Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing And Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds revocation of Azam Enazer's taxi medallion with one-year condition
Summary
After hearing new evidence and public testimony, the Board of Appeals upheld the Taxi Commission's revocation of medallion holder Azam Enazer, conditioning placement at the top of the medallion list after one year and requiring proof of full-time driving for specified years.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 4 upheld the Taxi Commission's revocation of medallion number 431 assigned to Azam Enazer, after hearing additional evidence from the Taxi Commission alleging fraudulent or inconsistent waybills and a failure to meet the commission's full-time driving requirement.
Jordana Thigpen, executive director of the San Francisco Taxi Commission, presented a supplemental exhibit summarizing handwriting discrepancies across waybills and explaining the commission's sampling of the applicant's submitted waybills. "After reviewing more evidence in this case, I remain more convinced than ever that the hearing officer and the taxi commission made the correct decision regarding fraudulent way bills and regarding a failure entirely to submit any evidence of driving for calendar year 2005," Thigpen said.
Appellant counsel argued the late declarations deprived the defense of due process and asked the board to strike some materials. Numerous medallion holders and co-workers urged leniency in public comment, emphasizing the appellant's family hardship and long driving history.
Commission debate centered on available remedies: full revocation (which would free the medallion for reissue), suspension, probation with conditions or fines. The board fashioned a mixed remedy it described as an equitable middle ground: it upheld the revocation but placed conditions allowing the appellant to be placed at the top of the waiting list after one year if he demonstrates the prescribed driving records. The motion (moved by Commissioner Garcia) required Enazer to prove full-time driving for calendar years 2008 and 2009 to qualify for reissuance; the vote to uphold the revocation with those conditions was recorded 5-0.
The Taxi Commission had noted that revocation of a medallion does not automatically revoke an 'a card' (driver authorization), and Thigpen said the commission deliberately sought only the medallion revocation to preserve the appellant's ability to earn income while addressing compliance and fraud concerns.
The board directed staff to include the conditions in the Notice of Decision. The revocation and its conditional reissuance pathway will be enforceable through the usual Taxi Commission and appeals processes.
