Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC HEARING <br />(continued) <br /> <br />The following persons spoke in opposition tO the application: <br /> <br />Attorney Stanley C. Gould, representing Morgan Ambulance, <br /> who stated that the ordinance <br /> purports to regulate a business <br /> within the city and Care Convalescent does not have a business <br /> location within the city l~,~ts; that the reason for City control <br /> of ambulances is to fulfill an obligation to the people for <br /> emergencies~, that C~re ConvaleScent Ambulance does nor <br /> wish to'run'the risk of mbnetar~loss involved in emergency <br /> calls and is only concerned in sharing what amounts to ?0 <br /> percent of the present ambulance operators' income which <br /> is derived from the services'Care' proposes to offer; and <br /> that no public necessity has been shown for this additional <br /> service. <br /> <br />Mr. Bright Morgan, of Morgan Ambulance, who stated that <br /> his company takes care of emergency <br /> as well as convalescent calls; that ?0 <br /> percent of the calls are in the latter category; that his <br /> ambulances are equipped for any emergency and strictly <br /> "convalescent" ambulances can't do the same job. <br /> <br />Mr.. Carlos Paladini, representing Schaefer Ambulance <br /> Service, who stated that he objected <br /> ~ to granting the application because it would <br />take the "cream of the crop" ~way from the present services; <br />that a California Highway Patrol representative had informed <br />him that afternoon that Care Ambulance had not been licensed <br />by the State; that in the interests of safety, the type of <br />ambulance proposed should not be used since there was no way <br />of getting through traffic in an emergency situation. <br /> <br />REBUTTAL: <br /> <br />Mr. Jerome Colton, stated that in his opinion the local address <br /> reference pertained to emergency service <br /> ambulances; that the location of a con- <br /> valescent service ambulance would not affect a prospective <br /> customer; that license requirements made by the State were <br /> applicable where there were no local rules to govern; and <br /> that if a state license were a requirement, it would not have <br /> been possible to be licensed by the County. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />-334- September 15, 196 9 <br /> <br /> <br />