&1J4~ - City of Glendale

December 15, 2013 rather than the customary 5 year period which would have extended the
permit to January 24, 2015.
Appellant's Position and Statement of Error: The Appellant contends that the TPC erred in
limiting the permit period to less than a full 5-year term on the basis that it failed to give due
consideration to all of the facts and recommendations of staff including but not limited to its
replacement plan to convert current taxicab vehicles to "green" vehicles. It states that it witt be
difficult to finance and accomplish its plan to convert vehicles in less than 5 years. It also claims
the TPG's action to limit the term of the permit is a major policy shift which is inconsistent with
the past practices of the TPC and the City Council.
At the time of the public hearing, the Appellant presented the Commission with a 5-year vehicle
replacement plan with the goal of obtaining "green 8
vehicles such as compressed natural gas,
hybrid, or propane replacement vehicles. Because the taxicab drivers are independent
contractors and own their vehicles, the Appellant needed to obtain the drivers' consent to
impose the company's mandatory clean fuel vehicle replacement program. The drivers have
agreed to do so. With the TPC's action to shorten the permit term, the drivers are faced with
making significant capital investments in conversion of their cabs to "green" cabs without the
assurance that the Appellant's operator's permit would remain active long enough to cover the
time necessary to complete the conversion to "green" vehicles.
The Appellant states that the TPC's action to shorten the length of the expiration period and the
intention to require all other owner's permits to expire simultaneously is a departure from the
prior practices of the City Council and the TPG. It states that the implications of such deciSion
represent a change in policy which should be addressed by the City Council rather than the
TPC.
Staff Analysis: In considering this appeal, the paramount issue to be determined by the Council
is whether to grant the Appellant's permit term to the 5-year maximum. As discussed in the
Summary section of this report, it has been interpreted by the City Attorney that the TPC does
have the discretion to limit the term of a permit. However, the GMC does not expressly state
that the TPC has such authority.
The Appellant asserts that the GMC 5.84.103 (public convenience and necessity - findings by
commission) was violated on the grounds that by limiting the permit to less than 5 years, the
TPC failed to give due consideration to all of the facts and recommendations of staff's
recommendation and the Appellant's clean fuel vehicle replacement plan.
Staff does not find that the TPC erred on this point. Although the commission could consider
innovative proposals of service to the public such as the use of vehicles utilizing clean fuel
technology, the Appellant's business plan is not a mandatory finding that the TPC is required to
make. TPC had the discretion to weigh staff's recommendation, the Appellant's timeline for its
"green" equipment replacement, along with all the other factors in the Appellant's application
and evidence obtained during the public hearing before granting or denying a renewal owner's
permit.
Staff agrees with the Appellant in that, at least in the last 15 years since 1995 when the most
recent ordinance was adopted and possibly longer, neither the Council nor the TPC has ever
granted an operator's permit for less than 5 years.
5