Laserfiche WebLink
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE <br />AND NECESSITY - (Continued) <br /> <br />Mr. Tom Bristol, owner and operator of the Greyhound Bus Depot at 201 N. Sycamore <br />stated that he was very much opposed to the granting of these additional permits; that <br />at the present, three cab companies operate in and around his depot, parking in and <br />across the driveways, and that it is necessary for him to call their dispatchers several <br />times a day requesting them to move the cabs; and that the drivers solicit business <br />for the cabs within the bus depot. <br /> <br />Mr. Milford Dahl, Jr., attorney representing Mr. Gordon Wiggins, stated they do <br />not oppose this application on the basis of public necessity and convenience; that they <br />feel the City definitely needs more cabs and that free competition should prevail; but <br />that Mr. Wiggins is also applying for the same type of Certificate and they would oppose <br />this applicatinn if it would in any way jeopardize their application. He stated that <br />Mr. Cole originally was with Tustin Cab Company and was a part of a group of people <br />who tried to take over that company; as a result, Mr. Wiggins was required to file legal <br />action, and obtained a Superior Court judgment against Mr. Cole and others, requiring <br />them to give the company back to Mr. Wiggins; that Mr. Cole then went to work for the <br />Garden Grove Quick Yellow Cab Company, left there after a short time and returned to <br />UTO; and that now he is starting his own company and has no experience as operator <br />or owner; that he only owns two or three cabs and is seeking permits for other owners; <br />that he would question Mr. Cole's corporate status and whether he carries sufficient <br />in su rance. <br /> <br />Mr. Larry Ogden, President of UTO, Inc. , stated that he believed these applications <br />were filed because of the feeling that UTO, Inc., was a dead corporation; that they <br />intend to grow and he hoped that Council would consider that along with these <br />applications. <br /> <br />Mr. Barry Michaelson, attorney representing the Yellow Cab Company, requested <br />that Agenda Items 76 and 77 be considered together in order that all comments on <br />both applications could be heard at one time. <br /> <br />The City Attorney stated that there are certain areas common to both applications <br />and Council could consider the matter of Public Convenience and Necessity at one <br />time, and evidence in support of the separate applications would then be presented, <br />permitting rebuttal evidence to both, once affirmative evidence had been presented. <br />Council agreed to first establish public need and then consider the individual <br />applications. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilman Villa, the City Attorney stated that the <br />people involved in this matter band together, break up, re-divide, and then form <br />new groups, creating an almost insolvable legal position. He further stated that the <br />applicant had not complied with SAMC Section 38-3(4) which requires the application <br />to state the facts which will establish public convenience and necessity; that no such <br />facts are contained in Mr. Cole's application~ <br /> <br />Mr. Cole replied that need and necessity was proven when the City Council granted <br />ten permits to UTO; that UTO does not own any taxicabs; that they have one cab with <br />a valid permit which belongs to one of their creditors~ <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL -65- February 7, 1972 <br /> <br /> <br />