Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxi Medallions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds removal from taxi medallion waiting list
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 14, 2011 upheld the Department of the Taxi Commission’s decision to remove Gary Martinovsky from the medallion waiting list, finding the appellant failed to meet the driving-time requirements; the decision was unanimous, with written findings to be prepared later.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals unanimously upheld the Department’s removal of Gary Martinovsky from the city’s public-convenience-and-necessity medallion waiting list, saying the department followed its rules after Martinovsky failed to show he met the full-time driving requirement.
At a hearing on Dec. 14, Jarvis Murray, representing the department, told commissioners that Martinovsky had acknowledged he had not driven since 2001 and had been given a one-year time waiver in 2006 to prove up required driving time. Murray said the waiver expired and Martinovsky did not respond to subsequent notices, and the department properly removed his name from the list following a hearing. "We still have over 2,800 names on that list," Murray said, explaining why the department considered the removal appropriate.
Vice President Michael Garcia moved to uphold the department and direct that written findings be adopted at a later hearing, reflecting the fact the appellant was not present and the passage of time. The roll call was Garcia Aye, Commissioner Frank Fung Aye, and President Kendall Goh Aye. The board announced the vote as 3–0 and said written findings would be prepared and returned to the record.
Why it matters: San Francisco medallions are limited and the waiting list is long; the board’s decision affirms the department’s administrative steps and preserves the established process for determining eligibility. The board also noted that when an absent commissioner’s possible vote could affect an outcome, the practice is to continue for that commissioner — an issue that shaped how the board framed the quorum for this night’s business.
The case was closed with the board’s finding upheld, and the item will return only for formal adoption of written findings.
Provenance: The board called and discussed this appeal at the opening portion of the Dec. 14 hearing (transcript segments beginning with SEG 229 through SEG 342).
