this. i don't think we do. people can manage this other ways. if other ways need to be found, what we are proposing today, let's do it. i'm not going to vote for this . >> i have given this a lot of thoughts. i believe that san francisco and the transit -- it is critical that we review that policy. i think the children of san francisco are important to us.

we think about the elderly and disabled. we think about expanding any type of exception. i believe that we can adopt something in the middle or a pilot program to see if we can find something that works for the benefit of everyone. i think we have to have parameters to make sure that it is not abused as well as for the elderly and the disabled. [laughter] >> i thought you were going to pu tmt me in the middle.

director nolan: we have director lee's suggestion. mr. yee? >> do we have an idea of how many people use all four? >> very few households have used to the maximum cap before. mostly one, i believe. >> why did you come up with that? 12-year-old kids sound more like a babysitter to me. >> we had a certain threshold.

taxpayers claim this -- i forgot what it's called. the exemption they claim for child credit. it was a convenient age to use. >> it seems to me that it is a very significant point. it sounds to me like a baby sitters as opposed to a small child. the time of day is a good question that somebody raises. let's say we were going to go

through different hours. it seems like it could be a logistical nightmare. >> and the proposal as for the permit to be valid. >> presumably, the parents would be home. >> it would put an extra burden on beat officers leading to distinguish between the different times. >> it is revocation of that permit. >> we thought it should be a lot

more severe than that. >> we discussed it yesterday. we are limited by what the actual stakes are right now. director nolan: it doesn't seem like much of a penalty to me. >> i don't believe that we have been asked to look at the various options or penalties. the answer is related. we would be happy to look into that. director nolan: it doesn't seem like much of a penalty. it seems to me it should be a

lot more severe. anyone want to comment? let's try to -- >> i would have no problem with penalties. people that defraud the city and should face a penalty. it is not designed by my goal to expand. people that use this legitimately which have no objection to the penalties. director nolan: may become buying -- maybe combining director bridges' notion,

changing the age limits, strengthening the penalties. maybe a six-month trial. transit frisirst is very important. but i'm aware of how family unfriendly the city can be. we think it is a very small number of people. most households that have that number of permits, it is not somebody going from 3 to 4. maybe two to three. i could support that. director beach: i have listened

to all of my fellow director's comments. i realize there is room for compromise on this issue. director lee's approach that would look at this on a block by block basis, which addresses the concern of residents where there's very little parking. we have more than saturated the parking. hall would continue to support taking a look at the block by block basis. director nolan: is that how we would do that? as opposed to the staff recommendation?

>> i have a couple of comments on that. are we going to take away health care provider permits if the neighborhood of votes that there is not enough parking to support that? that is my rhetorical question. my procedural question would be, if we are going to amend something, i very much appreciate that the president and vice president are working here to address this. if we are going to amend it, i would rather do that with the staff rather than on the fly. if it comes to the case, i will

vote for it. i am against that, but i will vote for it. when we get to very good ideas or any sort of ideas about enforcement of planning, we are better off sending it back to staff as opposed to doing it on the fly. >director nolan: director brinkman, you sort of said -- do these rise to the level of you being able to support it? director brinkman: the neighborhood agrees to them, and we don't have to take away the health care worker permits at all. i think i can support that

amendment. >> i can support that. hong but again, i worry about abuse. -- but again, i worry about abuse. director nolan: the time period of six months or something. >> i think the way we should do this, actually, if we're going to make any amendments, i think we should vote for the original proposal up or down. and director lee can make his amendment? if this is the way it's going to go, i can support director

lee's amendment. i am not sure how we are supposed to do that procedurally. director nolan: that would be the first action. >> if you wish to amend it today rather than draft amendment language, consider the amendment first. >> getting a sense of the board and conversation, there is some consensus around a resident survey. that is the time it will take us

to mobilize the staff, put a process together, that will bring us to january. there will be management issues and those types of things that we can bring back to you. we can bring back to you the age limit discussion and we can bring back to you the penalty discussion. we'll be able to bring those items before you if we actually execute the process. we move forward now with developing the permanent home, developing the application process. it is not necessary today that we have the aids discussion as well as the penalty discussion.

director nolan: willis still take nine months to get this thing to happen? how about director lee's? >> we would have the resident survey in there. if you give us the go ahead today, we can start the process. they can start getting their surveys done from the residential standpoint. it will be a little the unique. -- bit unique. it might take a month or two to get the paperwork process up and running. i am putting out an nine-month pilot period. we bring it back to you in the

next board meeting, age as well as penalty recommendations. >> for people that might not be completely familiar, the position is a process that is generated by the neighbors. they actually start the process and gather the signatures. i am sensitive to the amount of work that we have created around this. i just wanted to clarify. i can support that. director nolan: i'm not sure we have 3 or 4 people in support of anything else. >> i would like to make a recommendation for the amendment.

>> there is a motion to amend the resolution to require a nine-month pilot program, understanding that before the pilot project moves into place there would be further discussion at the board with regard to the age limit and the penalty. >> i will second that. >> for clarity in drafting this amendment, i am not certain i understand what the scope of the survey would be. is the intent to survey the entire permit area? "said block by block, but we do not really mean that, do we? >> and the way we do it now is if you are on the 200 block and

do not have a residential permit -- it is just the residence. >> i thought you were talking about the whole district. >> it is not the whole district. but you have to be attached to a residential parking zone. if you are one block off, you would be part of that zone. that is how it works to add rpp to a block. i think you are proposing would have to get approval within that rpp to get a nanny permit on your block. >> i think a understand to be -- i think i understand that to be a single-block survey, as

opposed to a survey during the creation of a permit. >> i would procedurally -- you know where i stand. i think we should approve the thing. but i understand i do not have the votes. i would suggest that mr. ford has well summarized the gist of this board's direction. rather than voting on an amendment on the fly, you know where we are coming from. if this is going to happen, it will have to happen with this sort of modification. i am sorry to say i think the best thing to do is to let staff work that out so we all know exactly what we are voting on rather than speculating about it. >> i agree with that. >> i think there would be two votes. >> thank you. chairperson nolan: to my mind,

the family thing does trump. >> ban yi would like to address you on this. >> the legislation before you for consideration is a policy saying that households requesting the child care provider is eligible for the permit, including setting up the requirements for the block as well as the approved -- the affidavit, and also the issue once -- issuance of the permit to be displayed -- those are administrative procedures we are recommending to make it work. we can come back, if you approve this legislation. we can come back before we actually launch the pilot with a list of all the administrative

processes that need to be in place for you to approve before we actually launch the pilot, including the age threshold, the actual permit itself, the affidavit they need to sign, and the requirement that the requesting party submit a petition of 51% of the block. >> you will come back with all of that. is that right? >> i think what ban is saying -- they could bring it all back, is that right? mr. yi is suggesting we go forward. >> we will bring back those modifications well before any implementation. then staff can go ahead and start putting administrative pieces together and fold in the

comments and recommendations the board wishes. that will give you an opportunity to modify those. >> yes. chairperson nolan: in that case, we go back to the original motion. do we need that in language? is that clear enough? >> is a motion on the floor that i believe was seconded. if the vice chairman agrees to withdraw his amendment, you can go back to the main motion. chairperson nolan: will you withdraw that? vice chairperson lee: i will withdraw it. chairperson nolan: do we have a motion on that? do we have a second? i will second that. any further discussion? how about roll-call? director beach: no. director brinkman: no.

director heinicke: aye. director bridges: ye. director oka: no. vice chairperson lee: aye. chairperson nolan: aye. >> it is approved. chairperson nolan: i think we need a break. we will have a 10 minute break.

chairperson nolan: we are back in session now with item 12. >> members of the public, please find a seat. item 12, adopting amendments to transportation code, a division to, to define and gas and gates operation of a taxi, to require medallion purchasers to make a down payment of less than 20% of the purchase price to operate as a gas and dates until the sellers downpayments subsidy is paid in full, to amend hearing procedures, and rabbis equipment standings, require electronic waybills, change the reporting deadline, and amend eligibility requirements. that is the calendar item. staff has asked that the

resolution be amended with regard to the eligibility requirements to become a taxi driver. their request is to leave the minimum age requirement as is, so you can obtain a driver's permit at 21, rather than changing it to 24. chairperson nolan: we can certainly hear the report and from the public. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me see if i can make it a little muddier. [laughter] chairperson nolan: i appreciate that. >> first of all, i think the part of the -- the part of the

thing that i would like to amend concerns the way bills and that kind of thing. i talked to several cabdrivers, as well as small companies. they tell me that there may be some privacy issues, or that kind of thing. so i would like -- i am working on some language that might take care of all those concerns. i would like to eliminate that portion -- illuminate that portion. the whole credit card thing. chairperson nolan: we do not

have any motions on the floor yet, but there are three things that are possible to change in terms of the overall recommendation. >> as far as the stock proposal goes, it is what we have come up-the changing of the age requirement. -- we havee, cminus the -- we have, minus the changing of the age requirement. chairperson nolan: why don't we hear the speakers. >> starting with [unintelligible] chris fulkerson, [unintelligible] charles rathbone. >> first of all, and want to complain in the strongest possible terms about the sheer number of items. this is a good example of what i

was talking about earlier. there is too much to say. these items merit closer discussion than the two minutes or so you can give. i understand that director hiashi need to get things done, but the same complaint. i want to make sure it is understood that i believe it is extremely evil to make people pay a quarter of a million dollars for low-income jobs. that said, the dates and gas requirement -- gate and gas requirement makes sense. you are participating in banking when you make a requirement like that. there is something else going on at the end of the duration that is not being discussed. that is that these bankers are offering balloon payment loans. you can find a home for $0.25

million. such a loan is illegal. bankers are finding a new market, namely us. that are coming down with a seeming agreement that simply should not be allowed. they are saying couping words. you can just refinements, and so forth. the requirement of that is improper. i think that march 31 is too soon for a recommendation on the part of the taxi advisory council. the chairman has said he does not plan to make a recommendation of a report if you come across the requirement that he make a recommendation, there may be a problem. i think that for more meetings is not enough -- four more meetings is not enough. >> richard, followed by charles rathbone.

>> i am richard highbolt. i am in my 23rd year of owning and operating taxes. focusing on one aspect of the vehicle standards rule, you can understand that a 2008 taxicab with 300 dozen miles on it is probably not as good as a 2005 taxicab with 60,000 miles on it. you will be in favor of these regulations. that is what we are faced in. i have already had to throw away cars that were better than some i am allowed to keep, simply because of the year there were manufactured. i do not know how that makes any sense to anyone. with respect to the 21-year-old thing, it is no skin off my nose, but i do not think many insurance companies are going to cover them, and probably nobody will hire them unless they are will hire them unless they are the child of somebody who owns