05-05-1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Speaking in opposition to granting'the Certificate was Gary Taylor, Attorney, representing yellOw Cab ComPany, who stated that the City Council, due to its change in membershiP, was not in a position to give further consideration to the pending application nor to make supplemental findings as indicated by the Court order; that U. T.O. Cab Company should submit its application for a full hearing on all issues by the present Council as it is now constituted; that three of the five directors of U. T. O, have changed since the previous hearing; that its petition for further consideration fails to list the principle place of business of the corporation and its local business address; that the petition did not include a financial statement nor did it include a statement Concerning U.T.O.'s connection with Tustin Cab Company so that inquiries could be made into the experience and character of the corporation; and that the evidence was not sufficient to make either a fincLing that pUblic convenience and necessity required further taxicab service or that the applicant was fi~ willing and able to perform such public transportation and conform to the provisions of the Municipal Code requirements. Robert Politiski, Attorney for U.T.O., Inc., stated to Council that this hearing was for one purpose only, to determine the character, fitness and responsibility of the applicant, and that attached to the petition was all the information the Council would need regarding the character, fitness and responsibility of the applicant in order for Council to make as complete an investigation as they would like; and that the Court said it could imply, and did imply, a finding of public convenience and necessity by the fact that the Council voted to grant the certificate~ Councilman Brooks remarked that if the officerSof the corporation had changed, perhaps the financial state- ment had changed and Council had no up-to-date financial statement of the applicant. Mr. Politiski replied that the Iinancial statement was the same as the original one filed and that if a new one were required, they would be glad to file one. The City Manager reported that in the opinion of the City Attorney a corp- oration is a "perSon" under the law; that the corporation as a "person" does not go behind its personality as a fact of existence; that one does not "pierce the corporate veil" in order to make investigations as to what constitutes the corporate management. The City Manager further explained that since a statement had been filed which contained the names of the officers of the corporation as it existed at the time of filing the petition with information regarding each of the officers, and there was nothing in the record to indicate unfitness on the part of anyone listed, the administrative staff had made no investigation beyond this. and that the staff had no reason to question the moral or in any other way the fitness of these individuals to ~function. The hearing was closed. After further dis~ussion by Council, on motion of Councilman Herrin, seconded by Councilman Markel,' a Certificate 6f PUbltc Convenience and Necessity was granted to U. T. O., Inc., to do business and to operate not more than ten taxicabs within the City of Santa Ana, upon a finding, in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 6381.3. that applicant is fit, willing and able to perform such public transportation (continued) CITY COUNCIL 206 May 5, 1969