09-05-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RES. 72-95 RESOLUTION 72-95 - RESOLUTION BLUE-WHITE CAB COMP~kNY OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF SANTA ANA REFUSING ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO GORDON P. WIGGINS, DOING BUSINESS AS BLUE-WHITE CAB COMPANY, FOR OPERATION OF TAXI CABS IN THE CITY was moved for adoption on motion of Councilman Patterson, seconded by Mayor Griset. The motion failed on the following roil call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Patterson, Griset, Yamamoto Evans, Herrin, Markel V ill a Prior to the vote, Mr. Dennis V. Menke, Attorney for Gordon P. Wiggins, doing business as Blue-White Cab Company, and a member of the firm of Schlegel, Friedemann & Menke, 433 Civic Center Drive West, spoke in opposition to the Resolution. Mr. Menke stated that, in his opinion, the resolution does not reflect the action Council took on August gl, 1972, in that the only finding made at that meeting was that the present cab service reflected adequate cab service within the city. He stated that Municipal Code Section 38.5 provides three criteria to be considered in the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and that no testimony was given on two of the criteria; that Resolution 72~95 provides that proposed increase in taxicabs would have an adverse affect on traffic conditions in the city. He stated that no testimony had been given regarding traffic conditions at the August 21 meeting. He suggested to Council that a full hearing be held on the matter which would follow the ruling of the Superior Court. Mr. Menke stated that he interpreted the Superior Court ruling to mean that the matter should be heard anew considering evidence presented on all three criteria° He stated that the City Attorney had given Council instructions at the August gl meeting to vote against the applicant if they found that the present taxicab service was adequate. Ne suggested that Council is s'till for concepts of free enterprise involved in a second cab system, lie requested that Council consider a full study of the matter, including a study of the ordinance. He further requested Council to vote no on the motion to adopt and consider the possibility of having a re-hearing. Councilman Patterson asked Mr. Menke if he had been present at the August 21 Council meeting and pointed out to him that it was the burden of the applicant to show convenience and necessity. Mro Menke answered that he had not been present at the August-~l, meeting; that he had been substituted as the attorney for Mr. Wiggins in the place and stead of Mr. Murphy, who was the attorney representing Mr. Wiggins at the previous meeting; but that he had a complete transcript of that portion of the meeting. He stated that the transcript indicates that Mr~ Murphy had been told that Council would hear no testimony other than tha~ relating to adequacy of present cab service° Councilman Herrin stated that he was in agreement with Mro Menke in the matter; that he had voted NO at the previous hearing, and was going to again oppose the matter. He further stated that he had felt that Council should have carried the hearing through all findings asked for by the applicant before taking action to deny either of the taxicab applications heard on August 21, and that he thought Council had acted hastily in not doing so. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -352- SEPTEMBER 5, 1972