepting the evidence and administrat- ing the hearing; that C & S Tours, Inc. did not have a proven ability to operate a taxicab company; that it was his under- standing that the Court injunction against them was presently in existence and that a contempt hearing had been scheduled; that there were some technical problems with regard to the C & S application - the major one being that the person upon whom they rely is the same person who had been operating the company without permits; that with regard to the Hearing Officer's statement in his report that neither applicant had had sufficient time for an audit of the financial record, in both cases, the financial statements offered had not shown sufficient information to ascer- tain financial status; that Quick Cab did not have approval to operate in eight cities as they had stated, but rather only in two cities which had just recently been obtained; that the reference to cab-population ratios on page 9 of the Hearing Officer's report was inaccurate in that the information had been incorporated by reference from an out-dated application; that a valid comparison could not be made with the City of Anaheim because of the additional need for taxi service related to Disneyland; that with three taxicab companies operating within the City, service would be reduced because each company would be using less cabs and spreading itself more thinly. In rebuttal, Mr. Rudolph stated that his company had just recently been granted permission from the City of Garden Grove to operate in that city pending receipt of the necessary insurance policy and license fees which had just been delivered to the City of Garden Grove; that the other cities where they held permits were Cypress, Brea, Yorba Linda, Placentia, Seal Beach, La Palma and Orange; that C & S Tours, Inc. had filed an application with the City of Santa Ana in January 1973 and for various reasons it had not been heard; that an additional application had been required, and filed in September 1973; and that there had been no time to obtain an audit from a C.P.A.; that a tremendous effort had been made in the previous two months to spruce up their cabs; that they had a full-time body and fender man; and that they were not responsible if Yellow Cab could not compete with them. Councilman Griset's motion, seconded by Councilman Garthe, to find that the public convenience and necessity does not require additional taxi cab service of~,the type proposed in the applications of Gordon Wiggins dba Blue-White Cab Company and C & S Tours, Inc., dba Quick Cab Company; to find that fifty permits are all that the public convenience and necessity require; and to deny both applications, carried on the following vote: AYES: Griset, Garthe, Markel, Yamamoto~ Patterson, Evans~ Ward NOES: None ABSENT: None CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 409 NOVEMBER 5, 1973