Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxi Medallion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Taxi Commission’s medallion revocation for Tu Lam but lets him keep A‑card
Summary
After hearing an SFMTA account of a long investigation tied to the Union Cab matter and multiple driving‑requirement failures, the Board upheld revocation of Tu Lam’s taxi medallion but accepted the agency’s offer to let him retain his driver 'A' card so he can continue to work as a driver.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 5 upheld the Municipal Transportation Agency and the Taxi Commission’s decision to revoke a public passenger vehicle medallion held by Tu Lam but accepted agency settlement terms allowing Lam to retain his A‑driver permit.
SFMTA’s Enforcement and Legal Affairs Manager Jordana Thigpen recounted a multi‑year investigation into a Union Cab color‑scheme operation and other compliance failures tied to the appellant’s medallion and permit. Thigpen said the agency found years of failure to meet Proposition K full‑time driving requirements, false statements about compliance and an association with a scheme that defrauded dozens of individuals. “For that reason, Mr. Lam must be disarmed,” Thigpen told the board, describing the medallion’s use in facilitating other parties’ activities.
Lam testified and said his English is limited, denied orchestrating fraud and characterized himself also as a victim of the Union Cab scheme who lost money; he told the board he has been driving to make a living. His counsel asked for a continuance so Lam could mount a fuller defense; the board declined further delay and proceeded to consider the merits.
After discussion the board voted to uphold the taxi commission’s revocation of the medallion but accepted the MTA’s proposed settlement that permits Lam to keep his A‑card — the administrative permit that allows him to drive under certain restrictions. The motion to revoke the medallion while allowing retention of the A‑card carried unanimously among voting commissioners.
The MTA said the agency offered the compromise in part to avoid immediate hardship while protecting the public interest and preserving the agency’s remedy of removing the medallion from the market.
The board’s action closes the administrative avenue on the medallion but does not foreclose any other legal remedies the appellant might pursue.
