Well, it will really depend on the volume. Rick, do you want to -- there 79 BILL 970403 is a formula.
Well, the difficulty in putting specific numbers in, as we discussed in the meeting with staff, is that each business has a different level of activity at different times of the day. The number of employees necessary is going to vary depending on the distance from the business to the lot or garage where the vehicles are being parked, the duration of the length of stay that a customer would stay in different establishments. For a hotel, it is much quicker turnover than a restaurant. So that you know that over periods of time, different businesses have different needs. So it is almost impossible to create an exact formula which would say, for this business, if you are going to have 100 cars during this period of time, you need five valet operators.
By visiting the locations, following, determining the amount of time that it takes to get from the business to the 80 BILL 970403 garage, the volume of activity that's there, the average length of stay that a patron would stay in any of these establishments, and run through it to see exactly how much time it takes to get back and forth, and then make a determination --
So you are going to send one of your people out, and you are going to do mock valet parking, and you are going to drive up ten cars at a location on a Friday night --
We will drive the route to see how long it takes during the peak hours of operation. If it is on Main Street at 8 o'clock on a Friday night, the amount of time it takes to get from the restaurant to a parking lot is going to be much greater than it is at 3 o'clock on Tuesday afternoon.
And if you make a determination that a person needs ten people to run this particular operation -- and I guess it is also a function of how many contracts they have with different businesses -- and they think they only need eight, they won't be able to get a license unless they meet your ten requirement based on how you figured out what goes on out there?
There is a provision in the code which says if we deny the license, that we have an obligation to tell them why. And they can come back to us to correct deficiencies or convince us that we are wrong, at which time we will grant the license.
They have no 19 other recourse but to come back to the Parking Authority?
Most of what I envision happening is, all of the current restaurants that are operating Passenger Loading Zones as valet operations will be, obviously, the first group to 82 BILL 970403 apply for a new Valet Parking Zone. Many of them have been in existence for some period of time. And based on a variety of factors, we have a really good sense now as to how they handle the Passenger Loading Zone, whether we think they have enough staff to accommodate rushes. Those are not different than the criteria that we look at now, with the exception of requiring you to park in an off-street lot. If you request a Passenger Loading Zone and you use it for a valet operation, we have a fairly good sense of it, based on how you operate the current zone. So while I find it difficult to believe that we would deny somebody a permit based on the difference between eight or ten employees, if we believed they needed ten, and they convinced us they could do this with eight, then my theory is, they would get to do it by eight. But I can assure you through monitoring of it, they may be required to add staff if they cause traffic or parking problems in that corridor. So it is not an exact science. This 83 BILL 970403 was written in order to be flexible, so that each business was not held to very strict numbers, but could determine it based on a variety of factors, and that's why it was left this way. We did not want to mandate specific numbers, because there are too many variables.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly, I understand how you are trying to balance the needs to allow businesses and to encourage the business by allowing valet parking, balance that with the needs of other citizens who need to use our streets and parking spaces for their uses if they are not valet parkers. One of the questions I had was on the fines for -- there's two designations. One is for addressing citizens who might accidentally park in a Valet Zone, and they get a ticket of $20; is that right? The park Valet Zone on ?
And then you have Overtime Valet Zone, which is, that's if the valet parker leaves a car in the zone longer; is that right?
And I guess what I am wondering is, how did you arrive at the amount of the fine? And, again, my concern would be, a little bit followed up by what some of the other questions were, some companies could say the cost of doing business is just to pay these fines. I'd rather get a $50 tip from one of these people to keep their nice car in the zone, than to, you know, move it off somewhere. So it might be tempting to overtime park in the Valet Zone because, you know, financially and customerwise, you know, you may think it was okay. I am wondering how did you arrive at the $25 fee? And, again, what do you do as a 85 BILL 970403 disincentive for the valet companies? Because you hear some of them, they don't want to take these nice cars off to a garage. So if by the law you are saying they have to go to a garage, what is your plan to deal with that possible reason to try to get around it?
Well, I think there are two different issues. The $25 fine for overtime parking in the zone goes to the operator. The $20 fine for parking your car in a Valet Zone, it would be very difficult to mistakenly do that, because the valet company will have staff on-site at the beginning of their operation. If there is a sign, for example, that says, you know, two-hour parking from 8:00 in the morning until 6:30 at night, and then valet parking only 6:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., if you're parking there during the day and you stay over, then you are subject to the fine, the same as you would be if you parked in a tow-away zone.
I don't have a problem with the fine for the citizen. 86 BILL 970403
No. I was concerned more about, how do you make sure that there are strong disincentives for valet parking companies?
The disincentive in the end, Councilwoman, is that we will, under these amendments, have the ability to bring the company in for a suspension or revocation of their license to operate that Valet Zone. And while I don't think that $25 is enough of a financial penalty to stop them from not behaving the way we would like them to behave on the public roadway, it is also not exorbitant enough to cause a problem. It is, in fact, for us, a reminder that they have agreed to behave by certain rules, and they have not done so. I think in the end, the threat and/or hearing on a revocation of their license is actually the only thing that will bring them into compliance.
So you are 87 BILL 970403 keeping the fee low. I mean, I think the $25 is low. For a valet company to leave a nice car there overtime, that's a knowing, deliberate violation. It wasn't like it just accidentally happened.
It was really a consensus figure based on all of those meetings. It was sort of the middle point between what was too high from their perspective and what was too low from my perspective. So it really was the consensus figure. But I agree with you, I think it is low.
I would, for the record, say I think so much of this is going to depend upon effective enforcement by the department.
I may be incorrect, there may be a technicality on . It appears, unless I am misreading it, that it goes, starting on , 9 in parens is valet parking permit, then you have A in parens, and you go onto the next page, but then then there is no 88 BILL 970403 B parens towards the bottom of the page.
-- in C you refer to 9(b). So I think some renumbering is in order.
When I looked for 9(b), I couldn't find it. That is good staff work, also.
Is the fact, Ms. Cutler, that the penalty, say, of $25 or $20 is only 89 BILL 970403 part of what the person would have to pay, that's the fine? There are costs and fees set forth, aren't there, in addition?
There are fees which are currently charged for Passenger Loading Zones which will be charged for Valet Parking Zones. I also believe --
Only if it was paid late, Councilman. Under the provisions of the Code, if they pay the ticket as soon as it is received, these are the fines they would pay.
And how quickly do those costs mount? What happens after eight days?
Eight days, there is an 90 BILL 970403 additional $23 penalty.
So that a $25 one can become $50 or more if it is not paid within a month?
If it is not paid within the guidelines established in the code.
That seems to me to be a kind of substantial amount, unless the business is paid within the eight days. Do you have any figures on the percentage of fines that are paid, tickets that are paid, within eight days?
I probably could get it. We call that the off-the-windshield pay rate. Yes, I probably could figure out how many people pay a ticket before penalty.
Yes, that would be an interesting fact. Because my experience has been that when I get complaints from people, the figure is way up.
People spend the first eight days trying to figure out how they can avoid paying it, and do they know anybody that could help them in this problem.
They could, but I think they don't. But I would like to know the percentages.
And I could give it to you. But I don't believe, off the top of my head, my guess would be 30 to 40 percent of people pay their tickets without penalties.
Now, what is the zone? Is that where, say, if I want to go a restaurant, I drive, I believe my car, is that where I leave the car?
Valet Parking Zone, that's correct. Anywhere from to metered spaces, the size of a metered space.
I have trouble understanding why an operator would ever violate the zone. Doesn't the operator feel that this is an area he needs for cars?
Well, you heard the gentleman this morning from Park America indicate that many times they feel the need to leave cars at the curb.
Ms. Cutler, let me tell you, I view every granted power to the Parking Authority as the creation of a whole new set of tragedies about to occur. 93 BILL 970403 And that's been so because I think the Parking Authority is distinguished among many agencies for the way in which they are non-user friendly. And I assume every interpretation will, by the Parking Authority, be adverse to people that are affected. And since we are devoting a lot of energy to trying to build up these downtown areas, the Manayunk area and many other areas, I think my general conclusion is that the revenue we get from the Parking Authority is offset, maybe two or three or four times, by the loss of what other revenue would be if we really invited people to come to Philadelphia and shop. And that's one reason why I am so interested in the kind of questions that Councilman Nutter raised. It is not your own personal judgment, but you have a lot of other folks making on-the-spur decisions. And we get horror stories. There is a certain member of this body who has as recently three months ago got a ticket while standing next to his car. And when he 94 BILL 970403 addressed the parking enforcement officer, saying, "This is my car," the same answer was given as was given years ago, "Well, I have already started to write a ticket. I have got to finish it." And I remember the long dispute I had with you one night when you were recently just coming into Philadelphia --
-- on Kelly Drive. That drives everything, because I just think there has got to be a user-friendly atmosphere. On the one hand we urge people to come into the city to do their shopping, and on the other we look upon them, the victims are here, what can we extract from them. As a penalty for their believing us that Philadelphia is going to be a friendly area, we will really zing them good.
You can respond, 95 BILL 970403 because I am really very concerned about that.
-- series of comments. We invite people to come into the city often. And we prefer, I assume, when we invite them in, that they abide by the rules and the laws of Philadelphia. While parking violations may not seem to be a big deal, it would actually depend on where you sit. If you are stuck in traffic on Walnut Street because everything is double and triple parked by people waiting to valet their car, you want a tow truck to show up and remove those vehicles.
Or if the bus can't turn left because an idiot parks his car, you know, too close to the curb, and then the bus can't turn, and then everybody is sitting there for hours and hours and hours.
Well, we hear those terrible stories. But the complaints that we get happen to be not from people who park too close to a curb, but people who park in ordinary places. 96 BILL 970403
And I want to finish responding. I am certainly cognizant of the fact that there are very few people in the world who like what I do. And some days I don't much like it, either, but for very different reasons. The balance of trying to figure out how to appropriately move traffic, how to appropriately deal with public safety, making sure that ambulances can get down the street and making sure that there is an adequate legal parking supply available to people who are in the city and who come into the city is what the mission is. While I understand that it appears sometimes that people parked ordinarily at a meter, and the meter expires, they should not be able to get a ticket, that is why that program was implemented three years ago. And I will happy to get you the rescission numbers from that ticket, those tickets, since the day we started. But if you come back to your vehicle while a car is parked at a meter, and that meter is in violation, the parking officer has the authority 97 BILL 970403 to rescind that ticket. We have done thousands and thousands of them in the last three years.
Excuse me, Councilman Cohen. I mean, I know how strongly you feel about this. And, Ms. Cutler, I know that you would like to respond. But we really are going to have to go on to some of these other Councilmembers who have questions. Councilman Rizzo.
Would you distribute that rule fairly and evenly, Mr. President. I have a sense that that rule is a very special rule.
Councilman Rizzo, would you please just yield. The Chair recognizes Councilman 98 BILL 970403 Cohen.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. Please continue.
What is your position with respect to specifying very specifically in the bill what violations will be the basis of getting a written notice or written warning?
Well, can we have that in a fashion that can enable us to draft an amendment to present?
So that people reading the Code will be able to understand their rights?
Because it seems 99 BILL 970403 to me reading the Code, a parking ticket is, in fact, something that can lead, under the language of this ordinance, to the process of written notices.
Right. And I believe earlier the President recommended some change to that language, which I support and will be happy to deal with, which will identify the violations in the numbers of violations.
All right. I yield to Councilman Nutter. Is that what you were seeking?
Councilman Cohen, it is just my impression at this point -- and I only throw this out as a recommendation, and I haven't seen your list and you haven't seen my list, and Councilman DiCicco hasn't even gotten to his list, and Councilman Rizzo has been in once, and I think wants to get back in again -- I might only throw out an offer that there are so many questions, some of which seem to have answers, some are kind of in discussion, or even possibly being created as we 100 BILL 970403 speak, that, one, I don't think there is any way that we are going to be able to resolve many of these issues today. I am just not feeling a comfort level about that. And that secondly, some additional opportunity, I think, for members, and members directly, has to be provided in order to go through many of these issues and the kinds of amendments that Councilman Cohen is talking about, some that I have raised and others have raised, with the prospect of being able to come back at a later point in time here in the Committee of the Whole with some agreed-upon amendments, after having gone through the pretty extensive question-and-answer process with the Director. Now, the Councilman know me well in this regard. I mean, I am more than willing and prepared to sit here until the wee hours of the morning, if necessary, unless we think that we might be able, over the next week or so, to have a meeting or a series of meetings to come to some better understanding about the particulars of the bill, question some of the assumptions. I would like to move as far as 101 BILL 970403 possible away from, I assume, I intend, we think, we hope, or anything, and even have a much better sense of what some of the regulations may be, primarily because of what you and I talked about in the realm of regulations, we have no involvement in that process. So our primary focus and concern really is on what the Code says and what a person might get when they pick up the new edition of the Code or what we will be faced with if questioned by a member of the general public or an operator. So I just throw that out as one possible way to get through today and get to another place. If people don't want to do that, then, you know, that's fine with me.
I would support that. But I would like to get one further question in. And that is, I know that regulations, when produced, are published by the Department of Records. Would you have any objection to an amendment to this bill which would provide that 102 BILL 970403 before the regulation can become effective, that they must be forwarded to City Council, and that City Council shall have a certain period of time to review those regulations and, through the President, reply to the Department that they are approved or that certain amendments are suggested? Would you have any objection to such an amendment to this bill, to give us an opportunity, in addition to the discussion you talked about, but to give us a feeling of comfort that we will have a chance to see how in real life, because the Parking Authority more than any other department touches people every day of every week, maybe every hour of every day. And it is a tremendous source of complaints to us, you know, in our Council offices. Would you have any objection to that? We could specify a period of time, 30 days or 60 days, maximum, something of that sort?
The Council has never gotten involved in the writing of regulations. But, no, I have no objection to it.
Ms. Cutler, how do 103 BILL 970403 you know you have sufficient information about what this Council has ever done to make that statement?
I did ask the question several times related to the bill, whether we should be writing the regulations as part of package and, in fact, was told by staff who have been at the Parking Authority for eight, ten years, that that has not occurred. So that is my understanding, President Street.
So that you really should say on the basis of information that you have from people who only know what might have happened in the last eight or ten years, that we, Council, hasn't gotten involved in this.
Because I know of circumstances where Council has gotten involved in it, I can tell you that.
Thank you, Mr. President. 104 BILL 970403 My question, there is a word that's missing in this whole conversation, and I want to get to it. If I park in one of these timed valet spots that says that the car has to be out of the parking space at 4:00 p.m. to prepare for the dinner hour, what happens to that car that gets the $25, $20 ticket?
It doesn't say that. That's the word that I am looking for, "towed."
If it is in a zone that is regulated as a tow zone, it could be towed.
Well, on Walnut Street, for instance, Councilman, though there is a rush hour, p.m. rush hour zone, the valet parking 105 BILL 970403 operators park after it. So, yes, for instance, there are times when the dual regulation could be rush hour and valet.
Many of the valet operations will be established in areas that are not timed by, or are not covered by, a towing regulation.
Perfect example is Manayunk. Now, what I envision is that the valet operator shows up for work, there is a car in the Valet Zone area. I envision that that is going to be a major disruption to the operation. He will or she will call and request that car to be towed from that area. Would the Parking Authority, the Police Department, honor that request to tow that vehicle?
I cannot tow off any regulation which isn't regulated and signed as a tow zone. 106 BILL 970403 So, for instance, if they are at a meter on Main Street --
-- and the meter regulation goes off at 6:00, and the valet regulation begins, there is no regulation on the books currently that will allow me to tow off a parking meter for a violation.
Maybe it should. Because I can see a dispute beginning where a valet operator is going to call a prime contractor to move that car out of that spot. So if you are going to establish a valet area, I think that either it is very clear that the valet operators cannot tow that car, and that car sits there all evening with a $20 ticket on it, that now has disrupted that valet parking operation, and you know what they are going to do. They are going to double park and cause traffic congestion, because the vehicle is now with a $20 ticket parked in that area.
Councilman, two responses to that. First, it is against the law now for 107 BILL 970403 a private towing company to tow from a public street unless it is requested by the Police as an abandoned vehicle. That's the only exception to the law. And the second answer is that Council establishes tow zones by ordinance. And if the Council wished to have these spots in specific areas tow zones, that could be done by ordinance. Virtually all of Center City is governed by a tow ordinance, but those areas outside of that would have to be established by councilmanic ordinance.
Again, my point is that if five minutes before the tow zone goes into effect, for bucks, I can park my car in that 16 spot, and leave it there for the entire evening; 17 correct? 18
It can't be towed 20 until it is in one of these dual use areas such as Walnut Street. Again, I think in this conversation that we are going to have, I think that we are creating a situation here that could be disruptive, could be violent, could be a lot of things, if we 108 BILL 970403 don't address that issue.
Are you recommending, Councilman, that we consider making valet parking zones tow away zones, wherever they are created?
I am not suggesting that that's the answer. I am suggesting that that be considered, explored, reviewed, because of the fact that I think that the things I described are a legitimate possibility of an incident occurring. I know if I were one of the valet operators and there was a car parked in my valet area, or two cars, with two $20 tickets on them, that that wouldn't satisfy me, because they are now interfering with my business. How can you run a valet operation? You can't. It is going to be operated from the operating lane on Main Street, if there are vehicles left there in that spot. So I think you need to decide whether you are going to request City Council to create tow zones associated with this ordinance.
Okay. Okay. You asked me to consider it. I shall. 109 BILL 970403
My final question, -- and this may be a question that I have to ask of L & I. The valet operators are required to place the vehicles on licensed off-street parking facilities. Could you please tell me the definition of a licensed off-street parking facility. MR. EDWARD McLAUGHLIN: Commissioner Ed McLaughlin from L & I.
John Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department. Councilman, in regards to your question, a dual licensed parking location would either be a public parking lot or public parking garage, as defined Under 9-601 of the Code. But they would be public, not private parking lots or garages. They would have to be public. The definition of a public parking lot or garage is a lot or garage that charges a fee to park. And we would consider the valet parking as a fee-generated operation. MR. McLAUGHLIN: One of the advantages to the people that have their cars parked 110 BILL 970403 there is that we put that lot through a process to make sure that the cars can be properly parked there without being damaged, that the lighting is sufficient. There are a whole list of regulations.
If I own a small shopping center that closes at 6:00 p.m., let's say it is the type of establishment that doesn't have evening hours or Saturday night or a Sunday evening --
MAB paint, right. Because the language is a little bit vague here. All parking lots, from what I understand, are licensed off-street parking lot, even though they are the MAB store. Could a valet parker company cut a deal with the church at the corner of whatever, and now start using that adjacent to a residential community at 3 o'clock in the morning, or 2 o'clock in the morning, cars zipping in and out? Could this be interpreted as licensed off-street parking, to be any parking lot like the MAB lot the President just described? 111 BILL 970403
Again, Councilman, in the case that you talk about, the MAB lot right at Main and Ridge, or a church lot, are currently licensed and zoned as private parking lots. If they --
Isn't the short answer no, they couldn't valet park to those places?
The short answer is, no, they could not valet park in those spaces?
You can't change the height of the question. The question is, can they put them on the church lot. And the answer is no. 21
But the legislation, it doesn't say that. It says a licensed off-street parking facility. It doesn't say public. It doesn't say.
It is a licensed 112 BILL 970403 off-street facility. Those are not licensed off-street parking facilities.
It is not a licensed off-street parking facility by definition. It isn't.
It is not. And that's the reason why those two gentlemen that are running that business down there were concerned about that. Because they want to be able to make more or less informal arrangements to be able to put these cars various places. You know, it is part of what's happening down at the Vet and around. When you see these guys out there, you know, $10, waving the things in, the cars into all those little businesses, those are not licensed parking facilities; those are people making a buck. 113 BILL 970403
I guess. Am I wrong about that? MR. McLAUGHLIN: You are correct.
My only recommendation would be that it's really not as clear. Maybe a lawyer would understand this, but to me, the church at the corner might want to engage with a vendor, with a valet parker, and say, look, for 300 a month, I will let you use my spot, but then the constituents that live across the street are going to start to complain.
All he has to do, if he wants to do that, is make application for the appropriate licenses. And when he does that, he is probably going to trigger some kind of posting, and then the residents are going to say, oh, no. I mean, that's pretty much what will happen. I mean, I think the city has to be very careful about this. I think there are some liability issues that we have, some exposure that we 114 BILL 970403 have that we don't want to have. And when we authorize a person to do business in a particular way, we then become in some way kind of indirectly involved in that business. And, therefore, we have to be real careful that when they take these cars, they put them someplace where they are appropriately protected, and all that. Or else we are going to find ourselves on the, you know, defendant end of lawsuits and the like, because we are regulating and authorizing and getting involved in this activity. Which is the reason why they want all those insurance requirements and stuff in there, we are all indemnified and everything. It is a sensitive area. Councilman.
Thank you, Mr. President. So what I read here right now would eliminate any parking, paved parking area like a closed church or a closed whatever to utilize their parking lot for valet operators? It would definitely not be tolerated? 115 BILL 970403 MR. McLAUGHLIN: You are correct.
Thank you. Councilman Cohen says he has one last question.
Ms. Cutler, Director of the Authority. In the case I cited before, of an operator of a car coming back to his or her parked car, and the parking enforcement officer is in the process of writing a ticket, you stated that the parking enforcement officer was authorized to discontinue the writing. I either asked or intended to ask, is the parking enforcement officer directed to stop and to tear up, or do whatever they want, or is it merely they're authorized, and the judgment is then left to that parking enforcement officer?
No, Councilman. There are rules for the rescission program. One, the parking violation must be at a meter. They are for meters only. Two, there is a piece of paper that 116 BILL 970403 the owner of the automobile signs which releases their vehicle. Our officer turns that in with the ticket, which voided, so that we have documentation for the ticket. We don't allow our officers to rip up parking tickets.
Still, I am waiting for that answer. Does the parking enforcement officer have to stop when the operator comes back, or are they merely authorized if in their judgment they decide to?
No, it is not a judgment call, Councilman. The ticket can be, can and is, rescinded.
And the aggrieved person, is there anybody in the Parking Authority the aggrieved person could go to to stop the process from suddenly getting a Notice from the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication?
The piece of paper that 117 BILL 970403 the citizen signs that the ticket has been rescinded comes back to us. If there is an error, we have got that on file. We can resolve that.
Because my office has been trying for more than three months to resolve a problem just precisely like that, and at every step they have either been refused, no one wanted to talk to them at the Parking Authority.
Councilman, two things. One, the person who owns the car gets a copy of that rescission.
He never got the rescission yet. They are trying to say they went to the car --
-- and the parking enforcement officer was in the process of writing the ticket. And when they said, "Please don't write 118 BILL 970403 it. We understand the policy is if we come back before you completed it, you are supposed to stop." They said, "No. We are writing the ticket, we have started."
I will need a little more information on what the violation is. No one from your office --
Yes, my office directly, which I have not spoken to anybody in your office about this. So they should please call me.
Okay. And I will advise the Councilperson involved, one of the 16 members who had the same situation. 17
Please do. Thank you, Mr. President. You want me to yield, I will yield. Thank you. Go ahead.
Ms. Cutler, you mentioned earlier that you have a very difficult job that sometimes you don't particularly like it, but you do it. I also realize that your Parking 119 BILL 970403 Authority officers have a tough job out there, also.
I can tell you this, that something that needs to get fixed is a problem that I observe on Main Street in Manayunk. Here is a Parking Authority person giving a ticket out for an expired meter, with their car parked in front of a fire plug in a No Parking area.
Councilman, I would really like to know about that. Because we have a written policy on it, which basically says, if you are going to be out there enforcing the parking regulations, I expect you to abide by them, as well.
I will solicit the photo that the constituent took of that.
And it just sends such a bad message to park illegally and to be issuing tickets.
Thank you very much. I have to tell you, though, that's the policy. I have seen, you know -- and I do not even know whether it should be the policy. I am not passing any judgments whether it should or should not be the policy I want to make it clear. There may be a good reason why a parking enforcement officer should be able to pull up behind a violator, stop, get out, write a ticket. And I don't know whether or not that parking enforcement officer, who might be in a vehicle of some kind, I don't know whether or not that's a person who ought to have to go find a legal parking spot. So I am not saying that. Right? I would like to have, if we were going to discuss that, I would want to discuss that because I don't know about that. And your answer can stand for itself, 121 BILL 970403 that's fine. But I will tell you, I see all kinds of Parking Authority vehicles illegally parked all the time writing tickets. I mean, I just assumed there are probably a significant number of them happen in that way. And, guess what, in Center City, on the west side of Broad Street -- I don't know about the east side, because I don't hang out over there as much as I am over here, right -- half of the time they give tickets, I don't know where they would park. Where would they park? If you are going west on Walnut Street and somebody is double-parked, I mean, what are they going to do, just ride three or four blocks, go to a parking garage and park to deal with a stopped vehicle? I just don't know about that. You know what I mean? I see people laughing. I don't know whether or not that would make any sense whatsoever. Maybe you could supply us with that kind of a statement of what that policy is, because I think that would be very interesting. And I would like to have, at another 122 BILL 970403 time, not today, maybe we could explore that policy. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez.