Committee Hearing, September 21, 2011

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, September 21, 20117 10:25 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE11 COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE12 COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN MARIA D. QUINONES-SANCHEZ13 BILLS 100269, 110449, 110481, 110482, 110549,15 110551, 110553 and 110564 - - -17 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sorry for2 the delay. We are trying to establish a3 quorum. I believe the Council President4 will be out shortly, and her presence5 will give us a quorum. So a couple of6 minutes we should be able to get started.7 Thank you.8 (Pause.)9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good10 morning, everyone, and thank you for11 being patient. We do now have a quorum.12 Council President Verna is with us. To13 my immediate left is Councilman Greenlee.14 To my right is Councilwoman Maria15 Quinones-Sanchez.16 I will ask Mr. McMonagle to17 please read the title of the first bill.18

Bill No. 1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone2 here to testify? 8 LIEUTENANT HEALY: Sure. Good9 morning, Chairman DiCicco and members of10 the Committee of Streets and Services and11 other members of Council. My name is12 Lieutenant Healy and I am here as -- I am13 a Special Advisor to Police Commissioner14 Ramsey and I'm here to testify on his15 behalf regarding Bill No. 110549. 20 The issue of towers removing21 vehicles parked on private property has22 historically been a problem for the23 Philadelphia Police Department. 4 The discretion was left solely with those5 individuals that received the direct6 financial benefit for moving these7 vehicles. Towers had become, in essence,8 judge, jury and executioner, with no9 right to appeal, when it came to parking10 on private property. 13 This was the background and14 underlying premise when Councilman Kenney15 demonstrated his leadership on this issue16 and introduced a bill to amend Section17 9-605 by requiring a parking ticket to be18 placed on a vehicle illegally parked on19 private property. 1 However, after this ordinance2 was passed, it was recognized that in the3 hospital context, illegally parked4 vehicles may need to be immediately moved5 without waiting for a ticket. Thanks6 also to Councilman Kenney's leadership, a7 resolution was worked out at that time8 and Section 9-605 was amended9 accordingly. Specifically, in hospital10 settings, illegally parked vehicles could11 be moved to another location on the12 property prior to having any ticket13 issued. 17 This was a reasonable18 resolution. It guaranteed emergency19 access to the hospital. 7 Hospital safety was deliberately8 addressed and a reasonable resolution was9 offered and accepted by Council. 13 Parking offenders will be treated14 differently throughout the City. 8

Good morning,9 Councilman DiCicco, distinguished members10 of the Committee on Streets and Services.11 I'm Christopher Beck from the Office of12 Government Affairs and Community13 Relations at the Children's Hospital of14 Philadelphia, and I'm joined today by the15 hospital's Director of Security,16 Mr. Michael Brooke. We would like to17 express our support for Bill No. 110549,18 which, if passed, will allow vehicles to19 be towed from the premises of a hospital20 without first being ticketed, under21 certain terms and conditions.22 This legislation is mindful of23 the need to ensure full, unrestricted24 access to hospital entrances and loading25 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 docks. Illegally parked vehicles can2 have an adverse impact on a hospital's3 ability to serve patients in a timely4 manner, particularly in emergency5 circumstances. This bill will optimize6 efficiency of traffic control on the7 hospital premises by better accommodating8 families and ensuring timely delivery of9 medical supplies.10 We would like to thank11 Councilman Kenney and his staff for12 introducing this legislation, as well as13 you, Mr. Chairman and the Committee, for14 your willingness to consider this15 legislation and the unique needs of CHOP16 and other hospitals in the City. We17 would also be happy to answer any18 questions you may have.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.20 Will you be testifying?21

No; just here to22 answer questions.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.24 Questions? Councilman25 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Greenlee.2

Thank3 you, Mr. Chairman.4 Good morning, gentlemen.5 Maybe -- I'm sorry, sir. You can6 address -- you heard what Lieutenant7 Healy said about the issue that there's a8 sort of resolution to this already. Can9 you go in maybe a little bit more detail10 on why you think that hasn't worked11 maybe?12

Yes. Our biggest13 concern is twofold. One is access14 into --15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me.16 Please identify yourself.17

I'm sorry. My18 name is Michael Brooke and I'm the19 Director of Security and Parking at20 Children's Hospital.21 Our concern is twofold. One is22 access into our emergency department. If23 a car should come up and park illegally,24 it could literally cripple access into25 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 our ED for ambulance vehicles and for2 pedestrian vehicles with families.3 Then our other big concern is4 our loading dock. We actually share a5 loading dock with the Hospital of the6 University of Pennsylvania, and we've had7 times where cars will come down and park8 illegally, the operator of the vehicle9 disappears. And it can cripple10 deliveries into our loading dock and11 HUP's loading dock as well.12

But as I13 understand as it stands now, that car can14 be moved, it can be relocated, correct,15 to some place else in that property? Is16 that being done? What problem does that17 cause? You know what I'm saying?18 Because Lieutenant said that that was19 kind of worked out, that that would be20 sort of the middle ground, that it could21 be moved, you wouldn't have to wait and22 not touch it at all, but it would be23 relocated on site somewhere.24 Could you tell me what has been25 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 the problem with that?2

I apologize. I'll3 have to verify. It was my understanding4 that that currently could not be done and5 that this bill provides for that to be6 done.7

I need8 clarification, too. Maybe go on record.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sarah,10 just pull up a chair.11

Good morning.12 Sarah Sachdev, Councilman Kenney's13 office.14 Currently there is a form of an15 exemption for hospitals that allows a tow16 truck who is contracted by the hospital17 to come and pick up the vehicle and move18 the vehicle out of the way, whether it be19 out of the loading zone or out of the20 emergency access driveway, and remain21 with that vehicle until an officer either22 from the Police Department or the Parking23 Authority is able to come and issue a24 ticket for that vehicle. Once the ticket25 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 is issued, then the tow truck operator2 could continue the tow and bring that3 vehicle to their lot.4

Okay.5

But it's not a6 relocation in the sense that the vehicle7 can just be moved to a legal parking8 space.9

But it is10 taken out of where it's a problem,11 though, correct?12

The tow truck13 does have to remain with the vehicle. So14 I can't speak to the response times, but15 I understand that some tow operators are16 hesitant to come and put a tow truck out17 for service and then have that tow truck18 remain with the vehicle and then it's out19 of service for other tows.20

But it is21 taken out, it is taken out of where the22 problem area is in some fashion?23

It can be if you24 can get the tow operator to come.25 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1

So part2 of the problem is getting the tow people3 to want to do that; is that right?4

Right. And their5 concern, as I understand it, at least the6 vendor that we work with, is the response7 times, because as Sarah said, they have8 to stay with the vehicle. They could9 relocate it out of the problem area, but10 they have to stay with it, and response11 times at times can be excessive.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So it's an13 indefinite amount of time.14

It could be.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It could16 be ten minutes, it could be hours.17 LIEUTENANT HEALY: When we did18 the run, it's an average of about, I19 think it was, to 30 minutes to20 respond. Now, it depends. You might get21 a bad experience, but the issue really22 is, yes, the tow truck driver has to23 wait.24

Why? Is25 14 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 this a regulation?2 LIEUTENANT HEALY: It's a new3 regulation, yes, that we passed through4 the abuses that the towing industry were5 causing.6

8 LIEUTENANT HEALY: They stay9 with the vehicle until it gets a parking10 ticket; that's it. So public safety,11 emergency access to the hospital is not12 impinged in any way by the existing13 statute. The hospitals have the right to14 move it. 17 But I do not see any other hospitals18 here. I don't see anybody else19 complaining that this is not working. It20 is working. There may be some times when21 we don't respond in the proper manner,22 but we are working on that. But this23 program was designed and implemented for24 three reasons. 3 It also allows the people that get their4 cars towed not to have to go to5 bullet-proof glass in the middle of the6 night to get their gun back -- I'm sorry;7 to get their car back. Sorry. 9 But the idea there is that they10 have another forum to go to. 14 The ticket also requires a police officer15 to come up and say, yea or nay it's an16 illegally parked ticket. Even though17 it's a summary violation and we can18 receive information from outside people19 say, yes, it was, at least there's an20 independent person saying this car was21 illegally parked. 1 And the final thing on this2 issue is uniform enforcement. Now, I3 have 4,000 cops on patrol, roughly. Now,4 I have to try to carve out exceptions for5 when cars are towed from this piece of6 property, this is the way they'll be7 handled. 10 We need uniform enforcement across the11 board. We came up with a very, very12 solid and reasonable piece of legislation13 with Councilman Kenney's help. He14 actually spearheaded this, and we really15 appreciated that. But right now carving16 out little exceptions for little17 hospitals here, what it's going to do,18 it's going to be flurry. I mean, we're19 going to have a whole flurry of people20 wanting special exemptions. 5 Refresh my memory. 18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again,19 refresh my memory. Is there a time20 constraint on that? 4 LIEUTENANT HEALY: -- be within5 a certain period of time. Actually,6 internally we agree with some of the7 towers that we would revisit the issue on8 timeframes. 12

If I may add,13 from the beginning of this conversation14 and of the initial legislation with the15 Police Department, we identified16 hospitals as being a unique situation and17 warranting some sort of exemption, and18 from the beginning, we realized that19 hospitals in terms of public safety do20 have different issues than, say, a21 licensed parking lot or a business22 parking lot or even a private driveway,23 that the issue of public safety warrants24 a type of exemption, and clearly what we25 19 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 understand -- and CHOP is here to testify2 to it -- that the current exemption is3 not working because tow companies are not4 willing to put out a vehicle to hold an5 illegally parked vehicle for an unknown6 amount of time.7 LIEUTENANT HEALY:8 Respectfully, I'd have to object to that.9 It's not that the statute is not working.10 It's the contracted salver that they're11 using isn't working.12

And we've13 contacted our previous vendor, and they14 have the same concern about waiting for15 the police to --16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: In17 addition to the emergency area and/or the18 loading dock, towing contractors are used19 for other purposes of removing and/or20 relocating cars at the hospital? Are21 they?22

Only handicap23 abuses, if they're parking in handicap24 parking spaces. But they're the two25 20 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 primary, the emergency room access and2 then the loading dock access.3

If I just4 could ask, though. I think Lieutenant5 Healy brought up a point. Is anybody6 aware of any other hospitals that have7 this problem, and if there's not, it8 would seem like those hospitals must have9 found some tower.10

We share, as I11 said, we share our loading dock with the12 Hospital of the University of13 Pennsylvania. So that loading dock issue14 was also their issue.15

All16 right.17

And we're two of18 the biggest hospitals in the City.19

No. I20 understand. I understand. But I wonder21 if other hospitals have found ways to22 deal with maybe other towers that are23 willing to take that time. And I agree,24 that is a long time. When I first saw25 21 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 this bill, I thought, yeah, this makes2 sense, but I think some of the issues3 Lieutenant Healy comes up with addressing4 also make some sense, so that's why I'm a5 little back and forth on this. And6 that's why I'm wondering if there's other7 hospitals -- Sarah, maybe you know. Are8 there other hospitals that have expressed9 concern or have you heard how they10 figured it out, anything like that?11

When the12 Councilman introduced the initial towing13 legislation, we were contacted by other14 hospitals with concerns about public15 safety.16

Right.17 But that's why this compromise was put18 in, correct? I'm sorry. I'm grilling19 you. I don't mean to do that. Since20 you're not committee woman anymore in my21 ward, I can get away with it.22 No, but I'm just wondering,23 because it's --24

It is. I mean,25 22 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 we also heard from the towers from -- I2 would say dozens of towers, and they did3 express basically that time was of the4 essence to their business, and so we5 understand that most towers would not6 want to send out a truck to sit with a7 vehicle and wait for a ticket.8

But most9 of them didn't want the bill to start10 with, right?11

I would imagine12 it's an issue among many towing companies13 and not just the one that CHOP has a14 contract with.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:16 Councilwoman Sanchez.17

Can I18 speak on behalf of the consumer here. I19 want to ask CHOP. Just the thought of20 someone going to the hospital, having to21 park because of an emergency in an22 illegal zone, their car gets moved, but23 this whole notion of towing for your24 consumers -- I mean, these are people25 23 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 that are visiting your hospital. I would2 want to think that they're not just3 parking illegal because they want to, but4 there might be an emergency here.5

No. I understand.6 For our emergency room, we will always7 attempt to find the owner of the vehicle8 before we would call a tow truck. The9 loading dock is a whole different issue,10 because we have repeated loading dock11 violations.12 I agree with you, if a parent13 who is in the car by themselves with a14 sick child pulls up to get that child15 into the emergency room, that's clearly16 the priority, and we would attempt to17 identify that vehicle owner in the18 emergency department. And, in fact, we19 have a program in place where we can park20 that car for them. We can get the keys,21 park it in our garage. We have maps so22 we can show them exactly where the car is23 when they're ready to leave.24 So I hear your concern, and I25 24 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 agree with it.2

So how3 many -- can you give me an average how4 many cars you get towed off your lot on a5 yearly basis?6

Right now not many7 because of this issue.8

Prior to9 this.10

Prior to this, I11 would say probably between a dozen and12 two dozen.13

A year?14

A year.15

So you16 understand the complexity of carving out17 an exception for a half --18

I do.19

-- a20 dozen cases for the Police Department and21 how difficult that is?22

Just one23 more question. Isn't the Parking24 Authority allowed to ticket in this25 25 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 situation or is it just the police?2 LIEUTENANT HEALY: The Parking3 Authority, they are able to write a4 ticket and any other -- university5 police. Anybody that can write a parking6 ticket in Pennsylvania is authorized.7

Because I8 would assume in the area of CHOP and U of9 P that the Parking Authority is around.10

We went that11 route. With the Councilman's office's12 help, meetings were facilitated. We were13 given phone numbers, and we had zero14 cooperation from the Parking Authority.15

So you're16 saying they didn't respond at all?17

They did nothing,18 absolutely nothing.19

The20 Parking Authority not giving tickets?21 That's a story.22

They would say23 that they had people in the area and that24 they would get to us when they got to us.25 26 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 We had no support from the Parking2 Authority.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sarah.4

I just wanted to5 add that the purpose of the ticket was to6 create documentation of the location of7 the vehicle, and this bill keeps8 documentation in place by requiring9 hospital security personnel to fill out10 an official form and put that on the11 vehicle so that documentation of the12 location is upheld.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I saw14 Mr. Dickson in a sidebar with Sarah.15 Would you care to add anything to this,16 Rick?17

The only thing18 I'll add is if we did not respond --19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Hold you.20 You've been through this before, a couple21 times.22 (Witness approached witness23 table.)24

Thank you,25 27 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Councilman Greenlee, for your comments2 about our effectiveness.3 If we did not respond to a4 request from HUP to assist in this, that5 is unacceptable, and I will guarantee6 that that will not happen again. We have7 people on the street until at least8 midnight every night, and there is no9 reason why our officers should not have10 responded to that.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me ask12 a question. Let's assume that the tow13 truck driver comes out, they wait. I'm14 using 30 minutes as the example, and we15 don't know when the police officer is16 going to be able to get there because of17 other duties that they're attending to.18 Could you boot that car, and that way,19 the tow truck driver can go away?20 LIEUTENANT HEALY: Not the way21 the statute is currently written. The22 booting is on a public street, and this23 is a private property tow.24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm just25 28 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 thinking out loud. That would limit the2 time that the tow truck driver has to be3 there, not cause the police to have to4 make an exception to get there because5 they got to leave. I'm just6 brainstorming.7 LIEUTENANT HEALY: I'll be very8 honest, any type of resolution like that9 would be fine, except for where would the10 cars be placed and booted? That would be11 one issue. The other issue is, there's a12 cost to booting. It's equivalent to the13 cost of a tow, I believe, which is -- I14 mean, it is what it is, you parked15 illegally.16 The issue there, though, even17 before you get a boot or a tow on a18 public street, you get a ticket. The19 ticket gives --20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I mean21 boot the car so it's immobilized, and22 that sometime between the time it's towed23 to the time it gets booted or thereafter24 then the police officer would come out25 29 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 and issue or a parking enforcement2 officer would issue a ticket.3

The only thing I4 would say, Councilman, is that if the5 goal is to get the car out of the way6 because it's causing some kind of a7 problem, that's not going to do it. That8 sort of locks the car there.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I mean10 relocate it to some place else and then11 boot it to the relocated place.12

That's possible.13 The issue then becomes who pays the tow14 company for the relocation. I mean, the15 citizen isn't going to go get the car out16 there.17 I mean, my response to the18 whole thing is that we need to do our19 jobs. If HUP called the Parking20 Authority and said we need an officer out21 here to ticket this car so that it can be22 done, we need to do that. If we didn't23 do it, then we fell down and -- changing24 the whole paradigm to deal with one25 30 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 institution, the Parking Authority's2 falling down on the job, I don't think is3 the answer. I think what we need to do4 is kick our staff and say this needs to5 be a priority. When a request from one6 of these institutions comes into our7 dispatch center, get somebody out there.8 They need to just do that. And I can9 assure you that that will be what happens10 when I go back.11 LIEUTENANT HEALY: And allow me12 to follow up on that. When we wrote the13 statute, it's not just Philly PD. We14 understood the restraints of the Philly15 PD, but we also understand the16 victimization that was happening to these17 aggrieved owners. Some of them are18 illegally parked and deserve to get19 towed; a lot of them weren't. So what20 was happening with it -- and we21 understood the limitations of our22 department, but we undertook the23 responsibility. But we also in the24 statute allows not just Philly PD, the25 31 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Parking Authority can write tickets, Penn2 Police can write tickets, Temple3 University Police can write tickets.4 So if Hospital of the5 University of Penn has a problem, all6 they need to do is call their police7 department to have a ticket issued on8 that car and it's good to go by any tower9 in the City.10

I was11 going to ask that after the Parking12 Authority. Sir, I'm sorry --13

That's actually14 what --15

That was16 going to be my question.17

Again, I'm here18 representing the Children's Hospital of19 Philadelphia. We're not part of the20 University of Pennsylvania.21

But you22 said you share --23

We have the same24 issue with Penn Police. We don't share25 32 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Penn Police with anyone. We fall under2 Philly PD's jurisdiction and patrol3 boundaries and in fact don't fall under4 Penn's. So we have the same issue there5 if we call them.6

But on7 that --8

But I understand9 your point.10

It would11 seem, I agree with Mr. Dickson, that you12 have at least in your case three entities13 that could be giving tickets and for some14 reason aren't getting there quickly15 enough, and I don't doubt that they're16 not getting there quickly enough. So it17 seems like maybe working with those18 entities is the better avenue.19 And let me just say, Councilman20 Kenney and Sarah worked tremendously hard21 on all these issues and know way more22 about it than anybody else, at least here23 probably. So I'm not doubting that24 they're trying to work out this problem,25 33 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 and I understand what your problem is,2 but it seems like there's another way to3 do it.4

Well, maybe we're5 meeting with the wrong people, because we6 did meet with the Parking Authority and7 we had no support whatsoever.8

As I9 said, I said it half sarcastically, but I10 also mean it.11

I'm going to get12 these gentlemen's cards before I leave13 here today so I'm dealing with the right14 people here.15

Sometimes16 I fight with the Parking Authority and17 say they're too aggressive. I don't18 think I've ever fought with them to say19 you're not aggressive enough.20 LIEUTENANT HEALY: Councilman,21 I can say as of now when I leave here,22 I'll reach out to the ROC overseeing this23 area, as well as the inspector and24 captain and make sure that -- parking is25 34 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 obviously not the highest priority on our2 priority scale, but it is when towers are3 sitting there losing -- we understand4 that. We requested this legislative5 change and we need to be held6 accountable. So we will do our best to7 accommodate as quickly as humanly8 possible. We'll notify all the9 powers-that-be and especially in the10 University City -- I'm sorry; the11 University of Penn and CHOP areas to try12 to make it as much a priority as13 possible.14

It seems15 like there is a way to work this out. I16 mean, in my opinion. Because I think you17 have a legitimate concern. I'm not18 saying you don't have a problem. It's19 just how to solve it might be the dilemma20 here, if you will.21 Thank you.22

Well, parking is23 our priority and there's no reason why24 this could not be -- there's no reason we25 35 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 can't accommodate them in this. So I2 apologize.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if the4 Parking Authority would step up its5 enforcement in terms of getting there6 more in a more timely fashion. Is that7 what you're suggesting, Mr. Dickson?8

Yes. I will meet9 with our dispatch staff.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would the11 Parking Authority be willing to contract12 to do also the towing?13

We could14 certainly meet with HUP to see whether15 that's legally possible.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You'll be17 waiting for the ticket. You guys are18 pretty efficient about doing other19 things. No disrespect to the private20 tower, but the Parking Authority doesn't21 have the time constraints that the22 private tower has.23

I can check to24 see whether that's a possibility, but I25 36 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 can guarantee that they'll see improved2 service in our responsibility in terms of3 writing tickets.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.5 Any other questions?6 (No response.)7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let the8 record reflect that Councilman Jones, who9 is a member of this Committee, is10 present.11 Any other questions?12 (No response.)13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other14 comments? Anyone else here who wishes to15 testify on this bill?16 (No response.)17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing18 none --19

Thank you.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.21 Please read the title of the22 next bill.23

Bill No. 100269, an24 ordinance authorizing the installation of25 37 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 an all-way stop sign at the intersection2 of Whiting Road and Whiting Place.3 (Witness approached witness4 table.)5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good6 morning, Mr. Denny.7

Good morning.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please9 proceed with your testimony.10

Good morning, Mr.11 Chairman, members of the Committee. I am12 here to testify on Bill 100269.13 The Department of Streets14 objects to the passage of this bill based15 on the following:16 The Pennsylvania Vehicle Code17 requires PennDOT to develop regulations18 governing traffic control devices in19 accordance with the Federal Highway20 Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices. These21 regulations apply to all public highways22 in Pennsylvania, and the City Solicitor23 has ruled that the Streets Department is24 legally obligated to comply with the25 38 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Vehicle Code and related PennDOT2 regulations.3 The federal and state criteria4 for an all-way stop control be warranted5 by an engineering study of traffic6 conditions - police accident records,7 traffic volumes, speed and sight8 distance. The study conducted as a9 result of your request concluded that10 present-day conditions at this location11 do not satisfy federal and state warrants12 for an all-way stop control. The13 warrants for the all-way stop control14 were analyzed and the following is a15 description of the analysis with respect16 to conditions at Whiting Place and17 Whiting Road.18 Police accident records of five19 or more accidents within a 12-month20 period, correctable by an all-way stop21 installation, satisfy the set warrants.22 According to police records from January23 2007 to March 2010, there have been no24 such crashes at this intersection.25 39 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 In addition, the total2 vehicular volume entering the3 intersection from the major street,4 Whiting Road, must average at least 5005 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of6 the average day, and the combined vehicle7 and pedestrian volume from the minor8 street, Whiting Place, must average 209 vehicles and pedestrians per hour for the10 same eight hours.11 Actual count of the traffic12 volumes during the morning peak hours13 averaged 162 vehicles entering the14 intersection from Whiting Road. This is15 only 10.7 percent of the minimum -- this16 is about half actually of the minimum 50017 required for that approach. Also during18 the same morning peak hours, six vehicles19 and six pedestrians entered the20 intersection from Whiting Road. This is21 12 percent of the minimum 200 required22 for pedestrians and vehicles entering.23 An installation of an all-way24 stop control at this location would25 40 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 increase traffic delays on Whiting Road2 as Whiting Place is a cul-de-sac with3 only 13 homes.4 At Whiting Place and Whiting5 Road, we are not dealing with a6 borderline situation, but rather one in7 which prevailing traffic conditions fall8 short of the minimum required by the9 Federal Highway Manual and by the10 Pennsylvania Vehicle Code for the11 installation of an all-way stop control.12 Thank you for my opportunity to13 testify, and if you have any questions,14 feel free to ask me.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,16 Mr. Denny.17 Any questions from this panel?18 (No response.)19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone20 here who wishes to testify on this bill?21 (No response.)22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing23 none, please read the title of the next24 bill.25 41 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1

Bill No. 110481, an2 ordinance establishing a one-way3 regulation on North Lambert Street, from4 65th Avenue to Chelten Avenue,5 southbound.6

Good morning again,7 Mr. Chairman and members of the8 Committee. Thank you for the opportunity9 to appear before you today. My name is10 Charles Denny, Assistant Chief Traffic11 Engineer for the Department of Streets.12 I am here to offer testimony on Bill No.13 110481.14 The Streets Department has no15 objections to this bill. The 4600 block16 of North Lambert Street was converted to17 one-way operation on a trial basis on18 September 14th, 2010.19 Thank you for the opportunity20 to testify. I would be happy to answer21 any questions at this time.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you23 again.24 Any questions from this25 42 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Committee for this witness?2 (No response.)3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone4 else here who wishes to testify on this5 bill?6 (No response.)7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing8 none, please read the title of the next9 bill.10

Bill No. 110482, an11 ordinance establishing a one-way12 regulation on Marion Street, from West13 Ashmead Street to Hansberry Street,14 northbound.15

Good morning again,16 Mr. Chairman and members of the17 Committee. Thank you again for the18 opportunity to appear before you today.19 My name is Charles Denny, Assistant Chief20 Traffic Engineer for the Department of21 Streets. I'm here to offer testimony on22 Bill No. 110483.23 The Streets Department has no24 objections to this bill. This street was25 43 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 converted to a one-way operation on a2 trial basis on September 9th, 2010.3 Thank you for the opportunity4 to appear before you today. I would be5 happy to answer any questions.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.7 Any questions for this witness8 from the Committee?9 (No response.)10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone11 else here who wishes to testify on this12 bill?13 (No response.)14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing15 none, please read the title of the next16 bill.17

Bill No. 110551, an18 ordinance authorizing the revision of19 lines and grades on a portion of City20 Plan No. 278 by closing to vehicular21 traffic a portion of Unruh Avenue22 extending from a point approximately23 one-thousand seventy-seven feet southeast24 of Wissinoming Street southeastwardly to25 44 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 the Pierhead Line of the Delaware River,2 under certain terms and conditions.3 (Witnesses approached witness4 table.)5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good6 morning. Please proceed with your7 testimony.8

Good morning,9 Mr. Chairman and members of the10 Committee. My name is Frank Morelli,11 Survey Bureau Manager of the Department12 of Streets, and the Department of Streets13 would like to offer the following14 testimony on Bill No. 110551.15 This is administrative16 ordinance requested by the Commerce17 Department, James Donaghy, 1515 Arch18 Street.19 The purpose of this ordinance20 is to remove public vehicle traffic from21 this portion of Unruh Avenue while22 retaining the street as a public23 thoroughfare for pedestrian, bicycle and24 utility purposes. This action has been25 45 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 requested in conjunction with the2 development of the North Delaware Trail3 and Greenway, which will cross Unruh4 Avenue at this point just east of the5 proposed closing point.6 This ordinance is supported by7 the Department of Streets and is8 recommended to your Committee for9 favorable action.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.11 Please proceed.12

Good morning,13 Chairman DiCicco and members of Streets14 and Services Committee. I am Sarah Chiu,15 City Planner from the City Planning16 Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill17 No. 110551, which Councilmember Krajewski18 introduced on September 8th, 2011.19 This Streets Bill No. 11055120 authorizes the revision of lines and21 grades by closing to vehicular traffic a22 portion of Unruh Avenue extending23 approximately 1,070 feet southeast of24 Wissinoming Street to the Pierhead Line25 46 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 of Delaware River. The area proposed to2 be closed to vehicular traffic is to be3 part of North Delaware Trail and Greenway4 development.5 At its meeting of September6 20th, 2011, the City Planning Commission7 recommended that Bill No. 110551 be8 approved.9 This concludes my testimony. I10 appreciate the opportunity to appear11 before you today and would be pleased to12 answer questions you may have.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.14 Any questions for these15 witnesses from the Committee?16 (No response.)17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone18 else here who wishes to testify?19 Please come up to the witness20 table, sir.21 (Witnesses approached witness22 table.)23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good24 morning. Please identify yourself for25 47 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 the record and proceed with your2 testimony.3

Good morning.4 Tim Collins with Superior Moving. We are5 located on this street, Unruh Avenue.6 And I can't really render a statement,7 because I'm not quite sure how to8 interpret this notice. It says9 vehicular -- closing vehicular traffic on10 that whole section. I don't know if I'm11 to interpret that as this street being12 completely closed or is this temporary.13 I don't know. So I can't really make a14 statement.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would you16 slide over. That way, Frank can pull up17 a chair and -- ma'am, you can stay there.18 Just Frank will pull up a chair.19 Frank, would you please explain20 to the witness.21

Frank Morelli,22 Streets Department.23 Only approximately 78 feet of24 Unruh from the Delaware River going25 48 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 westward is going to be stricken for2 vehicular purposes, and that's just3 enough to allow the greenway to go4 through along the Delaware River. We're5 not limiting all of Unruh Avenue. It's6 just a small portion of it.7

Where is that8 indicated on the map? I can't picture 809 feet in my head.10

The bulkhead line11 is roughly the location of where the12 Delaware River is now and if you went 7813 feet westward is the limit of where the14 new curbing is going to cross Unruh15 Avenue.16

I understand17 that, but is there anything indicated18 where if there's a business 80 feet away?19 Like where exactly is that located?20 That's going to be a complete disruption21 for every business on that strip,22 including us. We have 30 trucks and23 about 50 customers a day that go back and24 forth to our loading dock. So I have to25 49 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 be sure. If this is going to be2 completely closed, we're in trouble.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Will it4 impede any vehicular traffic from being5 able to access his property or business?6

His property7 currently has 552 feet of -- well, after8 the 78 is removed, they will still have9 552 feet of access to Unruh Street.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Without me11 seeing the map, access to Unruh, is it12 going to be impeded in any way?13

No, it's not.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So in your15 opinion, there should be no disruption to16 the vehicular traffic flow to their17 business?18

No. No, sir,19 there wouldn't be.20

So they're21 repaving the street; is that what they're22 doing?23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No.24

Where the trail25 50 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 is proposed to cross, there will be2 curbing placed along there to protect the3 pedestrian and bicyclists.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So you5 won't be able to go east on Unruh,6 without seeing the map, up to the7 bulkhead.8

Correct.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It will10 stop 78 feet before the bulkhead.11

Correct.12

Also too on here,13 are you also with the redevelopment14 agency?15

No, I'm not. I16 work for the Streets Department.17

Okay. Are you18 with them?19

No. I'm from --20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry,21 sir. Would you direct your question22 here.23

Yeah. This also24 affects us. I was at a meeting about25 51 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 five or six years ago with the2 Redevelopment Authority and our business3 wasn't located on the map at that time.4 So we have 2,500 self-storage customers5 in our building and that's going to cost6 the City a tremendous amount of money to7 relocate that. I can't find any8 information anywhere with this trail.9 Does that still affect us or has that10 been --11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Does what12 affect you? What the Redevelopment13 Authority was planning on doing?14

With this nature15 trail.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again,17 without seeing the map, knowing a little18 bit about the nature trail, I can't19 imagine it having any impact on your20 business.21

The trail is22 going to be within the bed of the former23 railroad right-of-way. That's the24 location of the new proposed trail.25 52 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1

So that's only as2 wide as those tracks?3

Correct.4 Correct.5

Not wider? Oh,6 great. Okay. The way this was listed7 this morning, everyone was in a tizzy8 this morning because it sounded like they9 were closing our whole area from10 Wissinoming where there's probably 1511 companies between the river and12 Wissinoming. But that sounds better.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The last14 thing we want to do is remove businesses15 from our streets.16

I hope not.17 Thank you.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other19 questions?20 (No response.)21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay.22 When these gentlemen get up, you can23 approach the table.24 There are two more witnesses on25 53 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 this bill. Please approach the witness2 table. Thank you.3 (Witnesses approached witness4 table.)5

My name is Steven6 Rosen. I'm the owner of Daydreams.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would you8 pull the microphone a little closer.9

My name is Steven10 Rosen, the owner of Daydreams. It's a11 club at 5200 Unruh. And we just became12 aware of this hearing and what's going on13 late last night, so we're a little bit14 unprepared. The way I read it in the15 notice of the hearing is that the street16 was going to be closed to traffic, and17 that was our concern and that's why we're18 here, because we've got 80 people who19 earn a living and if my customers can't20 get to the club, we're out of business.21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah.22 Again, Mr. Morelli I think has a map and23 he'll indicate to you on the map what24 portion of Unruh is being restricted.25 54 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1

Thank you.2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't3 believe it will impact you at all.4 (Off-the-record discussion5 between Mr. Morelli and Mr. Rosen.)6

Thank you.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are you8 satisfied? Thank you for coming in.9

What we read about10 the hearing, it wasn't clear.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:12 Understand. We understand that. Thank13 you.14

Thank you.15 (Witness approached witness16 table.)17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good18 morning. Please identify yourself for19 the record and proceed with your20 testimony.21

Good morning, Mr.22 Chairman and Committee. I am Greg Sharp.23 I represent 5250 Unruh Avenue Associates.24 We have a commercial property at the end25 55 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 of the street, and, again, we also just2 heard about this and didn't get any kind3 of information - diagrams, maps or4 anything - to really see what was going5 on.6 (Off-the-record discussion7 between Mr. Morelli and Mr. Sharp.)8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please9 identify yourself for the record.10

Greg Sharp for 525011 Unruh Avenue Associates. We have a12 commercial property at the end of the13 street of Unruh Avenue which they're14 proposing to close. Again, I just now15 got a chance to look at the diagram, map,16 and it appears that we'll still get17 access to our facility. However, we'll18 have to -- if I could get a copy of it to19 further take a look at it and whatnot.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah.21 Mr. Morelli, maybe you can supply the22 other gentlemen that were here as well23 with copies, if you can.24

Yes, I will.25 56 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because I2 suspect that there are other3 businesspeople who were not able to be4 here today and all the folks who won't be5 impacted or who have businesses along6 there, they can go to their fellow7 businesspersons and see that map.8

And, Councilman,9 I just wanted to say also that there will10 be additional hearings for the Streets11 Department, it will be advertised, where12 representatives from the Commerce13 Department will have the development14 plans there and will be able to spend15 more time showing you the site plans at16 that time.17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.18 Any other questions?19 (No response.)20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other21 witnesses?22

Just one other23 thing. I had prepared a written24 statement, which they had copied and so25 57 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 everybody should have a copy of that.2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The3 stenographer will have a copy and put4 into the record. It will be part of the5 record. Thank you. Thank you for coming6 in.7 Please read the title of the8 next bill.9

Bill No. 110564, an10 ordinance authorizing the revision of11 lines and grades on a portion of City12 Plan No. 55 by striking from the City13 Plan and vacating the legally open14 portions of Ashland Street from a point15 approximately four-hundred one feet16 southwest of Adams Avenue to the17 northeasterly channel line of the18 Frankford Creek and reserving and placing19 on the City Plan a right-of-way for sewer20 and drainage purposes and water main21 purposes within the lines of Ashland22 Street being stricken and authorizing23 acceptance of the grant to the City of24 the said right-of-way, under certain25 58 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 terms and conditions.2

Good morning, Mr.3 Chairman and members of the Committee.4 My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau5 Manager of the Department of Streets, and6 the Department of Streets would like to7 offer the following testimony on Bill No.8 110564.9 This is not an Administration10 ordinance, but an ordinance requested by11 Adams Avenue Development, Kirk Dolawy,12 225 East Adams Street, Philadelphia, PA.13 The purpose of this ordinance14 is to authorize the striking from the15 City Plan and vacating the legally open16 portion of Ashland Street from a point17 approximately 401 feet southwest of Adams18 Avenue to the northeasterly channel line19 of the Frankford Creek and the reserving20 and placing on the City Plan of a21 right-of-way for sewer and drainage22 purposes and water main purposes within23 the lines of the portion of Ashland24 Street being stricken. This action will25 59 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 allow the abutting owner to consolidate2 business operations on either side of3 Ashland Street.4 This ordinance is supported by5 the Department of Streets and is6 recommended to your Committee for7 favorable action.8

Good morning,9 Chairman DiCicco and members of the10 Streets and Services Committee. I am11 Sarah Chiu, City Planner from the12 Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I13 am here to testify on Bill No. 110564,14 which Councilmember DiCicco introduced on15 September 8th, 2011.16 This Streets Bill No. 11056417 authorizes the striking from the City18 Plan and vacating legally portion of19 Ashland Street from approximately 40020 feet southwest of Adams Avenue to the21 northeasterly channel line of Frankford22 Creek and reserving and placing on the23 City Plan a right-of-way for sewer and24 drainage purposes and water main purposes25 60 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 within the lines of Ashland Street.2 At its meeting of September3 20th, 2011, the City Planning Commission4 recommended approval for Bill No. 110564.5 The Planning Commission staff is6 currently working with the Department of7 Rec and Park and other government8 entities on the future possible trail and9 the greenway plans. We feel Ashland10 Street is not essential at this location11 nor will be needed for future greenway12 access.13 This concludes my testimony. I14 appreciate the opportunity to appear15 before you today and would be pleased to16 answer any questions you may have.17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.18 Any questions for these19 witnesses from the Committee?20 (No response.)21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sir,22 please approach the...23 (Witness approached witness24 table.)25 61 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1

Good morning.2 My name is Albert Evangelist. I own3 Orthodox Auto Company. It is at the end4 of Unruh Street. It sits on six and a5 half acres. I'm just concerned whether6 or not -- I have a lot of traffic that7 comes down the street and turns around at8 the end of the street and goes back out9 again, and I just want to know if we're10 going to be cut off where we can't do any11 business. There's a lot of business down12 there.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This is14 not this bill. It's the previous bill.15

The previous16 bill.17

That's my main18 concern.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We also20 heard testimony on that bill, but21 obviously you did not hear it or...22 (Off-the-record discussion23 between Mr. Morelli and Mr. Evangelist.)24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me.25 62 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Since that was -- if you don't mind,2 we'll continue with the other testimony.3 Sir, you can meet with Frank and he'll4 explain it to you.5

I'm sorry. I6 didn't hear you.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Frank will8 explain to you again what is being9 proposed. I don't believe it will have10 any impact, but we're going to continue11 with the hearing, because we already had12 testimony on that bill.13

That's fine.14 Thank you very much.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.16 Any questions? Anyone else17 here to testify on this bill?18 (No response.)19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing20 none, please read the title of the next21 bill.22

Bill No. 110553, an23 ordinance amending Section 9-205 of The24 Philadelphia Code, related to "Sidewalk25 63 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Sales," and vending in residential areas,2 within the Ninth District, by deleting a3 provision allowing sidewalk sales and4 vending in the area bordered by and5 including Olney Avenue, Cheltenham6 Avenue, Broad Street, and Fifth Street,7 both sides.8

Good morning,9 Councilman DiCicco and members of the10 Committee. I am John U. Young from the11 Department of Licenses and Inspections.12 Today I am here to provide testimony on13 Bill No. 110553, which, if enacted, will14 amend Section 9-205, "Sidewalk Sales," by15 deleting a provision allowing sidewalk16 sales and vending in the area bordered by17 and including Olney Avenue, Cheltenham18 Avenue, Broad Street, and Fifth Street,19 both sides.20 The Department of Licenses and21 Inspections offers no objection to the22 enactment of this bill.23 Thank you for the opportunity24 to provide the Department's testimony on25 64 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Bill No. 110553. I will be happy to2 answer any questions at this time.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any4 questions from this Committee for this5 witness?6 (No response.)7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone8 else here to testify on this bill?9 (No response.)10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing11 none -- thank you. Seeing none, please12 read the title of the next bill.13

Bill No. 110449, an14 ordinance amending Title 12 of The15 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Traffic16 Code," by amending Chapter 12-900,17 entitled "Parking Regulations and18 Penalties," by adding a new section19 authorizing the Philadelphia Parking20 Authority to designate reserved parking21 spaces for hotel owned vehicles, adding22 definitions to Section 12-102, and making23 certain technical changes, all under24 certain terms and conditions.25 65 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 (Witnesses approached witness2 table.)3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good4 morning, gentlemen.5 Mr. Pollock, please proceed6 with your testimony.7

Good morning,8 Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Greenlee9 and Councilman Jones, and Councilwoman10 Sanchez, who I know was here previously,11 and Council President Verna, who I know12 was in attendance also. I'm here on13 behalf of a bill that impacts the hotel14 industry in the City of Philadelphia.15 Specifically, I have with me Mr. Matt16 McCauley, who is the General Manager of17 the Latham Hotel, and that was the18 genesis of our request with 110449.19 If I may, Councilman, we did20 prepare -- I have some photos just so21 everybody can see, and it's photos of the22 Latham Hotel, also the Hotel Palomar,23 also the Radisson and also a hotel known24 as AKA, which is on 18th Street. But the25 66 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 unique -- there is something unique about2 the 17th Street corridor, as you'll see3 with regard to that.4 I also would like to hand up to5 you a map that will show the area that we6 would anticipate being covered by a hotel7 vehicle that would be complimentary. And8 also just something to show you that the9 15 Beacon, which is a boutique luxury10 hotel in Boston, on its website, the very11 first page, highlights that they have a12 Lexus that will provide complimentary13 service, and they tout that as an amenity14 for their guests. So I'd like the panel15 to see that also.16 And if you want, here's one17 more thing. It's a highlighted map where18 you'll get a better idea of the19 boundaries of where the car will go.20 So I will take credit for21 having at least tried in effort to draft22 something that, Councilman DiCicco, I'm23 thankful that you were willing to24 introduce this so we could be heard. We25 67 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 tried to pattern it as an amalgam between2 the passenger loading zone ordinance and3 also the valet parking zone ordinance to4 bring in the characteristics of both5 those ordinances that are on the books.6 This is a request, and what7 happens is this -- in my prepared8 testimony -- and I always liked this9 quote, that Senator Robert Kennedy always10 expressed the role of a leader in his oft11 used quotation from George Bernard Shaw:12 "There are those that look at things the13 way they are and ask why. I dream of14 things that never were and ask why not."15 And we're asking today why not. Council16 Bill 110449 is going --17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's18 going to be a tough act to follow, Rick.19

I have to really20 brush up on my historical analogies now.21

7 I could also show you, if you8 want, the Houston -- in Houston there is9 a hotel called the Lancaster Hotel. It10 is a hotel that's a boutique hotel. It's11 in a landmark building dating back to the12 1920's. 15 And here is the thing: We are16 in a landmark building. 1 Walnut, but we have crafted something2 that will fit for a generic and fits the3 hotels that I talked to you about, also4 would probably fit many other hotels that5 would have at least three street6 frontages that would already have in7 front of them a valet and/or loading8 zone. 19 But the problem that we face --20 and Matt can get into this a lot more21 because of his experience -- is that you22 can't always get -- you have people that23 come, they want to be able to get out and24 go to a restaurant very quickly. 3 We have 139 rooms. Matt will tell you4 painstakingly that they've just spent $125 million to renovate the Latham Hotel to6 modernize it and bring it up to making7 it, and it's received a Preferred Hotel8 Boutique label, that one of the standards9 is to provide complimentary service like10 this for cars and their passengers. 20 No way is this going to be for21 hire for anybody. No way is this22 intended to be a supplement or supplant23 the taxicab industry in this city. 2 That's just not going to be. As you can3 see on our map that we've handed up, we4 intend about a mile and a half to5 two-mile radius where we would be willing6 to take people. So we're not trying to7 do anything like that. m. 15 That's part of the ordinance that we've16 presented, so it's a standard that you're17 setting as the legislative body. 20 But we're not going to be using21 it 24 hours and being parked there and22 just park there for the rest of our days23 and that's the end of it. 8 We designated it at about 239 feet in length, because that's what the10 loading zone area is, but we have, as I11 said, we have loading zone and we have12 valet in front of us, and we're fortunate13 enough that on our side, the east side of14 17th Street, there's no parking on our15 side. As you go further south,16 interestingly enough, in front of the17 Radisson, the parking -- once you go18 south of Walnut Street, parking then19 switches to the west side. 22 The Palomar -- and I do have a23 letter. 6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Where7 would the zone be for Palomar? Because8 there's parking on --9

Palomar would10 probably have it, Councilman, along11 Sansom Street.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay.13

Because they do14 have a long area where it's -- and you15 can see from the pictures, they have a16 double valet and loading zone also along17 Sansom Street, but they also are18 allowed -- you are allowed to park in19 front of on that side of the Palomar,20 because they are also on the east side of21 17th Street between Chestnut and Walnut.22 And so it doesn't really -- the parking23 doesn't really shift until you get south24 of Walnut Street.25 74 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 And I must be correct, because2 Rick is not telling me I'm wrong on that3 one with regard to the way the parking4 shifts.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm6 familiar with it.7

Yeah. 16 So it's something that if17 other -- it's something that gives us an18 opportunity to say to everybody that we19 want to come here to this fine city,20 because we've expanded the Convention21 Center, and you all know that, the Mayor22 has made a call for 2,000 more hotel23 rooms. 1 million to renovate to keep 139 hotel2 rooms in the City, and this is just3 another thing that they need to compete,4 because as you can see, I can show you5 the -- all the W Hotels have something6 they call their Acura Experience, where7 they offer the same thing with an Acura8 for their hotel guests in the cities9 they're in. 11 So we're not just talking12 about -- so that's why I'm saying, the13 dream is instead of listening -- and I14 have all due respect for Mr. Denny and15 Mr. Dickson, and they're doing their job16 just like we're doing our job. 22 Councilman Greenlee, I know23 you're concerned with Fairmount. 1 district. You know, it provides for a2 lower rate too for the fee or the cost to3 offset the regulation cost for any4 district. 10 MR. McCAULEY: Hi. Good11 morning. My name is Matt McCauley. 13 Following a $12 million14 renovation of the Latham Hotel, the15 property has been re-branded and16 repositioned as a "Preferred" Boutique17 Hotel. The Preferred Hotel designation18 constitutes the highest level of services19 and products within the industry. 1 hotels located in 70 countries. There2 are over one million members of the "I3 Prefer" guest loyalty program. 11 Part of this new service level12 requires us to have a hotel vehicle on13 site for quick, easy access to locations14 within two miles of the hotel. 20 The vehicle will be used21 exclusively by hotel management, hotel22 sales associates, the "I Prefer" members23 and VIP guests. 1 locations within the two-mile area from2 the hotel. m. m. and then off site in the10 garage after hours. The hotel -- excuse11 me. 14 As a hotel, it does not have15 the ability to park the vehicle on its16 property. 21

What's been your22 experience, Matt, with regard to your23 guests in terms of getting them to events24 or getting them to --25 79 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1

You don't get to2 ask witnesses questions.3

Oh, I'm sorry.4

One of the5 benefits of being on these committees6 that may seem to some mundane, I find7 exciting, because there's some learned8 application that can be applied to some9 other aspect.10 You mentioned that there is a11 certain boutique level of hotels. How12 are they determined? Does some rating13 agency --14 MR. McCAULEY: By service15 levels and amenities provided at the16 property.17

And this --18 MR. McCAULEY: This would be an19 amenity that is required by Preferred20 Hotels.21

Can you22 provide to the Chair and the members of23 this Committee some level of24 understanding of what those services and25 80 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 amenities are so as we go forward and2 there's a debate about more hotels in the3 City of Philadelphia, that we get a sense4 of this. Would this put you -- and5 you're going to tell me probably you're6 far superior to the W, but is it like --7 MR. McCAULEY: Yes. This will8 put us in the same level as the W Hotel,9 as the Hotel Palomar, which we had10 discussed, which is the Kimpton Hotel.11 And it's just providing a unique service12 specific to a boutique property. So it's13 a service that you're not going to get at14 a Hilton, you're not going to get at a15 Marriott, and it's specific to the16 boutique and that niche of clientele that17 we're going after.18

And the19 profile of that clientele would be20 someone looking for?21 MR. McCAULEY: Looking for a22 higher level of services. It's not --23

So Steve24 would be able to afford that.25 81 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 MR. McCAULEY: Yeah.2

Not after the3 wedding I have to pay for.4 MR. McCAULEY: It's not at the5 same level as a Four Seasons or a Ritz6 Carlton, but it's right in between there7 and it would be above a Marriott and a8 Hilton.9

And so in10 Philadelphia's competition with other11 cities, the more of these types of12 hotels, you get a particular type of13 traveler/customer/hotel night stay that14 wants this.15 MR. McCAULEY: Correct.16 Correct. That's why we've partnered with17 Preferred Hotels. They have their "I18 Prefer" program, which is a million19 strong. So it's a great benefit.20

Councilman Jones,21 if I may, here's the Lancaster Hotel,22 which is in Houston, but it's in the23 downtown theatre district, and it's a24 landmark building, like we are a landmark25 82 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 building. And if you want to see what2 their website advertises in some of3 the --4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're5 going to do actually a road trip to go6 see the hotels. As Chairman of this7 Committee, I'm empowering myself to8 demand that this Committee --9

Well, you are the10 Streets Committee and you're allowed to11 go on the streets. Nobody said it has to12 be just the streets of Philadelphia.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I got to14 charge one trip to this Council after 1615 years, and I figure on the way out, this16 is a good opportunity.17

Our18 Chairman's dedication to public service19 knows no bounds.20

Also, I don't21 know if you got a letter sent to you, but22 Matt had an e-mail that was sent to him23 from Ed Grose, who is the Executive24 Director of the Greater Philadelphia25 83 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Hotel Association. I don't know if that2 made it to you yet, but we do have that,3 where they are supportive in this.4 Our hotels continue to struggle5 with how best to manage the automotive6 needs of our guests with Philadelphia's7 limited on-street parking spaces, the8 newly increased valet fees and the9 highest rate -- the high rates at10 off-street parking garages. This new11 parking category will add another12 variable to assist several hotels in13 making our city more attractive and14 convenient to out-of-town guests.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The16 amenity that -- I went out of turn. I17 usually get testimony and then ask, but18 I'll ask one more question, but let's19 wait until the rest of the --20

You're21 right, Mr. Chairman.22

And if I can -- I23 don't know if it's right, but if I can24 reserve two minutes to come back after I25 84 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 know the onslaught I'm going to hear from2 Rick and Charlie.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The4 amenity that this bill represents in5 preserving a reserved space puts you in6 that Preferred Hotel category?7 MR. McCAULEY: Preferred8 Boutique, yes.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Boutique.10 Without it, would you still be in the11 Preferred Boutique?12 MR. McCAULEY: I would, but I'd13 have to find another unique amenity. I14 would have to find another unique15 amenity, and this is a unique amenity16 that --17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you18 don't have a unique amenity or cannot19 find whatever it is, another unique20 amenity, how does that impact your room21 rates?22 MR. McCAULEY: Dramatically.23 Dramatically. It's $100, $150 less.24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Per room?25 85 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 MR. McCAULEY: Per room, per2 night.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Less4 revenue for you, less taxes for the City.5 MR. McCAULEY: Yes.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm7 looking at economic issues as well.8 Thank you.9 Mr. Dickson and Mr. Denny, I10 apologize.11

Well, in keeping12 with Mr. Pollock's opening theme, Edward13 Kennedy said at his brother's eulogy, My14 brother need not be idealized or enlarged15 in death beyond which he was in life. He16 should be remembered simply as a good and17 decent man, who saw wrong and tried to18 right it.19 I see a potential wrong here20 and I am trying to right it.21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Bravo.22 Bravo. I was concerned about your being23 able to --24

You didn't think25 86 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 I was going to be able to rise to the2 occasion.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I knew you4 were capable of it, but in such short5 notice, I'm impressed.6

Unfortunately, I7 wasn't able to pay any attention to8 Mr. Pollock's testimony, so I don't know9 what he said while I was trying to come10 up with that.11

See, that was the12 distraction.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman14 Green wasn't here for --15

He doesn't know16 what led to this.17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: He18 couldn't understand why we're comparing19 this to JFK, but anyway.20

The Parking21 Authority's role is to try to manage what22 is really a scarce resource, and that's23 on-street parking spaces. We have -- we24 do not come at any time and say we25 87 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 believe that a part of the public street2 should be turned over to an exclusively3 private use. The fact that this bill4 limits the applicability of -- the5 availability of the space to hotels that6 have frontage on three sides is not7 particularly relevant, because in every8 one of these cases two of the three sides9 are not really available for public use,10 public parking.11 The only space that's available12 in regard to the Latham is the Sansom13 Street front of the hotel. It has been14 reserved -- I'm sorry; 17th Street front15 of the hotel. I apologize. 17th Street.16 It has been reserved for the17 use of valet and passenger loading.18 Unfortunately, most of the time valets do19 not get vehicles out of the zones quickly20 enough for the next vehicle to come in21 and get to the curb space. That results22 in vehicles double parking, creating both23 a vehicle and a pedestrian safety hazard.24 Taking one of those spaces out of the use25 88 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 for that application to reserve it for a2 vehicle which will be parked 90 percent3 of the time displaces dozens of other4 vehicles that want to take advantage of5 the services at the hotel. They will end6 up double parking or driving around the7 block finding another way to get access8 to the hotel.9 The other issue is reserving it10 exclusively for one vehicle, which at the11 end of the day will actually be an12 advertising mechanism more than a13 service, is analogous to a hot dog stand14 on South Street saying I want to take the15 space in front of my place to park the16 Oscar Meyer vehicle there because I'm17 going to deliver hot dogs down to some18 place somewhere else, where 90 percent of19 the time it's never going to be used.20 The fact that the space may not21 be available has nothing to do with22 whether the amenity is available. They23 have off-street parking spaces that are24 available to park this vehicle, and25 89 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 obviously from what Mr. Pollock said,2 they have staff available that can get3 the vehicle and bring it to the location.4 So the fact that the vehicle is not5 parked there all of the time does not6 mean that the amenity is not available.7 Our concern is that this is8 going to create all kinds of other safety9 problems, because the frontage that's10 available is really not even sufficient11 to provide ample opportunity for those12 people that are using valet and loading13 services, and we're going to create both14 traffic jams on 17th Street and we're15 going to create safety hazards for the16 people that are there.17 The other issue is taking any18 space, public space, and exclude -- and19 assigning it exclusively to one business,20 individual or institution is not really21 the best use of a public resource.22 The final comment that I would23 make is that this is -- the fee that's24 set for this is $1,200. Council already25 90 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 set the fee for valet spaces at $2,500,2 and those spaces are available to anyone3 that wants to use that service, not just4 to one person. So charging half the fee5 for the exclusive use of an on-street6 parking space doesn't really seem7 appropriate when we're charging more than8 twice that for valet space that everybody9 wants to use valet services, wants to10 have access, that does have access to.11 So the Parking Authority's12 position is that we would not recommend13 approval of this bill.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Denny.15

Good morning again,16 Mr. Chairman and members of the17 Committee. Thank you for the opportunity18 to appear before you again. My name is19 Charles Denny, Assistant Chief Traffic20 Engineer for the Department of Streets,21 and I am here to offer testimony on Bill22 110449.23 The Streets Department has24 concerns for this bill. We are concerned25 91 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 with the privatization of curb space. We2 are allocating limited space to a private3 entity. Most hotels have limited space4 in front of their hotel for normal5 loading and unloading of vehicles by6 guests of the hotel. The space in front7 of the hotel is generally a combination8 of passenger loading zone with a valet9 operation as well. The passenger loading10 zone is used by taxis. In some cases11 there are taxi zones in front of the12 hotel. All of this activity in front of13 the hotel results in spillover at some14 hotels, with loading and unloading taking15 place in the travel lane. These busy16 activities increase congestion on the17 City's streets both in Center City and18 University City.19 The legislation should be20 crafted to ensure that any hotel parking21 space does not cause additional22 congestion on Center City streets by23 reducing the needed loading zone for the24 normal operation of a hotel, forcing that25 92 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 activity into the travel lanes or2 adjacent parking or loading zones. We3 feel that the Streets Department will4 need to be the entity to evaluate and5 make the determination that the proposed6 hotel vehicle parking space is7 appropriate. The Streets Department8 should also evaluate whether the zone is9 impacting other normal loading and10 unloading activities that take place in11 front of the hotel.12 The other area of concern is13 the value of the parking space. Based on14 calculations, a Center City metered space15 should generate $8,000 per year and16 University City spaces 6,500 per year.17 The proposed fee of $1,200 is not on the18 scale with the true value. The fee19 should be priced to at least half the20 above values.21 Thank you again for the22 opportunity.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.24 I was listening to25 93 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Mr. Dickson's testimony. I started2 making notes, but I'd probably just go3 right up to Mr. Denny, and the question4 is, I understand the amenity. I5 understand it gives you a better ranking,6 and that's good for everybody. You guys7 do better, the City does better because8 we have a higher rate of hotels, which9 means more taxes, et cetera.10 The vehicle is not going to11 always be there, because if a client12 wants to use it, they're going to leave,13 take that person to wherever location14 they want to be driven to. The space15 stays open for ten minutes, half hour, an16 hour depending how far that client needs17 to be driven to.18 What do you do with the space19 in the absence of that and what happens20 to the valet spaces that are already21 there? While you're not asking for an22 additional space to the valet, how do you23 handle that? I mean, in some cases where24 you have a whole -- maybe Market Street25 94 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 in front of the Marriott you got a pretty2 big area, but the Latham, even the3 Warwick, I guess, and Palomar.4

Which is the5 Radisson now.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm just7 curious.8

I mean, one of9 the things that I think you have happen10 is that since it's a valet and you have11 concierges and you have -- the Latham12 always has people outside to assist --13 that you're going to be able to manage14 that and a hotel be able to manage that,15 so that if a vehicle is outside and gone16 to deliver somebody, avail themselves of17 that amenity, that space could be used18 for a valet. It doesn't necessarily have19 to be an exclusive spot.20 I mean, what happens is this,21 and this is -- with regard to the current22 status where you have a valet and you23 have loading zone, they're supposedly24 time limited. They're supposedly subject25 95 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 to the enforcement officer who comes2 along from the Parking Authority. That3 person, I understand shifts get changed,4 assignments get changed. So you as a5 hotel operator get hit with irregular6 kind of enforcement and irregular kinds7 of de facto allowing something to stay a8 little bit longer than possibly the9 regulations allow. Because let's face10 it, if there's a valet zone in front of a11 hotel, I don't think somebody is using it12 for the -- I'm not going to valet my car13 if I'm going to the McDonald's just up14 the street on Walnut Street. I'm not15 going to valet if AKA were allowed to do16 this. If I was going to Barnes and17 Noble, I'll probably not valet.18 I mean, allowing the valet or19 the passenger loading in that particular20 area, in that particular segment or in21 front of a hotel, I would say that most22 of the time you're getting it used by the23 hotel and not by other businesses in the24 area.25 96 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 Now, I mean, I would harken to2 that some ways that the whole scheme of3 things set up for tour bus operators and4 the amphibious tour vehicles and what5 they're allowed to do in passenger6 loading zones or passenger carrier zones7 and they're allowed to have their own8 assignment -- it's in 9-407 -- is akin to9 sort of saying again that for a purpose10 and time that there is allowed to be this11 use by a specific --12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's the13 only point --14

And I would --15 the other thing is, I have great respect16 for the vendors and everything like that,17 but the vendors are there because of an18 ordinance. They pay certain fees, but19 this is somebody who pays real estate20 taxes, just spent 12 million. And the21 hotel operators, they're either lessees22 or in our case we own -- we have an23 entity, the Latham Hotel Management, LLC,24 I think, that owns this property. So we25 97 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 own our entire property. So we're paying2 a little bit more and have a little bit3 of a stake that this is actually -- we're4 not moving. A vendor always could some5 day move to a different location if he6 could do that. So to say that you're --7 I think it's really apples and oranges,8 or some people like --9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not --10

So I think --11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I get the12 issue --13

And I think14 people can manage that it -- and the15 $1,200 was at that point in time when I16 drafted this, I think there was an17 ordinance coming through. You were18 looking to redo the valet ordinance, and19 I think at the point back in April or20 May, it was at about 1,200. Then I think21 you did set it up to 2,500. So that22 would be the least of our concerns.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's24 something we can talk about. It's not a25 98 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 deal killer.2 But the only part about, Rick,3 your testimony was about reserving. We4 do reserve spaces for other businesses,5 as Mr. Pollock pointed out. And I6 understand that valet parking zones are7 not to be long-term parking, and8 sometimes that happens. We all9 understand that. So that's the reason10 why we would need a separate bill to11 allow for that reserved spot, which12 pretty much operates similarly. Somebody13 uses the car, they get driven away as14 opposed to the attendant parking in the15 garage and then bringing it back.16 There's always movement in those spaces,17 is what I'm getting at.18 I'm just curious if there's a19 way creatively you guys can figure where20 we can massage the valet parking21 rules/regulations that will give some22 leeway for these types of amenities that23 the hotels want to offer within the valet24 zone. You may not have the answer now,25 99 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 but I'm just kind of trying to figure if2 there's a way of getting there. And as3 you're thinking about it, Councilman4 Jones was on first.5

He was not,6 actually, Mr. Chairman.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, you8 were late getting here, so I am --9

That's true.10 I have a point of information.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of12 information. Frank Rizzo --13

We're going14 to change the point of information rule.15

I think the16 gentleman in the middle, I'm sorry, asked17 a question, which I'd like to hear the18 answer to. And I apologize because I was19 late coming from a wake and I have an20 appointment at noon that is going to21 cause me to leave as soon as I hear the22 answer to this question, so --23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Hurry up.24

That is, why25 100 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 can't the valet car simply be available2 and pull up when the customer needs it,3 as was suggested? I don't understand the4 need to have it park in front.5 MR. McCAULEY: Time. With6 Preferred Hotels, it's a more demanding7 clientele and it's just time. To drive a8 car around, it's 10, 15 minutes, to pull9 it out of a garage, get it out of a10 parking spot, bring it down Sansom, turn11 the street. It's too much time, and I12 have demanding clientele. I can't meet13 the time. If someone wants to go, they14 have an immediate meeting they need to15 get to, they need to get to a restaurant,16 they need to get to an appointment --17

I've used a18 car service at a hotel and I've never not19 called in advance or let them know,20 because it's usually not there if you21 haven't told them you need it at 1022 o'clock or 10:15. I mean, that's my23 personal experience. But thank you.24 MR. McCAULEY: You're welcome.25 101 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman2 Jones.3

Yeah. My4 question would be to the Parking5 Authority in the sense that we have a6 number of restaurants, hotels that7 actually take advantage of our spaces.8 When I say "our," the our I mean is the9 City of Philadelphia, Public Property.10 My question is, how do you11 determine the value and is there a12 comparable value on the estimated in and13 out revenue that we would have on the14 metered space, and how do you determine15 that?16

We generally17 determine that based on the number of18 regulated hours of the meter rate in the19 area and the overall occupancy of those20 spaces.21

So there's a22 formula that X equals what? What is that23 formula?24

Well, to tell you25 102 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 the truth, I haven't recalculated it2 since the meter rate went up a month or3 so ago. Charlie calculated it at $8,0004 a year. I can believe that that's5 probably -- that's pretty close.6

And is our7 fees commensurate with that revenue loss?8

Oh, no.9

No.10

In no case is it11 commensurate. I mean, the highest rate12 we have is $2,500 a year for a valet13 space, and if we're getting $8,000, even14 if we say $6,000, clearly it's not.15 There are times where the16 public purpose that's being served by17 providing a different kind of parking18 option would say that the reduced rate19 may be appropriate.20 I'm really not making the case21 here based on revenue. My major concern22 is that the street has to work, and if it23 doesn't work for everybody because there24 are vehicles that are double parked25 103 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 because they don't have access to the2 curb to do what they need to do, then3 it's not good for the hotel's business4 nor is it good for the business of5 everybody around them. And having worked6 with valet now for 15 years or so, I know7 that the spaces are generally not always8 available, because we can't get them in9 and out. It just doesn't happen that10 way.11

I'm going to12 take this opportunity to quote Kennedy.13 Ask not what the Parking Authority can do14 for you, but what you can do for the City15 in the sense -- I'm paraphrasing Kennedy16 there. And when I say --17

Well, we've18 covered all three brothers now.19

This is20 Kennedy Day in Council.21 But I would -- not at this22 hearing, but ask at a different time for23 you to, A, update the calculation on what24 the new revenues are per zone per parking25 104 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 for the City, and then, B, I'm really2 going to ask, is the greater good of3 having a hotel that can charge greater4 room rates and we derive taxes from equal5 to the revenue that we lose? This is not6 the case for that to be decided today,7 but at some point as we start to look at8 quarters in the couches for how we fund9 our schools and other places, that10 question will resurface. So I'm giving11 you some time in advance to get an12 answer.13

And let me just14 respond to Councilman DiCicco's question15 about whether we might be able to work16 the rules for valet that would17 accommodate a longer-term occupancy for a18 vehicle owned by the hotel. That's19 certainly something we can look at. The20 problem always becomes when the valet21 zone is 100 percent occupied, do we then22 force the hotel to say, Okay, you've got23 to get the other car out of here now.24 It's sort of constantly juggling to25 105 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 say -- we set the rules to try to say get2 them out so that there's space available3 for the next guy.4 So we could certainly talk with5 the hotels about something, but that's6 been our goal, make sure that there's7 space that doesn't cause vehicles to park8 illegally to get access to the building.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I get10 that. I understand. Thank you.11 How do they do it in New York,12 other cities where they have similar13 traffic congestion issues? I mean, they14 do have reserved spaces, I believe. Is15 that what you were suggesting in your16 testimony earlier?17

Yes.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They are19 reserved. They have valet?20 MR. McCAULEY: Yes.21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How do22 they -- I'm trying to get a sense of why23 they can figure it out. Not that we24 can't. We may figure it out. I'm just25 106 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 curious. What makes it different here or2 what could make it different here from3 other cities?4

I mean, I can't5 venture, because I've never really looked6 into the operational logistics of how7 they do that. So I would only --8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They have9 parking authorities and --10

I'd be at a loss11 to give you any kind of --12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm13 curious.14

I mean, other15 than, I guess, that -- it depends on what16 values you have and what do you want to17 allow people to do and how do you see18 yourself and how do you want to portray19 yourself and do you value, as Councilman20 Jones said, the economics of something or21 do you value that we're doing something22 that we shouldn't allow somebody to do23 because everybody else is going to want24 to do it, or do you start looking at it,25 107 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 as you say, Councilman DiCicco, to try2 and see if you can make it work. And so3 I guess in other cities where they4 realize they want to get people into5 their hotels, they're willing to put up6 with some of this stuff.7

Could I offer,8 Councilman, that I would be happy to work9 with these gentlemen to contact the10 cities where these exist and see how11 they've structured it to see whether we12 might be able to learn something from13 their experience.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And that's15 where I would ask that maybe we would16 hold the bill. Maybe there's a way of17 massaging it and figuring it out. And I18 do have a concern. My question is, why19 are we doing 300 in areas that are20 outside of the boundaries that are21 described that would pay --22

Again, it was23 just that I think --24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't25 108 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 think uniformity -- I think under the2 Uniform Act we wouldn't be able to do3 that anyway.4

I think the valet5 ordinance had sort of set up a zone for6 areas inside the City, certain areas7 within the City, and then outside the8 City a lesser fee. So that was the only9 reason why --10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Outside11 Center City?12

Outside of Center13 City. That was the only reason why I14 came up with that.15

And I think,16 Councilman, that was structured to be17 consistent with the difference in meter18 rates in the different areas.19

Meter rates. So20 that was the only reason why --21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, you22 can look into that, nail that down at23 least on the fees. Twelve hundred24 obviously doesn't make sense if you're25 109 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 doing the 25, but let's keep talking2 about this. We'll hold this, and we're3 going to have another Streets and4 Services hearing, at least one, if not5 two, before the end of the session and6 we'll try to figure out how we can7 accommodate and be able to move traffic,8 keep traffic moving out there as well.9

Okay.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.11

Thank you very12 much.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other14 questions?15 (No response.)16 (Pause.)17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This18 concludes the public hearing on the19 Committee of Streets and Services. We're20 now going to go into the public meeting.21 The Chair recognizes Councilman22 Greenlee for a motion on the bills that23 we just heard, that were just recorded.24

Thank25 110 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the2 following bills - 100269, 481, 482, 551,3 564, 553 and 4 -- and 553 - be reported4 out of this Committee with a favorable5 recommendation and that the rules of6 Council be suspended to allow for first7 reading at our next session of Council.8 (Duly seconded.)9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been10 properly moved and seconded that the11 bills that have just been read into the12 record be reported out of this Committee13 with a favorable recommendation and that14 the rules of Council be suspended.15 All in favor?16 (Aye.)17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those18 opposed?19 (No response.)20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bills21 pass. Bill No. 110549 and Bill No.22 110449 are being held.23 Thank you. Thank you for your24 attendance.25 111 9/21/11 - STREETS - BILLS 110269, ETC.1 (Committee on Streets and2 Services concluded at 12:05 p.m.)3 - - -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 112 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on September 21, 2011, and7 that this is a true and correct transcript of8 same.9 --------------------14 MICHELE L. MURPHY15 RPR-Notary Public16 (The foregoing certification of this20 transcript does not apply to any reproduction21 of the same by any means, unless under the22 direct control and/or supervision of the23 certifying reporter.)24