Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds SFMTA revocation of S permit by default after split vote
Summary
After hearing arguments about whether SFMTA may revoke an S permit issued in error, the Board recorded a 2–2 split on a motion to overturn the revocation; because four votes are required to overturn a departmental action under the city charter, the agency’s revocation stands by operation of law.
The Board of Appeals heard an extended appeal on June 24 from Adnan Atala, who challenged the Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) revocation of S Permit S‑1129. Appellant counsel Heidi Mach argued the agency issued the permit in error and that equitable estoppel should bar revocation because Atala reasonably relied on SFMTA approval and invested in operating the permit.
Jarvis Murray, enforcement and legal affairs manager at SFMTA, and other department witnesses told the board that Atala previously held a medallion (sold in February 2013 for roughly $200,000), which under the Transportation Code makes him ineligible for an S permit. SFMTA staff acknowledged the permit was issued in error and that internal review procedures failed to catch the prior medallion ownership; the department said it has since added layers of review. Murray argued that allowing Atala to retain the S permit would create an unfair advantage and undermine program rules intended to reward drivers who never held medallions.
Commissioners questioned the vetting process, whether databases (driver license, medallion records) would have revealed prior ownership, and whether medical modifications or sale programs bear on eligibility. SFMTA said it has medical modification forms and a medallion sale program intended to address some medical/disability issues but the Transportation Code contains a clear disqualification for prior medallion holders.
When the board voted on a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation, the roll call produced a 2–2 split (two yes, two no; Commissioner Swig absent). Under the city charter, overturning a departmental action requires four votes. Commissioners therefore let the revocation stand by default; the record notes the revocation is upheld absent another motion.
