There is a detail shop in the rear of the building. We rent to them.
It is kind of where the bocci club is on the other end of it?
I am just trying to get a sense of where we were with this. Any questions for these witnesses from the committee? You would like a suspension of the Rules, I assume? Yes.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Thank you for your patience. Thank you for coming this afternoon. The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 681, an Ordinance authorizing McCormick & Schmick Seafood Restaurant, a tenant of the property One South Broad Street, to construct and maintain an electrified marquee with an icon sign over the south footway of 71 BILL NO. 681 South Penn Square; and to construct and maintain five rigid awnings at various locations over the south footway of South Penn Square and the east footway of the unit block of South Broad Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Again, my name is Nancy Senn. I am here to testify on Bill No. 681. This bill authorizes the McCormick & Schmick Seafood Restaurant to construct and maintain the following encroachments on and above the public footways at the southeast corner of Broad Street and South Penn Square: One, an electrified marquee with an icon sign and support bracket located over the restaurant entrance on Penn Square South footway, with an approximate length of 11 feet, 5 inches, projecting a maximum of 8 feet into the south footway of South Penn Square, with the lowest point approximately 11 feet above the footway; and two rigid awnings over the south footway of South Penn Square; three rigid awnings over the east footway of South Broad Street. Both of these project a maximum of 2 feet, 6 inches, into the public right-of-way and have a maximum vertical clearance of 11 feet above 72 BILL NO. 681 the footway. All of these encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway on both Broad Street and South Penn Square. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill.
We would also like to request a suspension of the Rules for this legislation.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? Hearing none, the clerk will please read the title of the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 673, an Ordinance amending Title 12 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled Traffic Code, to provide for the towing of vehicles illegally parked on sidewalks, under certain terms and conditions.
Whoever is testifying please approach the witness table, and please 73 BILL NO. 673 identify yourself for the record and spell your last name for the court stenographer.
My name is Gihon, G-I-H-O-N, Jordan, J-O-R-D-A-N. I am a traffic engineer with the Streets Department.
Both Philadelphia Traffic Code and the Philadelphia Vehicle Code prohibit parking of vehicles on sidewalks. Parking on sidewalks is also hazardous to pedestrians, who are forced to walk in the roadway, and is a barrier to disabled people who wish to use the sidewalks. The Streets Department has no 19 objections to this bill.
Thank you. Please proceed. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Marcene Nodine, M-A-R-C-E-N-E, N-O-D-I-N-E, and I am a resident of Center City Philadelphia. And I want to thank you for allowing me to speak in favor of 74 BILL NO. 673 this bill. My husband and I moved back into Center City some years ago. The draw of the city 5 was its walkability. The fact that we could get to 6 work, to the Reading Terminal Market, it a movie at 7 the Ritz, or a concert at the Academy by foot. 8 That was back when pedestrians didn't 9 have to vie with commercial interests in the form of 10 sidewalk cafes, the freedom of the press 11 distributing literature in honor boxes, and an issue 12 here today, the self-serving culture of entitlement 13 that has given motorists license to park at will on 14 city sidewalks. 15 It is hard to find a sidewalk these days that isn't blocked by a construction vehicle, truck, car, or van. Abuse of existing parking laws is epidemic in Center City. This is especially the case on narrow streets, where parking is confined to one side of the street or prohibited altogether, and in my neighborhood, where business and residential properties must share the same turf. Employees, owners, and patrons of businesses situated west of Rittenhouse Square have 75 BILL NO. 673 become serial parkers who convenience themselves by routinely using the sidewalks as their own private parking lots. The current traffic code imposes little incentive for these parking regulars to keep their vehicles off the sidewalks. Ticketing has not remedied the problem. Even if violators are caught, fines have had limited effect on behavior. Paying the ticket or taking the time to fight it must be considered the cost of doing business. The end result is that sidewalks have become obstacle courses that force walkers to use the streets as pedestrian thoroughfares. Sidewalk-parked vehicles are a particular danger to the visually impaired, the wheelchair-bound, the elderly, children walking on their own, and mothers and grandmothers walking with small children or pushing baby strollers. In addition to the safety hazard posed by illegally parked cars and trucks, these machines destroy sidewalks and curbs by cracking cement, and deface surfaces with leaking motor oil, gasoline, and transmission fluid. 76 BILL NO. 673 In short, motor vehicles do not belong on sidewalks. The city needs to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude towards obstructing sidewalks. Amending the current traffic code to institute the towing of sidewalk-parked vehicles is certainly a step, pardon my pun, in the right direction. The amendment reaffirms the right of pedestrians and city residents, two sorely underrepresented groups in the current war of domain over Philly sidewalks. If adopted, I hope this city will fulfill the amendments promised by acting aggressively to enforce it. Sidewalks were meant for heels, not wheels. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. And may I call on you when reconvene on our discussion on an honor box bill that I introduced some time ago? I think you would be helpful to testify. 77 BILL NO. 673
Thank you. I think what we need is the definition, at least I do, of a sidewalk. Would a center island on Broad Street qualify -- that's a safe haven -- would that qualify for towing? If in fact a vehicle was on the center island on Broad Street, or here on JFK city vehicles are parked on the island, would they all be eligible for towing?
And I assume you are speaking to south of Washington Avenue?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul 78 BILL NO. 673 Loni, survey bureau manager, with the Department of Streets. And the legal status of those things does kind of fall under my bailiwick. So if it is okay with you, I would like to answer that question. The streets are broken down into something called the cartway and something called a footway. The footway is generally considered from the curb to private property. Anything between the curbs is considered the cartway, which under the City Plan is open for any type of vehicular use. Some of those center lanes are still considered within the cartway. They would not necessarily be considered a sidewalk. In South Philadelphia, they have kind of become -- have a life unto themselves, and no one is really sure what that is. But generally, anything between the curbs, whether it is raised, such as a traffic island, are still considered in the driving area or traveled way, which is commonly known as the cartway. 79 BILL NO. 673
But weren't they installed as a safe haven when you are trying to cross the street to make your way to the other side, a safety zone?
Well, they were. And when we redesigned the Avenue of the Arts, we realized that there still was that problem, that people were just ignoring that. And so that's why we put, if you notice up there, the raised islands along Broad Street, was for that safety reason.
So are you telling me that it is a cartway and would not be enforced under this legislation?
My other question to the Streets Department is, there are many locations throughout Center City that allow vehicular parking. Let me give you an example. There is a sidewalk, and then there is an area where the building is set back from the sidewalk, where people have used that to park vehicles. How do you determine in that -- as a 80 BILL NO. 673 matter of fact, if you just look around City Hall here in each direction, you will see where -- I'm not talking about City Hall apron, I am talking about buildings that have utilized the sidewalk, but don't block the sidewalk, to park vehicles. What is the determination of the sidewalk? Is it 4 feet? Is it 6 feet? Is it all the way to the property? Are those vehicles that are parked in that area, but not obstructing pedestrian traffic, are they subject to ticketing and towing?
The sidewalk is designated on the City Plan as the area from the curb to where the private property begins. I'm not sure exactly on the statutes -- perhaps Gihon could comment on that -- about driving across the footway to get to that area. But anything beyond the City Plan right-of-way line is private property, and I assume that the folks would have a right to park there. But whether they would have the right to cross the sidewalk to get to that point, except in designated area, I'm not sure; that's a traffic 81 BILL NO. 673 regulation.
This is Gihon. If you have a parking lot, you can get a permit from the Streets Department, and you need a curb cut, and we okay your parking lot, and you can drive across the sidewalk to get to your parking lot.
I am not talking about a parking lot. I am talking about a sidewalk that runs up the street. One side to the left, as an example, is the street, to the right of that sidewalk is maybe a 10-foot piece of concrete between the building's foundation, and the --
I can give you examples. On Sansom Street, between Juniper and Broad, on the east side, along the Fidelity Bank Building, every single day there are a number of huge vehicles, trucks in particular, that are there for either construction work that's going on in the building or deliveries. 82 BILL NO. 673
Right here on North Broad Street, there is a facility that utilizes the area between the sidewalk and the building as parking for maybe seven or eight, ten vehicles. Every day I see the vehicles parked there. But they don't block the sidewalk. They are between the actual sidewalk and the actual building, where it is a very wide sidewalk. My question is, even though they are not obstructing pedestrian traffic, they are still parked on the sidewalks, even though it is an extended sidewalk, or an apron that incorporates the sidewalk. If someone complained about that vehicular traffic, I think we would put the Police Department and the towing folks in a very precarious position. Because it is on the sidewalk, but it is not blocking pedestrian traffic.
Right. I think I understand your question, and it seems like a very good one. I feel that people have a misunderstanding of what exactly a sidewalk is. It 83 BILL NO. 673 is not just the concrete. But there are certain instances where the sidewalks ends, we will say, feet from the 5 curb, it may be 20 feet from the building, which 6 leaves 8 feet for someone to park in. 7 I will ask Mr. Jordan here to review 8 the traffic codes. Because I feel probably where it 9 is illegal is to actually cross the sidewalk to get 10 to that area without a curb cut. And that's, I 11 think, where we might have to look in that area. 12 But I'm not sure, and I don't want to give you an answer that's erroneous. So we will look into that and get back to you.
I have a question of Mr. Loni. Up on Erie Avenue, let's see, from J Street -- well, we will call it H Street, down Erie Avenue, this is in Juniata Park, down to M Street, per se, we have these car dealers there. And they 84 BILL NO. 673 always bring their little wares out and park -- I don't know if you have got a lot in Center City, but that obstructs walking up there. And they put their cars nicely lined up on the sidewalk, then the other ones are parked on the street without tags. It has been a real hassle to try to get the cops to ticket the ones on the sidewalk. It is definitely in the traffic code, definitely. Correct?
Let me, if I can answer that first. We did a bill, this committee, about a year or two ago that makes it a $300 fine for the sale of a vehicle on any street. So that what happened, as I understand, is for some reason the Philadelphia Traffic Court never had that violation on their ticket book. You couldn't put all the violations on the ticket book, anyway, that are on the books today. But for some reason that was left out. And I understand they are making the adjustments to this year's new ticket book. So that sale of cars -- and Mr. Dixon 85 BILL NO. 673 is shaking his head yes -- sale of cars, whether they are on the highway or on the sidewalk, would be punishable by a $300 fine. I think this goes one step further and says that that vehicle could actually be towed, if it is on the sidewalk.
Councilman Mariano, we would be glad to, especially with our new system in the Streets Department, if you feel that somewhere in your district you are not sure exactly where that sidewalk ends and the private property begins, if you would let us know, we would be glad to go out and mark that for you.
They probably encroach that on the sidewalk, they probably extend. There is a few of them. And one I know they extended the fence, probably. But you could never walk around there. And I could never walk around there. And that's the problem. But this would eliminate that, and we are hoping. Thank you.
Any other questions for these witnesses? Ma'am I notice you have your hand 86 BILL NO. 673 up. Do you have questions or testimony in relationship to this bill? AUDIENCE MEMBER: This bill I want to ask a question.
You have to come up to the witness table and direct the questions to the Chair. Good afternoon, ma'am. Please identify yourself for the record and spell your last name.
Good afternoon. I am Diane Huff, H-U-F-F, as in Frank. My question was to this bill.
My question was, like private property, does that mean city-owned property? Because I know that little street she was speaking of, narrow streets. And it is that little street, that's Watt Street, off of Broad and Cherry. Okay? It is that little street. And there we have signs that says okay, Commissioner so and so can park here, and then 87 BILL NO. 673 so and so can park there, but there is no signs anywhere else. However, normal people just follow suit and start parking on the sidewalk.
You are saying there is a sign that allows for certain government officials.
Well, it has some Commissioner's name. I don't know if it is the Police Commissioner or what?
Well, on the fence. That takes me back to the private property question. There is the sidewalk and then there is a fence. And beyond the fence perhaps starts the actual business.
Alongside the old firehouse. I know where you are talking about.
Yes. So that is there. And it is easy for just a normal person to just 88 BILL NO. 673 believe that they can park on the other sidewalks. Because that's what happens. But when you do that, you get a ticket. You know, fortunately it is not up to the $300 that you requested, but it is --
No. $300 is for sale of a vehicle on the sidewalk or highway.
But you get a ticket. But normal people don't know that, you know. So will we hold everybody accountable?
Absolutely. I understand your question. And it is noted in the record. We will have folks from the Police Department and the Parking Authority investigate those allegations. Thank you.
Any other questions for these witnesses? Anyone else here to wishes to testify? Hearing none, the clerk will please read the title of the next bill. 89 RESOLUTION NO. 41 Thank you all very much.
Before we get to Bills 358 and 359, there is a resolution on a bill that was held to date certain, Resolution 41, authorizing the Committee on Streets and Services to hold hearings on the dangers and damage caused by the deterioration of retaining walls, driveways, and alleys, and the complications involved, in coordinating necessary repairs by abutting property owners, and to determine the scope of these dangerous conditions throughout the city and the cost to repair them, and further authorizing the committee to formulate a program to correct these hazardous and dangerous conditions in the writs of the city. And that is being held per the request of the sponsor. Bill No. 660, an Ordinance amending Section 11-506 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Alleys, Driveways and Retaining Walls," by providing additional methods by which the city may pay contractors the city hires to pave or repave alleys or driveways or to construct or reconstruct retaining walls pursuant to orders to abate nuisances and by providing a maximum amount that 90 BILL NO. 660 property owners may be assessed for the cost of such work, all under certain terms and conditions. This bill was continued from Tuesday, November 2.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, I believe, continued this particular bill pending any new or additional information from the Streets Department in this particular matter. I have not received any new or different additional information. And so at this point in time, when we get to the public meeting section, I would only ask that we just report the bill out of committee and get it over with.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul Loni, survey bureau manager, with the Department of Streets. And the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 91 BILL NO. 660 000660. This is not an Administration Ordinance, but an Ordinance introduced by Councilman Nutter. The purpose of this Ordinance is to make certain revisions to the Philadelphia Code which allow the City to pay contractors in a form other than assessment bills for abating certain nuisances. Also, the changes would place a limit of assessment for the abutting property owners. Since driveways, alleys, and retaining walls are private property, any changes to the legislation affecting them would give the impression that this status would change. The Administration feels this is not in the best interest of the city. Therefore, this Ordinance is not supported by the Department of Streets and is not recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Just a couple, Mr. Chairman. 92 BILL NO. 660 Mr. Loni, with regard to the specifics of the bill, now, the title of this bill 4 says that it is amending Section 11-506. My reading of that naturally means that this is amending a section of the code that already exists; is that correct?
And so we are not creating a new section to the code or creating by way of this bill a new responsibility for the city; is that correct?
We are not creating any new sections in the code, no. You are right, we are not.
And will this particular section require the city to take any other action that it would not otherwise normally be required or not required to take by way of the current section of the code?
Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Loni. Mr. Chairman, I am finished.
Are there any other 93 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 questions for this witness?
No other questions for this witness. The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
We have two companion bills, Bills Nos. 358 and 359. Bill No. 358, an Ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Traffic 11 Code," by amending the provisions relating to 12 parking by physically handicapped persons and disabled and severely disabled veterans. And Bill No. 359, an Ordinance 15 amending Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades, and Professions," by conditioning the issuance of licenses for public garages and public parking lots on the provision of accessible parking spaces in such garages and lots; and amending Title 12 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Traffic Code," by prohibiting parking in such accessible parking spaces except by persons parking vehicles lawfully bearing registration plates or parking placards issued to physically handicapped persons or severely 94 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 disabled veterans, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, and please identify yourself for the record. I am going to hold for my statements until I hear some testimony. Rick, would you prefer that I did the amendments, offered them up front? MR. RICHARD D. DICKSON, JR.: Those that were agreed to. Our testimony is based on the bill with those amendments.
Okay. All right. For the record, I am going to read into the record a proposed amendment to Bill No. 16 000359. Amend Subsection 9-601 (2)(a)(.8) as follows: "(.8), The applicant provides accessible parking in accordance with the following," underscore, "except that a public parking garage existing at the time this subsection became law which does not permit self-parking and at which vehicles are parked only by attendants need not provide any particular number of accessible parking spaces, but need only provide at least one 95 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 accessible drop-off and pick-up location, provided that the garage accepts for parking all vehicles modified for people with disabilities, including vehicles equipped with hand controls." Second amendment amends Subsection 9-601(4)(a)(.8) as follows, "the applicant provides accessible parking in accordance with the following," underscored, "provided that a parking lot existing at the time this subsection became law which does not permit self-parking and at which vehicles are parked only by attendants need not provide any particular number of parking spaces, but need only provide at least one accessible drop-off and pick-up location, provided that the parking lot accepts for parking all vehicles modified for people with disabilities, including vehicles equipped with hand controls." The clerk will read the proposed amendments to Bill No. 000358.
Add a new Section 2 to the bill that reads as follows, "Section 2, Title 12 of the Philadelphia Code is further amended to read as follows, Title 12 Traffic Code, Chapter 12-1100, Miscellaneous Regulations and Penalties. Subsection 96 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 12-1117, Physically Handicapped and Disabled or Severely Disabled Veteran Parking." (3), "Reserved on-street parking for physically handicapped persons and severely disabled veterans reserved on-street accessible parking spaces," is the addition. And new Section F, "On each side of each hundred block on which there is metered parking, one reserved accessible parking space shall be located as close as possible to an accessible curb ramp, marked by signs at both ends of the space showing the symbol of accessibility. Parking at each accessible space shall be regulated by an electronic meter which has no moving parts, handles, or thumb slides, which is programmed to accept at least seven different coins or tokens, and which is painted blue. No vehicle may park at such space except a motor vehicle bearing a handicapped plate, a handicapped parking placard, a severely disabled veteran's plate, or a severely disabled veteran placard, and which is being operated by or for the transportation of a physically handicapped person or severely disabled veteran. Drivers of such vehicles shall be entitled to park in an accessible space for 97 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 a period of 60 minutes in excess of the maximum time limit and without payment of any parking meter fees during that 60-minute period. Such motor vehicles shall comply with all parking prohibitions, including, but not limited to, snow emergency, street cleaning, or resident parking." And Chapter 12-2400, "Towing and immobilizing of parked or abandoned vehicles. Subsection 12-2405, Removal or Immobilization of Parked Vehicles Notice. (1), any vehicle may be removed by means of towing to the nearest official towing station or immobilized for up to 72 hours by means of applying a boot and then towed to the nearest official towing station, if not reclaimed, by or under the direction of a member of the department or its designated agent whenever any vehicle is," new, "(h) parked in a reserved accessible parking space in violation of Subsection 12-1117(3)(f)." And Chapter 12-2800, "Administrative Adjudication of Parking Locations. Subsection 12-2809, Civil Penalties and Costs, (2), any person violating the following provisions of Title 12 shall, upon a final finding of liability pursuant to 98 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 this Chapter 12-2800, be liable for payment of the civil penalty indicated, in addition to the costs and fees set forth in Subsection 12-2809(1), Code Provision 12-1117(3)(f), Violation Description Parking Reserved Accessible Space, Penalty, $300."
Thank you. Good afternoon and please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Roger Margulies, and my last name is spelled M-A-R-G-U-L-I-E-S. I am the Assistant Deputy Mayor for the Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities. I am here to testify in support of the proposed bills titled 358 and 359 that affect parking regulations for people with disabilities. The Philadelphia disability community agrees there is definitely abuse of the use of disability plates and placards by persons without disabilities. As a result, the number of available parking spaces on the street becomes limited. I believe the proposed plan to install one accessible parking space on each block close to a curb cut is a good one. It will allow 99 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 citizens with disabilities to access the city's goods and services. I understand that vehicles parked illegally in these spaces will be subject to towing. And I urge the Philadelphia Parking Authority and police to strongly enforce this measure. On behalf of the members of the Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities, I want to applaud the willingness of the city to purchase and install accessible parking meters. This action ensures that Philadelphians with disabilities are included and can contribute as workers and consumers. I endorse Bill No. 359, the amendment to Title 9, as it ensures that private parking lot operators have the required number of disability parking spaces mandated in the Americans With Disabilities Act, the ADA. In addition, I support the provision that police and ticketing officials should be able to ticket cars without disability plates and placards that park in disability parking places. Although drivers with placards and 100 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 disability plates currently enjoy unlimited free parking at meters, and some members of my constituency would like this practice to continue, I believe that the proposed regulation that requires people with disabilities to pay for their metered parking with an hourly rate over the posted time limitations to be fair and reasonable. However, I have one exception. It is my recommendation that vans with disability plates and placards be exempt from Title 358's requirements. This is necessary for the following reasons: Off-street parking facilities are only required to provide one accessible van parking space for every eight accessible spaces. Further, many off-street parking facilities which predate the ADA do not have high enough ceilings to accommodate vans. For these reasons, people with disabilities who drive vans have significantly fewer long-term parking options in off-street facilities. Free parking at meters for vans with disability plates would accommodate for this deficiency. 101 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 It would be helpful if the effective dates of Titles 358 and 359 could be postponed until April 2001, after accessible parking meters have been installed and are ready for use. One final recommendation. The Philadelphia Parking Authority, or other designated agency, conduct a public awareness campaign to ensure that drivers with disabilities are aware and familiar with these parking regulation changes so that no one is inconvenienced. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Margulies. When you speak to the recommendation that vans with disability plates and placards be exempt from the Bill 358, you are speaking, I assume -- because I have had some conversations with my chief of staff and Mr. Dickson, vans that have lifts; is that correct?
I am talking about vans that have lifts or vans that may have hand controls. Oftentimes people who are most 102 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 severely disabled would drive these kinds of vehicles.
Yes. I want to be clear that we are not speaking about vans in general that may have a handicapped placard or plate. I am speaking to the more modified vans that have a lift and/or hand controls. I know of a few contractors in South Philadelphia that have handicapped plates on their vans without lifts. And that's what we don't want to see abusing the parking spaces. So -- and, again, if I am wrong, correct me -- and if there is someone up at the witness table that can clear this up, I thought we meant vans that had lifts --
Okay. We don't want to open it up for just vans that have a handicapped placard or plate. 103 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 We may have a similar situation that we have with vehicles that have handicapped placard or plate. And you don't want to limit it to that.
It gets very complicated. The spirit in which I am making this recommendation is that people who have modified equipment or some kind of adaptations on their car.
I am not suggesting that what you are proposing is something that we would not be in favor of. I just want to be clear as to what the definition of the van is. And if Mr. Dickson or someone else up there would like to jump in on this conversation, I would appreciate it. Because I thought that this was something that was discussed at the last meeting, which I was not able to attend.
Yes, Councilman, it was discussed at the last meeting. And because of the difficulty in 104 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 providing an appropriate definition, some of the members representing disabled organizations were opposed to this amendment. EPVA has said at that meeting that, for this very reason, they do not think there should be a distinction made, and that all people with disabilities should be treated equally. What we said, if we are going to consider this amendment, we think it is most appropriate that only those vans that have been equipped to deal -- that either have a lift device or have steering hand-controlled adaptations to the vehicles only be considered. As it was proposed here, anybody that has a mini-van, a family van with a plate or placard is given the same privilege. And that's exactly the situation we are trying to eliminate.
Mr. Margulies, have we covered appropriately and accurately all the various classifications? I see severely disabled. I see plaque on some occasions, a license plate that 105 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 says, "Handicapped," and the logo on one side means something versus the other side. Have, in this legislation, all of the potential users of these spaces been identified properly?
Yes. The people with disabilities either have handicapped license plates issued by the State of Pennsylvania or they have placards hanging in their rear-view mirror which are issued by the Department of Transportation, also, one or the other.
Well, I am glad to hear that. I recall during the last hearing on this that we discussed the system itself for securing handicapped tags, handicapped disabled placards, et cetera, et cetera. And I think it was pretty clear that the system itself needs an overhaul. Do you have any knowledge of what is being done to clean up what I think is a process that really needs to be cleaned up? Because I see so much abuse. And I 106 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 think we all mentioned back then, many months ago, that if we really had a focus, and these license plates and placards were given to people that really needed them, that we might not be here today. Do you see any effort or is there anything that you can do, that we can do, to work to make this system out of Harrisburg work any better?
Well, the plates and placards are issued by the state. And the only recent change that's come about that I am aware of is that, when placards are issued now, the person that the placards are issued to also receives an identification card. But in terms of the state monitoring the plates and placards and so forth, I think, you know, there is more that could be done.
In speaking with one of my colleagues earlier today, it was described where a person went in for knee surgery, and got a temporary placard. That basically the person now has recuperated, is healed, is still using the placard. That, to me, sounds like a blatant violation of the intent of the placard and license plate process. 107 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
So I think beyond what we are trying to do here locally, I think that we may be, as representatives of Philadelphia, need to communicate with the state, the state representatives, state Senators. Because to me this abuse is something we just shouldn't be tolerating.
I want to comment. I am the colleague that was talking to Councilman Rizzo earlier. The gentleman I referred to was captured on Channel 10 several months ago, when we first began to deal with this issue on abuse of handicapped parking. He works for -- at the time it was, Bell Atlantic. I guess it is Verizon now, at 9th and Race. And he was observed getting out of a vehicle with a handicapped plate on, being parked on Race Street. And he had a knee operation two or three years ago. And at the time he was issued, rightfully so, a plate or placard, because he was in effect disabled, he couldn't get around. 108 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 But what happens is, he still continues to use the plate and/or placard because there is no followup examination or what-have-you. And I have talked to Senator Fumo's office about this. And we are starting to look at the state level to see if there is some readjustment of the current statutes that would eliminate that type of abuse. I think what I would like to do, before I entertain anymore questions, let the rest of the folks, I think you all have prepared testimony, hear your testimony, then we will get into the question and answer. And I apologize for breaking my own rule. Thank you. Whoever is speaking next, you all decide.
My name is Nicole Faux. I am an accessibility compliance coordinator with the Managing Director's Office. And I am here to testify on behalf of Debra Russo-Haines, who is the deputy managing director. And she is also the city's designated ADA coordinator. Title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which became effective in 1992, 109 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 requires local government to ensure that its programs and services are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Title 2 applies to anything a public entity does, including provision of on-street parking. The City of Philadelphia has taken a very proactive approach to compliance with ADA requirements. In working closely with the disability community, the Managing Director's Office created an ADA transition plan for achieving access to the city's programs and services that has been recognized as a national model. The city has retrofitted numerous buildings throughout the city, revised its building code to ensure that privately owned facilities are as accessible as possible, and constructed curb cuts at almost 16,000 intersections throughout the city to provide access to the public right-of-way. Prior to these accomplishments, getting around the city was obviously much more difficult for people with disabilities than it is today. 110 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 In recognition of this, the city took it upon itself in the early 1980s to pass an Ordinance providing people with disabilities with all-day free parking at meters. Although at the time the State of Pennsylvania accommodated people with disabilities with only one hour of free parking beyond the expiration of a meter, the City of Philadelphia officials obviously felt that the barriers posed to people with disabilities in this city were great enough to warrant providing free parking all day. For years, the benefits of this ordinance were very real to people with mobility impairments. Inaccessible facilities, lack of curb cuts, and lack of accessible off-street parking necessitated this accommodation. Today, however, almost nine years beyond the effective date of the ADA, Philadelphia is significantly more accessible. The goal of the ADA is not to provide different or special services for people with disabilities, but to make existing programs as accessible as possible, and then to provide accommodations, where necessary, in order to achieve 111 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 integration. This city has spent the last nine years making its programs and facilities as accessible as possible, including access to the public right-of-way. In light of that, the appropriate accommodation with regard to metered parking is not the same as it was almost years ago. 10 In addition, the Managing Director's 11 Office has been working to support and assist the 12 Philadelphia Parking Authority in developing a plan 13 to increase accessibility at meters, which has been 14 incorporated into Bill No. 358. 27 of the ADA Accessibility 19 Guidelines. 20 In addition, two metered handicapped spaces will be provided on every city unit block. These spaces will be located at the corners adjacent to the curb cuts, identified with blue meters and appropriate signage, and will be solely for the use of vehicles with handicapped tags. 112 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Vehicles parked illegally in these spaces will be subject to towing. And we urge the city to strongly enforce this provision. We also encourage the provisions of Bill No. 358 to become effective in April 2001 to coincide with the installation of the accessible meters. For these reasons, we are in full support of Bill No. 358, which would appropriately amend the accommodation for people with disabilities parked at meters from all-day free parking, to one hour free parking beyond the expiration of the meter, in accordance with state law. This accommodation meets both the spirit and intent of the ADA by providing people who have mobility impairments with an extra hour to get back to their car.
The Managing Director's Office has also worked closely with the Philadelphia Parking Authority over the past few years to review their off-street parking facilities for ADA compliance and to recommend the necessary renovations. The Parking Authority has fully implemented these recommendations. 113 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 In order to ensure that privately owned off-street parking facilities are also in compliance with ADA requirements, we urge City Council to pass Bill No. 359. Passage of this bill should go hand in hand with Bill No. 358 to ensure that the availability of accessible long-term parking in off-street facilities coincides with the elimination of long-term parking at meters for vehicles with handicapped tags. Bill No. 359 would provide the city with the means to ensure that we do not issue a license renewal for any facility that has not made a good-faith effort to provide accessibility for people with disabilities. In order not to create a hardship for business owners, this bill would only require facilities that currently provide parking on a level, accessible route to show proof that they also have the appropriate handicapped parking spaces in order to obtain their license renewal. This bill would not go to the extent of requiring the installation of ramps or elevators, in that existing facilities do not currently provide 114 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 parking on a level-accessible route would be exempt from oversight on handicapped parking. As these business owners have had almost nine years to bring their facilities into compliance with ADA requirements, something the Parking Authority did in a matter of months, we do not see the requirements of Bill 359 as burdensome. In addition, this ordinance will ensure that the city is not in violation of the ADA by licensing inaccessible facilities or contracting to park city vehicles in inaccessible facilities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Dickson. I am the director of off-street parking for the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Patrick Mulligan, the deputy managing director, and I have both submitted written testimony on these bills. And I would like to summarize that in the interest of both time and so as to not to duplicate our efforts. What these bills really attempt to do is manage what is a very scare resource for any 115 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 city. As an old city, we are not going to build any new streets or we are not going to create any new curb space in order to increase the number of parking spaces that are available. What our responsibility becomes is to manage those spaces in the most effective way so as to maximize the opportunities people have to use the parking spaces we have. Since 1992, the Philadelphia Parking Authority has conducted fairly comprehensive studies on the use of on-street parking. In '92, 8 percent of the parking meters in Center City were occupied by vehicles with plates or placards for people with disabilities. In December of last year and April of this year, we conducted another study which indicated that 35 percent of all of the meters in Center City are occupied by those vehicles. In the core of Center City, it is 41 percent. The result of that is not additional access to parking for people with disabilities, but reduced access to parking for people with disabilities. 116 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Because as those spaces are occupied all day by the same vehicle, no one, including the disabled, have an opportunity to get to those spaces. The result is, over 500,000 people who would expect to find spaces during the course of a year are unable to find them because there is no 9 turnover at those spaces. In addition to that, we find that often when people are able to finally find a space, it is far from the destination that they wish to go to. The amendments that were proposed by Councilman DiCicco today attempt to address the concerns that were raised at the last hearing. At that time people felt that those who were still competing with well-bodied motorists for the same parking spaces would be unable to operate the parking meter because current meters in Philadelphia require you to turn a handle. And, in addition to that, the space may not be close to an accessible curb cut. The amendments that are being considered today would rectify those problems. 117 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 The Parking Authority will create a space designated solely for people with disabilities on each metered block in the city. Those spaces would be marked off with the appropriate signs, they would become tow-away zones so that vehicles parking in those spaces that are not credentialed to do so could be towed, and we will install parking meters that are mechanical and would operate just like a vending machine, that you don't have to turn any handles. And we have a sample of one of those meters here today for you to see.
Could you just put it up on the table, we could look. Because I haven't seen it yet, actually.
The housing for these meters would be painted blue so as to distinguish them from other meters, as well as putting the signs up that would clearly delineate what those spaces were. In addition to that, the height of 118 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 these specially reserved meters will be lowered so that they will be accessible to people who are in wheelchairs.
The current parking meter requires, once you put the coin in, you have to turn a handle. With these, you just put the coin in, and it --
It just drops straight through. It doesn't require any handle turning or thumb slides or anything like that. In addition to that, the proposal that has gone out for bidders asks them to submit a separate price for meters that would access debit cards. And that's just, you just slide that into the slot. And you could buy a card for various amounts of money, so that you wouldn't have to carry change. Which also helps deal with problems associated with manual dexterity limitations. So we think that this goes a long way toward increasing parking availability for all 119 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 motorists in the city. It reserves a number of spaces only for the people with disabilities. It still permits those people who have plates or placards to park in regular metered spaces, subject to the same time limit and one-hour grace period beyond that in order to accommodate those people that have difficulty getting to and from their destinations. One of the things that was discussed fairly thoroughly at the last hearing was that, because of the economic incentive that's created for free parking all day, we have created an incentive for people to get plates or placards where they may not otherwise normally be entitled. This reserves parking on the street for its intended purpose, which is short-term parking. It allows people who are disabled to have better access to businesses or institutions that they want to patronize, but at the same time encourages the turnover of parking spaces that's necessary in order for us to support the economic development of the city.
Thank you. 120 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Mr. Haigler, are you going to testify? Please identify yourself, and then we will go through questions. MR. OTIS HAIGLER, JR.: Good day, Councilman DiCicco and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., legislative and regulatory affairs manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill No. 000359, which if enacted will amend Chapter 9-600 of the Philadelphia Code relating to parking garages and parking lots. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is charged with the responsibility for enforcement of Chapter 9-600 related to the licensing of parking lots and parking garages, as well as granting approvals through the permit process for the establishment of these facilities. In accordance with our responsibilities, the department offers no 22 objections to the enactment of Bill 000359, and is prepared to enforce the provisions of this bill. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. 121 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
Thank you. My question is to Mr. Dickson. How many spaces will be available under this current legislation throughout the city? You know, each block will have a handicapped metered space. Do you have any idea of the number?
So we have no way of knowing when those meters are going to be installed. And I am raising that because Mr. Margulies' testimony had asked that enactment of these two bills be postponed until April 2001. I mean, the likelihood, in my opinion, would be that we probably wouldn't make that April 2001 anyway.
We have no objection to 122 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 moving it to April. We would be prepared for the spaces that are reserved for people with disabilities to make sure that we have a sufficient number in April, even if we haven't converted all of the other meters at that time.
Okay. And I did ask the question on vans, lifts. Okay. That's it for me for the time being. Councilman Rizzo.
Do you anticipate that with the shortage of parking that you identified earlier, or someone identified earlier, that these spots will be used pretty much of the time, would you think that the business community is going to complain that, there goes another spot? They look out the window, it is empty, it is waiting for someone to utilize it. Have there been any statistics or anything that you can point to that indicates how frequently these spots are going to be used? And will there ever be a time of the day, evening, where they will not be reserved for that purpose?
You can answer, 123 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 because I have no own thoughts on it. I mean, what brought us to these was, one of the reasons, was meters are in commercial corridors, meters are installed to have turnover parking that will enable the commercial retail businesses to thrive because people will be able to pull in for an hour or two hours and then pull out. What has happened as a result of the legislation that was created by City Council back in the '80s is, there are now actually less parking spaces for people who are shopping or doing business in those commercial corridors because people can park there all day free. In fact, I think the statistics as a result of the last hearing we had back in June was somewhere between, I am being conservative by saying, 65 percent, but I think it was actually a little higher, in the core of Center City alone. 65 percent of all the metered parking spaces were occupied by vehicles with handicapped placards or plates almost all day, for eight hours or more per day. And in order to provide a reasonable accommodation for the truly handicapped folks, who 124 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 need a place to park, and hopefully cul out those folks who have been abusing the system, we feel that these two bills are the best that we can do to accommodate both sides. And I noticed one thing. Because I was out there taking photographs on Chestnut Street prior to the last bill hearing, back in June of this year. And I have actually already seen a little bit of a reduction in the number of cars that are parked out there. And I think it is like the guy from Jersey, whose tag expired in December of 1997 but had a placard in the window, Pennsylvania car that expired in May of 2000 but had a placard in the window, I think the message is getting out that the game is over. And that folks who really and truly need to have accessibility will have a better opportunity now to find a parking spot than they would have before this bill, these bills are passed and enacted.
I will address it to the Chair. What will be the difference on a 125 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 particular block once this zone is created versus the rest of the metered parking? How will this meter be treated differently than any other meter on the block?
They won't be treated differently at all, except to the extent that only people with state-issued credentials for people with disabilities would be permitted to park in this reserved spot. And if it is on Walnut Street, and it is a two-hour zone, the person parking in any of those spaces, if they had a plate or placard for people with disabilities, would be permitted to park for two hours, and pay the meter for that two hours, and they would get an additional one hour beyond that, in compliance with state law, to allow an accommodation for those people that have mobility impairments.
So this will basically be a reserved spot. But my question, which I don't think Councilman DiCicco responded to, will there ever be a time when this meter will not be reserved for those credentialed? 126 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
We would envision that they would be in effect during the same period of regulation as the rest of the block.
So what you are telling me is that the minute that that metered parking expires, that's another parking space?
On any street in the city, there are time limits, a beginning and end to the regulation where there are meters. Meters are in effect from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on a given block. We would anticipate that this space would be governed by the same time limit regulation. So beyond that limit, there would be no need to feed the meter and would be available for public parking, actually, at that time.
My point being that at 8 o'clock, the availability of parking goes away to people with placards. Could it possibly exclude that meter? Because what you are doing, at 8 o'clock, a handicapped or disabled person --
Are you asking that the reserved parking space, the accessible parking 127 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 space, be reserved for hours a day, 7 days a week for handicapped parking? Is that what you are asking?
Without a lot of 6 thought, I am thinking that at 8 o'clock a person 7 with a disability arrives, there is no parking spot 8 because that location is no longer available because 9 it is being parked in by a person without a 10 disability. 11 Manayunk is an example. 12
Councilwoman Miller's 13 question was just in commercial. But that's where 14 meters are. They are not in residential 15 communities, or fully residential anyway; maybe 16 mixed use. 17
I am just trying to 18 figure out the sign that -- the question becomes, 19 how do we do a sign that says, you don't have to pay 20 the meter after this point, but the space is still 21 reserved at that time point? 22 I am sure there would be some way we 23 could work that out. 24
I don't think your question was do you not have to pay. I think what 128 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 your question is -- and correct me if I am wrong -- at o'clock p.m., which is the, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 4 p.m. is dedicated parking, accessible parking. 5 8:01, you are saying that space will 6 now become available for Frank DiCicco, who doesn't 7 require accessible parking. 8 You are suggesting -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that that spot should still be available strictly for -- forget the 8:00 p.m., no 11 limit. 24 hours, 7 days a week, that dedicated parking space should be for accessible parking only.
If we are trying to be considerate of -- without a lot of thought here.
Yes, that's the question. But I am not necessarily suggesting that that be the way that's dealt with. My point being, at 8:01, a disabled or handicapped person now has no place to park according to this legislation. If we are trying to accommodate disabled and handicapped people, that parking space 129 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 should possibly be looked at differently than the rest of the meters on that block.
I hadn't envisioned it that way. And, actually, I think the bill is silent on the issue.
But in certain commercial districts, the parking is in force beyond 8:00 p.m.; am I not correct?
We had envisioned that these would be in effect during whatever the prevailing regulation time was.
Right. So like Manayunk. You said Manayunk, didn't you? Well, in Manayunk I'm sure -- is it 8:00 p.m.? It ends at 8:00 p.m.? 130 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
Okay. And then the businesses are still open there; that's your point.
My point being, if a person with disabilities wants to go to go to a Manayunk restaurant or a Germantown Avenue restaurant, that at 8 o'clock, or whatever time it expires, then a nondisability person can park in that spot, the disability person pulls up, there is no spot.
I would like to make a comment. I am Roger Margulies from the Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities. If these meters are going to be painted blue, and are going to be at a lower height than all the other meters, if they were designated as disability parking spaces hours a day, it 24 would be very clear to the public, both the nondisabled drivers and drivers with disabilities, 131 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 that these are parking spaces for people with disabilities.
I don't think we need to amend the legislation to do it. The time limits on parking regulations are done by regulation, not by ordinance. So we could do that by way of regulation.
We can accommodate that by way of regulation. Councilwoman Miller.
Two-hour parking meaning what, you must feed the meter for two hours?
If I come out and decide to put another quarter in, or whatever, then I can continue to park there?
Technically under the law, you cannot. We do not enforce that provision of the law currently. And the reality on the street is, most people do not do it. There are some people 132 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 that do. But the turnover on parking meters that are not occupied by vehicles with plates or placards for disabilities is faster than the posted time limit, throughout the city. There are the occasional person who may do that during the course of a day. But it is sort of self-regulating because it is too much trouble to keep running in and out every two hours. And one time you are going to get caught and get a ticket, and it is just not worth it to most people. But technically under the law, that is not legal.
Right. You know, that is a problem in some commercial corridors, where business owners will come out and attempt to feed the meter every two hours and get tickets and then call us.
And the other thing is, the vendors tend to do it, at least in the vending area of Germantown and Chelten. 133 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 And so that's a question that we keep asking. And we get a lot of different -- so it is illegal, but it is according to how you are enforcing it?
That is absolutely correct. And, Councilwoman, we would be happy to enforce it. We stopped enforcing it over almost years ago at the request of City Council. And we 11 would be happy to revisit that, if the Council 12 wished us to. 13
There are some places 14 where there is some enforcement. I know in my 15 district on East Passyunk. 16 I shouldn't say I don't get calls. 17 They still call; I just don't return those calls, 18 where the business owners are feeding the meter all 19 day long. 20 And they are the same people that complain that the city doesn't do anything to encourage shopping, their taxes are too high, and everything else. But when we ask them to move the car -- because one of the biggest complaints we get 134 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 in those types of communities, where parking is a premium, is that people don't shop there because they can't find a parking space. So on one hand they want us to do what we can to encourage shopping, but they don't help us on the other hand by getting their car and/or their employees' cars off the avenue and parking it in one of the local garages. They want it both ways. But it doesn't work that way.
Yes, I am finished. I will give you a call and we will set up some meetings.
Is it appropriate now to talk about the off-street parking, the parking lots?
My question is enforcement. 135 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Now, we place all these meters around town, and we have reserved parking in Parking Authority facilities and also private garages. Here is my question: A disabled person pulls up, has a cell phone, calls 911. The police come out. My point here is timing. Because the length of the process, in many cases the person that's parked in that spot will drop off their dry cleaning, and in eight minutes be gone before even the police respond. The police get there, the spot is empty; an officer looks around, you know, why am I here. But there was a reason. Eight minutes before there was a person parked at that spot that shouldn't be. Have we worked out the process with the Police Department? Who will be towing? You said that this is going to be a towable offense. Will the Parking Authority have the resources with how many of these, 900 meters, to really, realistically, make an effort? You are telling me that there is going to be an effort to tow these cars?
You started the 136 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 question by saying it related to garages.
I want to talk about the difference between a garage violation versus an on-street violation.
We certainly have the resources to tow in Center City. We are limited in areas outside of Center City, but the problem is not nearly as significant outside of Center City.
But it will be. In other words, if you start installing these meters in a corridor in Northeast Philadelphia, and after a month there is not going -- they will get a ticket. Hopefully the minimum would be the ticket. How much will the ticket be?
Under the Councilman's amendment it would be -- did you say $300?
I didn't think we 137 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 could go that high.
And what we intend to do, Councilman, is post the fine on the sign as an added incentive for people not to park there if they are not qualified to.
I wasn't aware that you could go. I thought 100 was the maximum. If 300 is the maximum --
300 is the maximum we are allowed under state statute to impose.
So that will be posed. But, again, I hesitate in voting on things that I know are never going to happen.
I tell you in the area that's most severely impacted, which is Center City, we do have the resources and are equipped to tow vehicles that are parked illegally.
Do we have a relationship with private contractors in any part of 138 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 the city that work as your representative?
If private contractors tow cars from private parking lots that are in violation of parking, if you can't deal with it, would there be any consideration of having another person relocate or impound the vehicle?