Its not an overnight thing, we are not issuing all these new spots as of this vote, its something you are anticipating doing and as you are doing that you will also be working with the state so we will have this multi pronged approach when the new things come in. And we will continue to bring new legislation on the board. Other communities around california, moving in this direction . So when we go to the legislation, others are supporting this . Ill let bob take a crack at this one. Theres a lot of interest in what were doing and local governments tend to always support local control, right . On november 8, lisa foster and myself gave a presentation to the California Public parking association. We were the last session on the last day and we had the place pretty much filled, thats how much interest there was. Separate from that, we had the director of Parking Enforcement from the city of richmond come up, give us a card. People from los angeles, the point is and the city of sacramento
Restriction. Also i dont think we mentioned in the presentation that were going to change the requirements to 4 percent. Were starting to prepare for new requirements we believe to be coming to us any way. We have heard some concern in the feedback if we increase blue zones but cant implement the rest of these recommendations then instead of effectively increasing the general parking supply, were decreasing it. Correct. Thats something that well be cautious of as we develop the transmission plan for increasing the number of blue zones and as we implement it. Its not an overnight thing, we are not issuing all these new spots as of this vote, its something you are anticipating doing and as you are doing that you will also be working with the state so we will have this multi pronged approach when the new things come in. And we will continue to bring new legislation on the board. Other communities around california, moving in this direction . So when we go to the legislation, others are su
Software, this provides a Software Platform that would really revolutionize my staffs ability to be effective in the functions that it has to do every day as the staff report referenced, it would eliminate a lot of the paperbased work we do including faxes and data entry. It would make our multiple spreadsheets and data bases with permit holder information actually talk to each other in a useful way, create online reporting opportunities for companies and i think relieve the Administrative Burden for what a lot of companies go through in order to provide weekly reports to us. It would also give us some tremendous analytical capacity with respect to the taxi fleet and it would make our field enforcement more effective so we hope to enjoy many of the benefits of this software. As you are likely to hear during comment on this item, the on board devices may not be required for the purpose of implementing the eta system, which is why we have structured the agreement to make the on board dev
Should be paying the equal amount as everybody else. We may not be there yet but i think this is a great step in the right direction and i appreciate the thautdful comments from everyone and the thoughtful amendment in light of the low income considerations. I think its a challenging thing to address because of the administrative feasibility but were looking to staff to help us out with that and i appreciate the help of staff with that. Thank you, director. The last point you made and mr. Hale made easier, it is not an easy thing to do, to determine who is a low income person with disabilities. I understand that but i still think its a worthwhile goal and i think since we have time to do that, i guess the rest of the amendment i would offer is that we direct staff to develop some kind, develop options for us to consider about how to make it more equitable for the low income persons with disability. So thats an amendment, julie can come up with better legal language im sure, but is ther
Eyeopening and i appreciated mr. Plantholds about this was a dialogue that enabled people to change their mind and figure things out. One of the comments that struck me is the comment that theres uncertainty that any one of these would work in isolation, its really a package deal and the idea is to get all these working together which makes an awful lot of sense on that but on that it seems we are able to do some of these things ourselves but we are not able to do others and have to wait for the state and i wonder about the timing of that. I realize theres a desire to move more quickly so it seemed to me we were doing some of these things like expanding the number of parking spots without doing on the things that we would have to wait until state approval to do but at the same time there was a suggestion that some of the things that were going to be done locally we had already committed to doing. I wondered how that all worked together, whether it made sense to wait on the expansion of