Board upholds multiple SFMTA medallion decisions after split votes and procedural rulings

The San Francisco Board of Appeals spent the evening of March 2, 2022, hearing three contested taxi medallion matters tied to A‑card and driving requirements and returned mixed results after lengthy testimony and public comment.

Case summaries and outcomes

1) John Russo (medallion 334) — The SFMTA sought non‑renewal on the basis that Russo did not hold a current A‑card and therefore did not meet full‑time driving requirements; Russo and supporters described long driving careers and disabilities. Commissioners debated whether the panel should continue the item to allow the absent commissioner to vote and whether the department’s enforcement was consistent with prior practice. Procedural motions to continue failed, and the board concluded the underlying determination was upheld as a matter of law; the appeal was denied.

2) Dirk Nehart (medallion 244) — Nehart, who said he became blind after an assault in 1997, argued that the municipal code does not explicitly require a medallion holder to hold an A‑card and urged the board to apply strict statutory construction; counsel Heidi Machin noted the enforcement provision (11.18(a)(8)) uses discretionary language. SFMTA counsel cited section 11.18 and argued the agency may revoke when a medallion holder subject to the full‑time requirement lacks a valid A‑card. Commissioners split on the facts and legal interpretation; with no motion achieving the required votes, the underlying determination was upheld as a matter of law and the appeal denied.

3) Mark Paulson (medallion 365) — SFMTA appealed a hearing officer’s denial of non‑renewal after Paulson failed to complete required drug testing while living overseas during the pandemic. Paulson, 80 and living in Thailand, argued he was not in a safety‑sensitive role and that requiring him to travel for a drug test during the pandemic was unreasonable; SFMTA said federal and state rules require drug testing for drivers and its contractor could not verify overseas tests. Vice President Lazarus moved to grant SFMTA’s appeal (which would have revoked the medallion); that motion failed 2–2, so the hearing officer’s decision was upheld and the appellant retained his medallion.

Legal context and board discussion

SFMTA cited transportation‑code provisions (including section 11.18(a)(8)) as the enforcement basis for revocation when full‑time drivers lack a valid A‑card; some appellants and commentators pointed to a Ninth Circuit settlement and prior Board of Appeals decisions offering different relief paths for disabled holders. Deputy city counsel explained that the Sloan district‑court decision found the full‑time driving requirement was an essential eligibility condition and that subsequent appeals and settlements affected only specific plaintiffs. Commissioners expressed deep concern about the human impact for career drivers and older or disabled medallion holders but noted the board is bound to apply the code and precedent.

Public participation and reaction

Large numbers of medallion holders and advocates spoke in support of the appellants, stressing long careers and the financial and emotional importance of medallions. Some speakers called the agency’s enforcement a pattern of harassment; others urged the board to apply existing discretionary exemptions first. SFMTA representatives said the policy is intended to keep the fleet and licensing organized and cited the agency’s authority under the charter and state regulations.

Next steps

Because each case is decided on its record, appellants and SFMTA retain any available administrative or judicial remedies. The board did not create a new citywide rule in these hearings; commissioners repeatedly urged consistent application of code and use of available administrative discretionary mechanisms where appropriate.