Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxi Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco Board of Appeals denies rehearing in taxi permit S129 case
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request from attorney Heidi Machin for appellant Adnan Atala challenging revocation of pilot permit S129, concluding no new material facts were presented; SFMTA said the permit was revoked because it had been issued in error.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 22 denied a rehearing request in the case challenging the revocation of taxi pilot permit S129, concluding the request did not present new, material facts that would justify reopening the matter.
Heidi Machin, attorney for appellant Adnan Atala, asked the board to grant rehearing, arguing the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency had not provided “full and accurate information” at the original proceeding and that revoking the permit would set a precedent jeopardizing other permit holders. “Upholding this revocation would set a precedent that puts at jeopardy the remaining 9,000 permit holders,” Machin said, urging the board to reconsider on grounds of manifest injustice.
Jarvis Murray, SFMTA enforcement and legal affairs manager, told the board that a rehearing is an "extraordinary remedy" and that no new evidence had been offered. Murray said the agency concluded Atala obtained a medallion through an error and that the department is pulling that medallion back. “No new evidence has been presented,” Murray said, and asked the board to deny the rehearing request.
Board members asked several clarifying questions, including whether the pilot program had issued about 140 S permits and what would happen to an S permit if revoked. Murray said S permits would be repurposed as regular medallions and resold subject to agency authorizations. After discussion, Commissioner Fung moved to deny the rehearing request. President Anne Lazarus, Vice President Daryl Honda and other commissioners voted “aye.” The motion carried 4–0 and the board ordered that a notice of decision and order be released.
The board’s action denies the appellant’s request to relitigate the earlier decision; commissioners said they found no showing of new evidence or manifest injustice that would warrant the extraordinary remedy of a rehearing.
