Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxi Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines jurisdiction over SFMTA pause on color-scheme taxi permits
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-1 April 25 to decline jurisdiction over an appeal challenging the Municipal Transportation Agency—s decision to stop accepting new color-scheme permit applications while it rewrites taxi rules. The board said the issue better belongs to MTA rulemaking or superior court.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-1 on April 25 not to invoke subject-matter jurisdiction in a dispute over the Municipal Transportation Agency—s refusal to accept color-scheme permit applications.
Ray Alexander, attorney for requester Siam Arian, told the board MTA staff are effectively operating by "unwritten regulations" that prevent medallion holders from applying for color-scheme permits and argued the practice deprives entrepreneurs of rights established in local law. "They can make rules in the dark and no one knows about them," Alexander said, urging the board to enforce the applicable transportation-code provisions so his client could apply.
Jarvis Murray, representing the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, said the agency has paused issuing new color-scheme permits while it reforms taxi regulations and that rule changes will be proposed to the MTA board "the first week of June." Murray told the board that accepting the jurisdictional challenge now would undercut a deliberate regulatory process and create logistical problems—such as creating a waiting list—before policy details are finalized.
Former Taxi Commission director Heidi Machen testified that refusing to accept applications can harm minority-owned small businesses and urged the board to protect entrepreneurs. Commissioners pressed MTA on the length of the pause (about three years in testimony), whether policies had been formally adopted, and whether any change would be applied retroactively.
Ultimately President Michael Garcia moved that the board find MTA—s action was not a formal permit denial under San Francisco Charter section 4.106 and decline to invoke jurisdiction. The motion carried 3-1. Commissioners who voted in favor cited procedural limits of the Board of Appeals when no application exists to adjudicate; the dissenting commissioner expressed concern about transparency and recommended monitoring MTA action at its upcoming rulemaking.
What happens next: the MTA is scheduled to present proposed rule changes this summer; the appellant may pursue superior-court remedies if he chooses. The board—s decision leaves the underlying policy question to MTA rulemaking rather than immediate appeals adjudication.
