Committee Hearing, June 2, 2010

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 2, 2010 1:25 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN MARIA D. QUINONES-SANCHEZ BILLS 090466, 090839, 090840, 090880, 090906, 090907, 100015, 100213, 100266, 100285, 100306, 100310, 100312, 100358, 100359, 100364, 100366, 100370, 100371 and 100376 - - - 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Committee on Streets and Services is now in session. We have a quorum. To my extreme left is Councilman Green. To my immediate left is Councilman Greenlee. To my far right is Councilman Jones, and I'm Councilman DiCicco, the Chair of this Committee. I will ask Mr. McMonagle to read the title of the first bill so we can proceed with this Committee hearing. Thank you.

Bill No. 100213, an ordinance amending Section 9-605 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Towing," by revising the provisions governing the licensing and regulation of towers, under certain terms and conditions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone testifying on this bill, please come forward. Mr. Haigler. And let the record also reflect that Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, who 3 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. is a member of this Committee, is also present. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, Mr. Haigler. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide further testimony on Bill 100213, which amends Section 9-605 of The Philadelphia Code related to the towing of motor vehicles. As stipulated in the testimony given on May 5th, 2010, the Department supports enactment of this bill and believes the amendments will further clarify requirements related to the towing of vehicles from private property, as well as enhance its enforcement 4 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. capabilities through the receipt of a list from each towing operator of legal locations where they have contracts to tow vehicles. In addition, the requirement to indicate on signs posted at locations that complaints about towing may be made to 3-1-1 will provide for a systematic recording of complaints, accountability for the Department regarding its response to the complaint and a mechanism for public and interagency follow-up with regard to the disposition and/or resolution of the complaint. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the testimony, and I will be happy to answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for this witness? Councilman Green.

Is Mr. Fenerty testifying or is he here to answer questions? You're testifying also? 5 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

Yes.

Maybe Mr. Fenerty could testify with Mr. Haigler there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please approach the witness table, please. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good afternoon. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, Mr. Fenerty. Please identify yourself for the record.

Vince Fenerty, Executive Director of Philadelphia Parking Authority. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you have prepared testimony?

No, Councilman DiCicco. I was asked to testify on this one at the last minute. I'm here on another bill primarily. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, okay.

Which I do have written testimony for. I did enter 6 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. testimony on this matter previously and stated the Parking Authority was able to assist the Police Department in this endeavor during the hours of which we have patrols out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilman Green.

Thank you. Mr. Haigler, during testimony on this bill in the last session on this bill, it was -- or Committee hearing, there was testimony that there were 56,000 tows a quarter in the City of Philadelphia. Do you have any idea how many of those tows are during the day and how many of those tows are during the evening hours?

No, I don't.

Mr. Fenerty, do you have any idea?

No. 23

Mr. Fenerty, your staff, can you tell me the hours that they typically work? 7 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

During the week, Councilman, we have patrols from 6:30 a.m. until midnight and --

I'm sorry. When you say "patrols," what does that mean?

Officers on the street, parking enforcement officers.

The full complement? How many do you have on the street at any one time?

During the midday, about 150.

One hundred fifty people midday. Mostly on foot?

Majority on foot in Center City. And there are --

In Center City and in the neighborhoods?

In the neighborhoods they're in patrol cars. In Center City we have the supervisors are in the very well-marked vans that you see going around. 8 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

And all 150 people are on duty from 6:30 a.m. until midnight?

They're staggered shifts. The earliest shift starts at 6:30 a.m. with a complement of about a dozen. About a dozen start at 6:30 a.m. and we go up until midnight. We go on Friday and Saturday nights until 2:00 a.m.

Okay. But, I mean, until -- so how many people are working, say, from 6:00 p.m. to midnight?

6:00 p.m. to midnight, I got to get some assistance. Thirty-five.

Thirty-five people. And how many supervisors?

Four.

Four supervisors from 6:00 p.m. to midnight?

Yes.

Councilman, can I bring Corinne up here? 9 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

Sure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Absolutely.

I'm deaf in my left ear, so I can't hear what she says on that side. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Have her sit on the other side. See how we figure things out around here.

For the record, Corinne O'Connor is the Director of On-Street Parking. Her duties include towing, booting, radio room and parking enforcement officers. (Witness approached witness table.)

Okay. So there are four people on duty, four supervisors on duty, citywide from 6:00 p.m. to midnight?

Correct.

And they're the only people with cars?

No. On 4:00 to 10 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. midnight -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me. Just identify yourself for the record.

Corinne O'Connor. I am the Director of On-Street. On 4:00 p.m. to midnight, the shift, out of the 35 parking enforcement officers, mostly about half have vehicles. So in addition to the supervisors, there's also other vehicles out in the street that do all parts of the City, Manayunk, your main corridors.

Okay. But they're geographically dispersed?

Correct.

From midnight to 6:00 a.m., how many people do you have on duty?

We'll keep about seven on duty, seven parking enforcement officers, and two supervisors.

So citywide from midnight to 6:00 a.m., as a 11 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. practical matter, the Parking Authority is not going to be in a position to issue most tickets; that will have to be done by the Police Department?

That would be correct.

That's correct.

And so what we're talking about is potentially either hours of waiting time for the tow to occur because we're waiting for policemen, who have this as a much lower priority than the other people, or we're having citizens waiting for police response during the times they're most needed in the City from 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.?

For the most part, Councilman, you're correct.

So is there any estimate of how many tickets the Police are going to have to write between, say, 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., Mr. Haigler or anybody? 12 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

I have no idea.

You have no 4 idea?

No. 6

Is anybody here from the Police to testify? (No response.)

I think Lieutenant Healy last week was going to get us specific information to some specific questions that we asked on the record. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of information.

I don't recall that, but I do know that Commissioner Ramsey has provided us with a letter saying that they are capable of handling the job and will not enforce it at all because of the issue of confusion in the event that there are carve-outs or exceptions in the bill. I think that the consumer protection is more important than the 13 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. seven or eight private tows that I think Mr. Zuritsky testified to last time that happen in the course of a year. I do think that we should fall on the side of consumer protection, because there's been these issues that have been going on and on and on forever, and I think that the Police Commissioner's a competent individual, who thinks that his folks can handle this, and the Parking Authority will assist. So most likely we will have enough coverage to deal with this. By the way, a lot of private tow lots are not open after midnight anyway. They tell you to come back the next day. That gives them the opportunity to pick up another day in storage fees. So I think all in all, considering the vetting of this entire situation and issue, we're at a point now where I think we need to maybe try it, and if we need to make adjustments down the road, we'd be happy to take a look at 14 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. that.

Well, frankly -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of information. There is a letter, if you had not seen it.

Frankly, I am extremely offended that the Commissioner of Police of the City of Philadelphia would say that they are not going to enforce an ordinance validly passed by City Council because of some kind of sense that we can't, through regulation or otherwise, avoid confusion. If we pass an ordinance, I fully expect the Police Department of the City of Philadelphia to pass it, and I will not be threatened by a Police Commissioner that says we are not going to enforce a law that is validly passed by City Council. I think it's -- the letter is not worth the paper it's written on. Of course they'll enforce the law. That's the law, and if they 15 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. don't, we as a body can hold them accountable. So, I mean, that letter is offensive to me personally as a City Councilman and should be to this body. With respect to protecting consumers, I agree, but I prefer to protect citizens and make sure that police are out there able to quickly respond to burglaries, robberies, other things that are happening between 12:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and since we do not know, have no idea how many tickets will be required to be written then and we know police force is at its lowest level during that period, I just think it's irresponsible for us to pass this bill at this time without information about how many diversions will be required of the police. I don't really have any other questions, and it's for these reasons that I'll be opposing this bill today. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. 16 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Councilman Greenlee.

Just for the record, in fairness to the Police Commissioner's letter, I think he was responding to some questions that were brought up. He does talk about how he doesn't feel there should be carve-outs in this bill, and he basically just went on record saying that he agrees with the premise of this bill, that it's trying to deal with a legitimate problem. And just for the record, I agree with that. I think we've all heard about some of the problems that improperly towed cars have resulted in. So obviously everybody has their opinion on what the letter said, but I think there's a lot in the letter that addresses the concerns that were raised at the last hearing. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Just let the record also reflect that Councilwoman Sanchez, who is 17 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. a member of this Committee, is also present. Any other questions for these witnesses?

Actually, just -- for the record, to remind my colleagues, we are creating a rule for the exception, not for the problem. Yes, people have been mistreated, but to require 56,000 tickets to be written every quarter as opposed to addressing this problem differently seems to me to be a huge diversion and waste of resources. That is less than half a percent, 44 complaints, 56,000 tickets, and it's an awful big diversion of Parking Authority and Police resources. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The only thing I would say, not to get into a debate, that the 44 I think is obviously just scratching the surface, because I think there are just many, many people out there who never make the complaint to begin with, because they just figure 18 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. that's it, I'm out of here, I'm never coming back. Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you. Again, not to get into a debate back and forth, but I think oftentimes the arguments used against regulation, while it's not the majority, but if it's enough of a minority to be a problem, and I'll just -- obviously every case is different, but I think the argument that we're going after a minority of the problem was used in the bill regulating dumpsters, the same argument was used, and I defended that as a needed regulation, and I think this is at least in the same realm of things, that we're dealing with a legitimate problem and we're trying to put reasonable regulations on. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Gentlemen, I'm really not going to entertain a debate among us at this panel. We're all 19 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. entitled to our opinion. If you have something to ask the -- questions of the panel of witnesses or comments, please do so, but let's not get into a personal debate here.

Thank you. If you could please provide the Chair the information that I requested from the Police Department last time. We will send you a specific list of those questions in a letter that you'll receive tomorrow, and also the questions that I asked today about how many tows happen during different eight-hour periods of the day, I would appreciate it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing 20 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. none, Mr. McMonagle, please read the title of the second bill.

Bill No. 100310, an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Sales," by prohibiting sidewalk vending on both sides of North Second Street, between Spring Garden Street and Girard Avenue with the exception of certain owners and tenants of properties; all under certain terms and conditions.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 100310, which, if enacted, will prohibit sidewalk sales on both sides of Second Street, between Spring Garden Street and Girard Avenue except for owners or tenants of businesses within the designated area that are in compliance with the provisions of Section 21 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. 9-205(2)(d) of The Philadelphia Code. The Department of Licenses and Inspections offers no objections to the enactment of this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 100285, an ordinance amending Title 12 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Traffic Code," to provide for proper display of valid parking meter kiosk receipts; 22 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. proper display of valid residential parking permits; proper display of valid contractor parking permits; to establish penalties and provide for immobilization and impoundment of vehicles for certain parking violations; all under certain terms and conditions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of Council. My name is Vince Fenerty and I'm the Executive Director of the Parking Authority. Also with me here this afternoon is Corinne O'Connor, who is the Director of On-Street Parking for the Authority. I would like to thank Chairman DiCicco and the members of the Committee for allowing me to testify today. I am here to testify in favor of Bill 100285, which would set penalties for the 23 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. fraudulent duplication of parking kiosk receipts, residential parking permits or contractor parking placards. Since last July, the Parking Authority has been installing hundreds of parking kiosks throughout the City to replace the standard parking meters, where possible. This program has had many benefits to the City, its residents and visitors, not the least of which allow citizens more options to pay for parking and the aesthetic improvement of the landscape where the conversion has taken place. To date, the Parking Authority has installed 850 kiosks, and we expect to install a total of 1,025 kiosks in total. When a citizen uses a kiosk to purchase time, a receipt is provided for that citizen to place in their car which shows the amount of time purchased. Also the receipt needs to be placed on the curb portion of the vehicle's windshield so a police officer or parking officer 24 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. can review it safely. As the number of kiosks have grown, unfortunately attempts to use forged kiosk receipts to avoid paying have also increased. The Parking Authority has a number of security safeguards in place to limit this problem. I have included a copy of a forged parking receipt with my testimony so you can see an example of the problem. This practice is outright theft, deception and fraud. Currently, if a citizen is caught with a forged receipt, the only ticket that can be written on the vehicle is for an expired meter or kiosk, which is a $36 fine. This Bill 18 No. 100285 would amend Title 12 of The Philadelphia Code to allow a $300 ticket to be written on the vehicle. Additionally, the bill would allow for a $300 ticket to be written if a vehicle is found to display a forged residential parking permit or a contractor parking placard, and all three of these offenses 25 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. would make the vehicle to be eligible to be towed and impounded immediately. I believe that we show that a willful, premeditated unlawful behavior will not be tolerated, and I ask the Committee to give Bill 100285 a favorable recommendation and request that the rules be suspended to allow the first reading at the next Council session. I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee this afternoon, and I'd be happy to answer any questions which the members have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Fenerty, for your testimony. I may have missed it. I was having some sidebars here. Will you be placing anything on the kiosk as a warning or anything like that? Not that we should be warning criminals, but is there going to be anything out there --

The front of the kiosk can be changed very easily. If there is -- 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's a little confusing, though, those kiosks. They kind of vary from location to location.

We've changed the face of them twice. We've had a focus group look at it. We think we now have it much easier. To use a kiosk the first time, the second time and the third time was a little difficult from the change from just sticking a Smart Card in or putting change in. The complaints really went down and it is much easier. Credit card use is going up, Smart Card use is going down, change use is going down also. People using the credit cards is traveling up every day. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are you finding that these counterfeit receipts are being used by -- is somebody out there, somebody start a cottage industry out there? Are they selling them?

We don't believe that yet, but as soon as it came up, we 27 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. had a few instances and I looked at it and I said rather than wait until it becomes an epidemic, if it did become an epidemic, why don't we get an ordinance 6 on Council to have a fine and impound the vehicle as a deterrent to people doing it. You know, did we think this would happen? We always knew that this was a possibility. It's happened several times. Some of the photos we couldn't get. Our PO's don't have cameras. They call the supervisor. The supervisor looks at it. We were able to get to this car. And attached also you will see a copy of a fraudulent contractor placard, which we had on hand to bring today so we can show Council. It's being done. This is not something to generate revenue. This is totally as a deterrent, Mr. DiCicco and members. We just want it out there that if you do this, you will lose your car, you'll be impounded, and by the time you get it out, you'll pay the fine, you're going to 28 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. pay towing, you're going to pay storage and you'll be vetted for whatever parking tickets are due the City on your car's history. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilman Green.

Thank you. I'm just taking a look at this bill. Councilman DiCicco, the italicized sections are what's being added to this ordinance? And what's not italicized is currently what's in the law? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

So I have a couple of issues with -- one, the first is requiring that it be clearly visible. I understand -- requiring that it be clearly visible on curb side, and the issuance of tickets if it's not on the curb side of the car seems to me to be unnecessary. It's either clearly visible or it's not clearly visible. For example, in my car there's a place to put 29 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. a ticket like on the drive's side above -- it's a foot up, it's a little plastic thing, you can slip it right in there. You can see it from the other side. Until I saw the thing on the box, I typically always put my parking receipt there, right there, it was visible. I paid my thing. I think a lot of people are going to come into the City and not have noticed that it has to be curb side, and if we start issuing tickets for something this clearly visible when people have paid, I just don't think that's the way we want to be treating people who are coming downtown to spend their money.

Councilman, I don't have my copy of the ordinance with me. Did we put --

It says, When a vehicle is parked in a parking meter dispensed by the kiosk payment, that space shall be displayed in such a manner as to be clearly visible through 30 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. the curb side portion of the vehicle's windshield.

We have not issued any tickets if it was on the other side, if it was on the passenger side. I was aware that was in there, and that was put in there primarily for the safety of the issuing officer, that we would rather have them on the curb side. You pay the kiosk on the curb side, you put it on the curb side. We have no directive that if it's not on a specific side of a car, to ticket the vehicle. Our officers do in fact walk around the car. At this point, I have not had a parking enforcement officer hit by a car yet. I've had a few tow drivers hit. We did that -- we were asking that specifically to encourage people to do it. I'm not going to issue any tickets for someone putting a valid receipt on the wrong side of the car. If Council were to have a problem with that particular language, I would not object 31 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. to striking it.

No. I mean, if you're not enforcing it --

I assure you we're not doing that. We put that in primarily for the safety of the issuing officer. And, Councilman, I'll tell you the truth, I'm as guilty as the next person of doing it. I'm just sitting thinking, I parked on South Broad Street facing south and I put it on the driver's side myself when I paid the meter down in South Philadelphia. I'm as guilty as the next person of not opening -- not even thinking and opening the passenger door and putting it on there. In fact, I can never remember doing that. I've always placed it on the passenger side. It's according to which side of the street.

Okay. With respect to there's a penalty for -- it's called invalid receipt parking meter kiosk. What you gave us a picture of is 32 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. a counterfeit receipt?

Yes.

I'm not sure this is clear enough to prevent a $300 fine for a receipt someone accidentally left in from the day -- I have left a receipt sort of from the day before on my thing.

We're not looking for someone who left a good receipt from the day before. All we're looking for here is the -- and I'll phrase it -- the individual who has become clever and has made phony copies. That's all we're looking for here.

So it's your testimony this is with respect to only counterfeit receipts?

Only counterfeit receipts, nothing else.

Not expired receipts, day-old receipts?

Not at all. If you have an expired receipt, you get an 33 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. expired meter. If it's a day old, you get an expired meter, that's all. Councilman, I didn't write the exact language. The lawyers did it, and that's how they termed it.

So with respect to display of invalid residential parking permit, I assume your testimony would be the same?

That would be counterfeit.

That is counterfeit only, not an expired residential --

Yes, or not an expired contractor placard, to answer the next paragraph. It's for counterfeit and we use the word "fraudulent."

Okay.

The lawyers wrote it.

And with respect to contractor parking display of invalid permit -- 34 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

Same thing. You'll see there's two copies of the permit. The first copy is blue. That is not -- that's a counterfeit permit. You'll see the easiest way -- they're in color, so the easiest way to see is on the blue one, it doesn't have the distinct lines. So that made it very suspicious. The green one, you'll see how the printing is on ours much different than the counterfeit one. You also look at the City seal. We have people out there that are very good at arts and crafts.

I just wanted this on the record for the legislative history.

It's just for counterfeit and, Councilman, it's only for a deterrent. We want it out there that if you do it, your car is going to be impounded, so it doesn't become a problem. That's all it is.

Thank you, 35 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Mr. Fenerty.

Thank you, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, please read the title of the next bill. Thank you.

Bill No. 090466, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Carriers," by adding a new Section 9-408, entitled "Multi-Seat Pedalcycles," to provide for the licensing and regulation of businesses operating Multi-Seat Pedalcycles for hire, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witness approached witness 36 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. table.)

Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. My name is David Perri. I'm the Chief of Surveys and Design for the Streets Department. I'm here today to present testimony on Bill No. 090466, which amends Section 9-400 of The Philadelphia Code pertaining to transportation carriers. Bill No. 090466, introduced by Councilwoman Blackwell and Councilman Jones on June 4th, 2009, adds a new section to the Code, 9-408, entitled "Multi-Seat Pedalcycles." These vehicles are a tourist amenity that allows groups of four or more people to jointly pedal one bicycle at the same time. This bill 21 was first introduced and scheduled for a hearing this time last year. At that time, the Streets Department and Mayor's Office of Transportation and Utilities expressed concerns about the safe 37 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. commercial operation of such vehicles on Philadelphia's busy streets. As you know, as of June 11th, 2009, this bill 5 was held in committee. Since then, no potential operators of these vehicles or any proponents of their operation have approached the Administration. It is unclear as to what the level of interest by the private sector is in operating these vehicles, the size of vehicles or the proposed routes. Without the ability to assess the safety hazards and traffic impacts of multi-seat pedalcycle operations, the Administration cannot support this legislation. In the past year, the Administration worked with Councilwoman Reynolds Brown and the bicycle-taxi (pedicab) industry to develop and pass an ordinance permitting the operation of bicycle-taxis. Working together, we were able to address safety concerns and traffic impacts through regulation. Last 38 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. week, bicycle-taxis commenced legal operations in Philadelphia. The Administration cannot support Bill No. 090466 and respectfully requests that this bill be held in committee pending further discussions with potential operators that would allow us to more fully evaluate this potential program. Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Perri. One minute, please. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against? Please approach the witness table, identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. Thank you. 39 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)

My name is Sarah Clark Stuart. I'm Campaign Director for the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. Thank you for allowing me to testify here this afternoon on Bill 9 090466. This bill lays out a permitting process for multi-seat pedalcycles, or also known as conference bikes. Our concern about this bill is that we have several outstanding questions about the safety, operation and location of operation of multi-seat pedalcycles. We have not met with or been invited to meet with the operators or the Streets Department about how the operation of these vehicles will work. This industry was not part of the long planning process that the pedicab industry went through with the Streets Department and Mayor's Office of Transportation. It's not clear where these 40 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. vehicles will be operating, and given the stringent regulation of pedicabs and tight limits on where pedicabs can operate, such as not on Fairmount Park trails, we have concerns if these multi-seat pedalcycles may be allowed where pedicabs are not. So we would like more information about how this bill will work before we can support the bill. Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. (Pause.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. A little conversation here. We will vote the bill out today without a suspension, which will give at least two weeks, three weeks before the end of Council session for any of those questions and concerns to be thought through and discussed with the sponsors of the bill and the industry folks as well. So no final vote today; just voting it out of Committee. You know how it goes, Mr. Perri. And then 41 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. hopefully over the next few weeks, you can iron out any differences or concerns you may have. Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, anyone else that wishes to testify? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, please read the title of the next bill.

Excuse me. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, sir.

My name is Lewis Blum of Lew Blum Towing Company and I misheard the request of anyone here to testify. Can I please testify? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I said it twice.

I didn't hear you. Please. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would you 42 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. mind waiting until the end?

I don't mind at all. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. We have bills to get through. Thank 6 you. 7 Mr. McMonagle. 8

Bill No. 090906, an 9 ordinance establishing a one-way 10 regulation on Greene Street, from Roberts 11 Avenue to Windrim Avenue, northbound. 12 (Witness approached witness 13 table.) 14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good 15 afternoon. Please identify yourself for 16 the record. 17

Good afternoon, 18 members of the Committee. Thank you for 19 the opportunity to appear before you. My 20 name is David Dlugosz, District Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I am here to offer testimony on Bill 23 090906. The Streets Department has no 25 objections to the passage of this bill. 43 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. The 4400 block of Greene Street was changed to one-way operation on May 18th, 2009 pending the passage of this City Council ordinance. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to take any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, please read the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 090907, an ordinance establishing a one-way regulation on Armstrong Street, from Magnolia Street to East Wister Street, eastbound. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please proceed. 44 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is David Dlugosz, District Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill No. 9 090907. The Streets Department has no 11 objections to the bill. The 500 block of Armstrong Street has been converted to a one-way operation pending the passage of this City Council ordinance. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'd be happy to take any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) 45 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, please read the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 100266, an ordinance granting permission to Roxanne Maddrey, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the southwest corner of 55th Street and Pine Street, to construct, use and maintain conduits for fiber optic facilities in, under and across the southwest corner of 55th Street and Pine Street, for the purpose of supplying electrical service and telephone service to said newsstand. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a Staff Engineer with the Department of Streets. I am here to offer the following testimony for Bill 24 No. 100266. This bill grants permission to 46 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Roxanne Maddrey, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the southwest corner of 55th Street and Pine Street, to construct, use and maintain conduits for fiber optic facilities in, under and across the southwest corner of 55th Street and Pine Street, for the purpose of supplying electrical and telephone services to said newsstand, all under certain terms and conditions. The Streets Department has reviewed the proposal for this project and has no objection to the passage of the bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill. 47 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Thank you, ma'am.

Bill No. 100312, an ordinance amending Chapter 11-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Construction, Encroachments, and Projections Over, On, and Under Streets," by adding a new definition and new subsection providing for the granting of permits for the installation of bicycle racks on sidewalks, under certain terms and conditions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I believe we're going to hear all the bills that you'll be testifying on in the interest of time, so you can just stick around. Thank you. Please proceed with your testimony.

Okay. Good afternoon again. My name is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a Staff Engineer with the Department of Streets. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 25 100312. 48 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. This bill, which is an administrative ordinance requested by the Mayor's Office of Transportation and Utilities, amends Section 11-600 of The Philadelphia Code to allow for the private installation of bicycle racks in the public right-of-way through a simple permit process. The goal, which is to increase bicycle ridership in the City of Philadelphia, is consistent with the objectives of the recently published Greenworks Philadelphia plan and the City of Philadelphia's Complete Streets policy. This ordinance provides business owners with the opportunity to promote bicycle ridership to their locations through the installation of secure and easily accessible bicycle parking spaces. Studies have shown that more people will use bicycles to travel to work and for shopping and other purposes if there is secure parking available at the end of their journey. 49 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Currently, private installations of bicycle racks on the sidewalk require individual site-specific encroachment ordinances, which are time-consuming and costly to promulgate. This ordinance will reduce the regulatory burden and encourage more installations. Finally, this ordinance, together with its companion regulations, will establish a permit process for the installation of custom-designed art racks which some business owners and business associations desire for their locations. Streetscapes in business districts, in turn, will benefit from the increase in public art that also has a functional purpose. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilman Green.

Thank you. Your testimony indicated that this was consistent with the Philadelphia plan. However, the bill fails to state minimum standards of clear width for 50 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. pedestrian traffic or advanced by the Philadelphia Planning Commission's Philadelphia Pedestrian and Bicycle plan released April 15th, 2010 or the Americans with Disabilities Act federal accessibility guidelines. As the City endeavors to increase walkability, sidewalk encroachments should be minimized. Thus, the bill should be read with the recently released street furniture RFP in mind and should be amended to clarify minimum pedestrian widths to reduce sidewalk clutter. Section 11-604(2)(a) states that the sidewalk encroachments do not impede upon the usable sidewalk width. It is ambiguous and subjective and should be amended to state, Does not impede upon a minimum clear width of five feet or greater for pedestrian clearance, as regulated by the Department of Streets. This would incorporate the standards articulated in the Philadelphia plan. Would you have any objection to 51 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. changing that language?

Well, there is a regulation that's going to accompany the ordinance, and the Department will be reviewing those applications for the bicycle racks to ensure that they don't impede the walkable sidewalk for pedestrians.

So what is your testimony then, that the regulations issued by the Department will require at least five feet of width be free, including protruding bicycles?

That's the Department's policy.

And is that the regulations that you'll promulgate if we pass this ordinance?

Wait a minute. Let me look at the regulation. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Perri?

The regulation states, The minimum acceptable paved sidewalk width on which a bicycle rack 52 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. may be installed shall be feet. 3

Shall be 12 4 feet? 5

That's the 6 minimum paved sidewalk width. 7

Yeah, but it 8 doesn't say how many feet the bicycle 9 rack can protrude into the sidewalk. It 10 doesn't say how much space has to be left 11 clear. 12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Perri, could you shed some light?

Yes. Good afternoon, members of Council. My name is David Perri. I am Chief Engineer for Surveys and Design. We are currently working on regulations for bicycle parking, and the regulations would require minimum widths off of the face of a building and minimum widths off of the curb line. We feel that if we establish a minimum clear sidewalk width by ordinance of five feet, that there's going to be circumstances 53 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. where we would want more of a clear width. For instance, the Parkway or for heavily traveled commercial areas, we would want to do a lot more. What we're proposing to do with this ordinance is to set up a permit process, and through the review of the permit application, we would be able to make those judgment calls as to which location should have a wider clear width and which ones it would be acceptable at five feet. In no case would we allow a bicycle rack with the attached bicycle to reduce the sidewalk width under five feet.

Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Don't we do that with outdoor seating similarly? Sometimes we -- is that not the case with outdoor seating?

For sidewalk cafes? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Cafes, yeah.

Yeah. We review 54 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. the sidewalk cafes just to make sure there's a minimum sidewalk width for pedestrians. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Thank you.

Sorry. Just for the record, not just for pedestrians; the Americans with Disability Act requires five feet.

Yes. That's correct.

So that's people in wheelchairs, et cetera.

That's correct.

Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify? Yes, ma'am. We still got to figure out a way of getting me to have scooter parking 55 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. in this town. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Clark Stuart, Campaign Director of the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. We are in support of Bill No. 12 100312 to amend Chapter 11-600 of the Code. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission is in the process of finalizing the policy recommendations of the pedestrian bicycle plan for the next ten years, and one of the strategies presented in that plan is to manage sidewalk encroachments and recommends that the Code should be changed to clarify laws governing sidewalk encroachments -- I'm sorry; and allow for administrative approval, where appropriate. Currently, as mentioned before, 56 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. a private property owner who wants to install a bike rack at their own expense must seek City Council approval and secure an ordinance permitting them to place a rack on the sidewalk, and we believe it would be in the interest of the public that the bike racks be administratively permitted by the Streets Department. Philadelphia is currently experiencing a bike parking shortage. There are not enough bike racks to accommodate the number of bikes in certain high-use areas. Anyone walking around downtown Center City has seen multiple bikes locked to individual racks or bikes that are locked to trees, fences, railings and lampposts. The lack of bike parking discourages people from using their bicycle for commuting or short errands. It encourages poor parking techniques that make bikes vulnerable to theft and creates a cluttered landscape or streetscape. 57 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Additionally, improperly parked bikes harm public property and private property and trees. Bike parking should be attractive and organized. By making the installation of bike racks easier, this change to the Code will encourage property owners to install racks in front of their property and attract those customers or clients who prefer to shop or commute by bicycle. We've been contacted by numerous business owners who want bike parking installed in front of their business, and this demonstrates to us that there is a demand for a streamlined, easy-to-use process for obtaining permission to install racks. So this change to the Code, complemented by the forthcoming promulgation of regulations that Mr. Perri spoke about that addresses street classifications and appropriate sidewalk clear widths, will help keep sidewalks free of encroachments and 58 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. provide a rational way to fit bicycle parking into the sidewalk. This bill is one of many important changes to the Code and the City's policies that are needed to create conditions that encourage more people to use their bicycle for short trips, commuting and recreating, and I encourage this Committee to pass the bill as proposed. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you both. Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, please read the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 100370, an ordinance authorizing Ilker Ugur, owner 59 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. of Cafe Fulya, to construct, own and maintain two tables, four chairs and two benches on the sidewalks located at 727 South Second Street, under certain terms and conditions.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco, members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a Staff Engineer with the Department of Streets and I'm here to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 13 100370. This bill authorizes Ilker Ugur to construct, own and maintain an encroachment in the form of an open-air sidewalk cafe located at 727 South Second Street. The sidewalk cafe consists of two tables, four chairs and two benches encroaching on the sidewalks located at 727 South Second Street. This encroachment leaves approximately six feet of clear, unobstructed footway for pedestrian traffic. 60 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. The Streets Department has reviewed the plans and has no objection to the passage of the bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, please read the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 100371, an ordinance authorizing the National Museum of American Jewish History, located at 101 South Independence Mall East, to construct, own and maintain various encroachments in rights-of-way adjacent to the Museum building on 5th Street, Market Street, and Ludlow Street, and to improve a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to the Museum building on 5th 61 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Street, all under certain terms and conditions.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a Staff Engineer with the Department of Streets. I'm here to offer testimony on Bill No. 10 100371. This bill authorizes the National Museum of American Jewish History to construct, own and maintain various encroachments in the public right-of-way adjacent to the Museum building on 5th Street, Market Street, and Ludlow Street and permission to improve a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to the Museum building on 5th Street. The encroachments include one sculpture, 14 security bollards and two information kiosks, all within the rights-of-way around the Museum building located at 101 South Independence Mall 62 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. East. The portion of the right-of-way that this bill grants permission to improve also serves as the roof to the egress stairs from the SEPTA Station near the southeast corner of 5th and Market Streets. The Streets Department has reviewed the plans for this project and supports the passage of the bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you happen to know, ma'am, what the size of those kiosks will be?

I don't have the plans with me, but I can get that information to you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are those kiosks informational kiosks as it relates to the Museum or are they --

Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, they relate to information for the Museum. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? 63 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 100015, an ordinance authorizing Charles Weiner to construct, own and maintain a building encroachment at 3653 Germantown Avenue under certain terms and conditions. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a Staff Engineer with the Department of Streets. I'm here to offer testimony on Bill No. 23 100015. This bill authorizes Charles Weiner, owner of 3653 Germantown Avenue, 64 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. to construct, own and maintain a building encroachment at 3653 Germantown Avenue that will encroach upon the south sidewalk of Erie Avenue. The proposed encroachment is an addition to the existing building located on the southerly side of Erie Avenue. The proposed addition encroaches approximately feet onto the south 11 public sidewalk of Erie Avenue, leaving a 12 distance of approximately 16 feet for clear pedestrian traffic. As previously indicated in testimony for this bill at the Streets and Services Committee on March 11th, 2010, the Streets Department does not support the passage of Bill No. 100015. It is the policy of the Department of Streets not to approve permanent commercial intrusion into the public right-of-way solely for the purpose of expanding a business use. As suggested at the March 11th, 2010 Streets and Services Committee, a separate bill, Bill 65 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. No. 100359, was introduced in City Council on May 20th, 2010 to allow for the striking and vacating from City Plan the 12-foot-wide portion of the south sidewalk of Erie Avenue. This will allow the owner to incorporate the feet into 8 their deed; therefore, no longer needing 9 an encroachment. The Department of 10 Streets will support passage of Bill No. 11 100359. 12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am Michelle Webb, City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 100015, which Councilmember Clarke introduced into City Council on January 28th, 2010. This bill will allow the owners of the Eagle Bar, located at 3653 66 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Germantown Avenue, to build and maintain a 12-foot-by-75-foot encroachment on the south side of Erie Avenue. The sidewalk is 28 feet wide at this location and the addition would reduce the unencumbered sidewalk to feet wide. The City 8 Planning Commission does not believe that 9 a permanent building encroachment should 10 be allowed in the street right-of-way. 11 The street is for public transportation 12 and utility purposes, and a private 13 interest should not encroach on those 14 interests, except when a street 15 right-of-way can be reduced and still 16 allow safe pedestrian travel and vehicular movement and utilities functions, then the City Plan change be requested. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of February 16th, 2010 recommended that Bill No. 100015 be disapproved. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 67 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. before you today and will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I just want to get clear, because with all due respect, I find the testimony to be somewhat confusing inasmuch as we say we do not want to do an encroachment which would take up a portion of the sidewalk unless we believe it's for part of the public right-of-way, but yet if we did a striking -- I think that's the appropriate terminology -- using up the same amount of space, for some reason that would be okay.

The way that the encroachment, though, language, it doesn't -- the language is not in accordance with how we generally write up the encroachment ordinances. There's some language that's missing from that bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is it that's missing?

There's a 68 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. paragraph in there that requires them to remove or relocate any or all of the encroachments described in the ordinance 5 from the public right-of-way within 60 days after lawful service of notice by the City. And then there's also language that's required in encroachment ordinances which states they shall furnish the City with either a bond, with corporate surety, in an amount required by the Department of Streets and in a form satisfactory to the Law Department to ensure the compliance with all the terms and conditions of the ordinance and the agreement, and to protect and indemnify the City from and against all damages or claims for damages which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of the construction, maintenance or use of the encroachment or their removal, or submit documentation acceptable to the City that Charles Weiner self-assumes the liabilities and obligations normally covered by the surety bond. 69 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So I guess, not being a lawyer, if we did the striking, then that would all be covered, because it then becomes part of the deed to the property?

That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And it has been suggested -- and I'm familiar with Mr. Weiner, and I've said this publicly before -- that he go out and get an appraisal based on five recommendations -- appraisers that were recommended by the Planning Commission or the City. I forgot. He did do that, paid a fee, and it came back that they wanted -- it was recommended that that portion of the sidewalk should be a cost to Mr. Weiner of $22,000.

Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If he do it by way of striking.

Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if he paid the 22,000 and we did the striking, 70 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. all of the issues about pedestrian right-of-way and all that stuff would go away?

Because it would become his property, so it wouldn't be the City's liability any longer. It's not an encroachment. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.

Thank you. I also was a bit confused by the testimony. So your testimony is you are against the bill because it does not indemnify the City, essentially?

Yes.

But you would be for it if it had the language you read?

Well, we would prefer that they do the striking. That's our preference.

And is that the Planning -- what is the Planning Commission -- 71 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

Yes. The Commission voted at the February meeting either to disapprove this bill or have language within the encroachment bill that essentially holds Mr. Weiner responsible if any -- if the needs to come down for access to utility right-of-way, that he would be held responsible.

Are there utilities under this feet? 12

I'm not sure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe I can -- it's my understanding -- please come up. I could be wrong -- that there's surveyors and other individuals were out there and there are no active utilities. Is that a correct statement? (Witness approached witness table.)

Councilman DiCicco, I'm Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager. You're correct, there are no 25 utilities in the 12-foot section. The 72 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. striking of the street would give title to the abutting property owner. An encroachment, the title would still maintain in the City. So that's the distinction between an encroachment ordinance and the striking. The footway is wide enough to accommodate that striking. It is a 28-foot-wide footway. So striking the 12-foot-wide will still accommodate the pedestrians, but the Streets Department prefers to see a street striking to operate a private business instead of doing it as an encroachment.

So the reason this bill was introduced was to avoid having to pay fair market value for the 12 feet? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe I can answer that. The bill was originally introduced because the owner, Mr. Weiner, is looking to expand his current business, to add additional seating. He's going to build like an atrium. I 73 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. can't think of the restaurant across from the building.

Italian Bistro. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Italian Bistro. Something of that nature. And originally I think it was refused because they thought it might be utilities. They went through that whole process, found there were no utilities, and then the issue came up that we'd rather do a striking for those reasons that have been stated here today, but the 22,000 came into play when the Planning Commission said we'd rather do a striking, but we just don't want to give it away, we want a fee to be paid.

Well, I mean, just -- I'm fully supportive of the Streets Department and the Planning Commission. I'd be fine with this bill 23 if it had the language indemnifying the City that they request and I'd be fine with the striking, but I do think that we 74 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. ought to protect the City from future liability before turning over our property to a private citizen. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How have we done this in the past with other encroachments? And using the Italian Bistro as an example, I think that was a controversial one, if I'm not mistaken, many years ago. I think it was done without any permits. I think one of my predecessors --

Councilman, I'm not familiar with that.

I'm not familiar with it either. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But there are encroachments in other areas.

The Streets Department policy is to strike a portion of the street instead of allowing a private business to operate within the bed of the street if the footway -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because it's a permanent structure as opposed to 75 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. sidewalk cafe.

Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Which we allow people to use. Are we indemnifying on that sidewalk stuff? I don't remember.

Yes. There's indemnity language.

Same language, right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They post a bond, right?

Correct.

Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions from this Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. McMonagle, the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 100359, an 76 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 154 by striking from the City Plan and vacating the southerly feet 6 wide portion of Erie Avenue from 7 Germantown Avenue to Elder Street, under 8 certain terms and conditions. 9

Good afternoon, 10 Mr. Chairman and members of the 11 Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, 12 Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 100359. This is not an administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Ms. Dawn Tancredi, Esquire of Mattioni, Limited, 399 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of this ordinance 22 is to reduce the sidewalk width of Erie Avenue at this location from 28 feet to 16 feet. This action will facilitate plans by the owner of the abutting 77 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. property to construct a building addition and expand the existing business. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am Michelle Webb, City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 100359, which was introduced by Councilmember Krajewski for Councilmember Clarke on May 20th, 2010. This ordinance will authorize the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 154 by striking from the City Plan and vacating the southerly 12-foot-wide portion of Erie Avenue from Germantown Avenue to Elder 78 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Street, under certain terms and conditions. This bill will revise the south sidewalk of Erie Avenue from Germantown Avenue to Elder Street to allow for a 12-foot-by-75-foot expansion to an existing restaurant on the southerly sidewalk of Erie Avenue, which is 28 feet wide, while maintaining a 16-foot clear sidewalk. Staff recommendation will be for approval when the City Planning Commission hears Bill No. 100359 at its meeting scheduled for June 8th, 2010. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none -- Councilman Green. 79 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

I have one clarifying question. You support this striking bill and you would charge -- basically if we strike it, the owner would be required to pay $22,000?

Correct. Correct. Wherever the City of Philadelphia had to purchase the street to open the street initially, then we require fair market value at the time of street striking, and this street was -- the City did pay damages initially when it was opened.

I see. So if the City had the street and always had it, we don't require the citizen to pay to strike a portion of it. It is City policy and it is consistent with everything we've done in the past, including sidewalk striking for the benefit of a business owner, to charge them if we had to pay for the street?

Correct.

Thank you. 80 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against -- Ms. Tancredi, do you have any comments?

No. 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Please read the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 090839, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 242 by striking from the City Plan and vacating portions of the beds of Old York Road and a certain cut-back area at the southerly side of Sixty-Sixth Avenue between Old York Road and Broad Street, thereby reducing the width of Old York Road from Sixty-Sixth Avenue to a point approximately one-hundred sixty-three feet southwestwardly 81 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. therefrom, by relocating the southeasterly curbline of Old York Road from Sixty-Sixth Avenue to a point approximately one-hundred ninety-eight feet southwestwardly therefrom, and by placing on the City Plan a curb bumpout at the northeasterly corner of Old York Road and Sixty-Fifth Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions; and Bill No. 090840, an ordinance 12 granting permission to ABEER, LP, owner of the property Oak Lane Diner, 6528 North Broad Street, to legalize a one-story concrete masonry construction, under certain terms and conditions; and Bill No. 090880, an ordinance 18 establishing a one-way regulation on Old York Road, from 66th Avenue to 65th Avenue, southbound.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. I am testifying on behalf of 82 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. the Streets Commissioner Clarena Tolson. She regrets that she is not available today. I am here to read the following statement from her regarding Bill Nos. 090839, 090840 and 090880. It is our understanding that Councilwoman Miller has amendments she is prepared to offer in connection with Bill 10 No. 090839, which is the ordinance for the Oak Lane Diner related to the encroachment on Broad Street. The amendments would require the owner of the property to make certain additional commitments in connection with obtaining the encroachment. If the bill is amended as set forth in those proposed amendments, the Administration is no 19 longer opposed to Bill Nos. 090839, 090840 and 090880. This concludes my testimony on these three bills. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions from this Committee? 83 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No? Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Jihad Ali. I'm a citizen in the City of Philadelphia. I want to testify on behalf of -- not on behalf, but opposing Bill No. 090839. I'm kind of confused, because I know Section 1 of the bill talks about what will happen if they strike it and Section 2 talks about the conditions that are necessary to be satisfied if this striking occurs. The problem that I have is, I went by -- I'm familiar with the site because it went in front of the Planning Commission. One of the things that struck me as unusual was on Section 84 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. No. 2, it talks about the fire hydrants. I was wondering, does the Committee know how many fire hydrants are on the corner at this location? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me one second. I apologize.

My question was in Section No. 2 of the bill, it talks about relocating fire hydrants, sewer inlets, manholes, et cetera. Now, I'm familiar with this neighborhood and I know that there was a fire hydrant behind this place. My understanding is that this fire hydrant, because of what this applicant did -- this building is already constructed, and my understanding is that the applicant did not -- whatever procedures and rules are in place now, they were violated. There was no 22 planning -- there was no survey done. There was no permit obtained, and as a result, there's a City fire hydrant that's covered with dirt. 85 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Now, the problem that I have is, in my former career, I was a police officer and I remember there's an order of nuns that's located right on that corner, and what struck me when I was a rookie when I went to -- I had a reason to go to this convent, these nuns don't speak. They suffer and do their thing in penance for the citizens of Philadelphia and the world, and one of the things that struck me about this bill is, this fire hydrant is covered. It seems to me that every section of this bill, Section (a), (b), (c), talk about releasing the City, but my question is, has there been an immediate assessment of the danger that citizens that visit that restaurant are exposed to and the citizens that live in that neighborhood might be exposed to?

Can I answer? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilwoman Miller.

Yes. The 86 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Fire Department has been out. I appreciate your concern, let me start there. The Fire Department has been actively involved and out and inspected and assessed, and all that has happened months ago, yes.

And on Bill No. 9 090840, I'm opposing this bill because this applicant, he erected a building -- some of the members of the Committee know that I'm heavily involved in construction in this city. There's no members that I'm affiliated with have participated in the construction of this building or even knew about this building been existed. What I'm here is to oppose anything that was constructed in an illegal manner. It's illegal in the fact that there was no plan obtained, there was no permits obtained. I don't even know if the contractor was licensed. But as a result of this building being in place now, it seems to me that citizens are at risk, because this building is constructed not 87 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. according to any recognized building standards. So I just wanted to do my duty as a citizen to bring this to your attention. You're the elected officials of the City. I just wanted to at least have you think about if you legalize this, it might be a problem. That's all I have, Councilwoman.

We have a letter here from the Fire Department that we will submit to the stenographer as part of the record, and this letter is actually dated in December 2008, and the Fire Department, as I said earlier, has been out. First of all, let me backtrack. We've been actually meeting regarding this construction for one and a half years. Okay? So it's not something that we've taken lightly, not something that we've ignored. All the City departments, the building owner, architects, engineer, 88 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. et cetera, have been meeting to make this right. This is a very popular establishment. We would not -- and you know -- I don't know whether you've been there, but I've certainly been there a couple of times over the years for many, many years, and we would never want to have a structure that's dangerous for the citizens of Philadelphia. But we have been meeting regarding this whole development for one and a half years, and I've been actively involved in those meetings, so has my staff and City departments and the Law Department and the utility companies and PennDOT and the owners and other folks. So I do appreciate your comments.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) 89 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

Anybody else to testify? (No response.)

Mr. McMonagle, you want to read the next bill.

Bill No. 100306, an ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 308 by widening the cartway of Van Pelt Street between Chestnut Street and Sansom Street, by changing the east and west sidewalk lines of Van Pelt Street between Chestnut Street and Sansom Street and the grade of the westerly sidewalk of Van Pelt Street between Chestnut Street and Sansom Street and by creating a new public use private sidewalk on the west side of Van Pelt Street west of the west legal sidewalk between Chestnut Street and Sansom Street under certain terms and conditions.

The Department of Streets would like to offer the following 90 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. testimony on Bill No. 100306. This is not an administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Jeffrey R. Rotwitt, Esquire for Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell and Hippel, One Penn Center, 1617 JFK Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of this ordinance 10 is to improve vehicular movement on Van Pelt Street and facilitate construction on the west side of Van Pelt Street, between Chestnut and Sansom Street, of a new high-rise mixed-use residential building, with off-street loading and a parking garage accessible from Van Pelt Street. The Streets Department has requested an amendment to this ordinance 20 to revise the language in Section 2(d) and add Section 4. The amendment was prepared after consultation with the Law Department in order to better protect the interests of the City. The amended ordinance is 91 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am Michelle Webb, City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 100306, which was introduced by Councilmember Tasco for Council President Verna on May 6th, 2010. This ordinance will authorize and direct the revision of lines and grades of a portion of City Plan No. 308 by widening the cartway of Van Pelt Street between Chestnut and Sansom Street, by changing the east and west sidewalk lines of Van Pelt Street between Chestnut Street and Sansom Street and by creating a new public use private sidewalk on the west side of Van Pelt Street west of the west legal sidewalk 92 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. between Chestnut Street and Sansom Street under certain terms and conditions. The purpose of this bill is to revise Van Pelt Street to allow for the erection of a 32-story, 336-foot high structure mixed-use development building. The applicant proposes 322 residential units with accessory office space, a community room and a fitness area. The applicant is also providing for 9,230 square feet of retail and 44,000 square feet of commercial office space. The building will also include 119 above-grade parking spaces. The City Planning Commission recommended approval of Bill No. 100306 at its meeting of May 18th, 2010. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? 93 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify? Please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)

I'd like to hand up papers, if I can. Good afternoon, members of the Committee. My name is William Schwartz. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell and Hippel representing both the owner and the developer of 2216-32 Chestnut Street through to Sansom and Van Pelt Streets. My client's land is on the west side of Van Pelt Street between Chestnut and Sansom Streets. Currently, the City Plan for Van Pelt Street calls for sidewalks of six feet, nine inches wide versus existing improved sidewalks of only three feet, and a cartway or roadway of six feet, six inches on the City Plan 94 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. versus feet existing. The existing paving does not match the legal parameters of the City Plan. Further, a main use of 2116 is the Sidney Hillman Medical Center with wheelchair patients that now use Van Pelt Street to traverse to the Hillman Center. They can't use the narrow three-foot sidewalks with their wheelchairs. I've been there and watched them traversing Van Pelt Street in the street with their wheelchairs. My client is proposing a 32-story apartment house on its property that has already been through Historical Commission and Zoning. The Van Pelt Street driveways proposed, lay-by lane and other improvements, have been agreed to and approved by the Streets Department. In fact, they have already put forth this amendment. Although the plan already given to City Planning was not made a part of the bill and this also is an amendment to 95 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. link it up with the bill -- and that's this big plan here, and we've submitted it electronically so that it can be attached to the bill as well. My client is proposing to give to feet of its own property for a 8 private promenade sidewalk along the west 9 side of Van Pelt Street, which will 10 considerably widen the street from three 11 feet to 15 feet wide. The east side is 12 being increased from three feet to five 13 feet for wheelchair use. My client will be improving Van Pelt Street with new paving, new trees, new planters, new benches, et cetera, as part of its proposed apartment development. Thank you.

Councilman Green.

Thank you. I'm a little bit confused. I think the City's testimony was that they're in favor of the bill before us. Are you 96 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. asking for additional amendments to the bill before us that they have not reviewed?

No; only for the plan that was supposed to be attached but somehow never got attached to the bill. It says it in the bill there's a plan attached, but there wasn't one. I was advised of that this morning, so I sent the plan over for attachment, and that is an amendment.

Has the City had a chance to review the plan that he sent over this morning and does it conform with what the Planning Commission approved?

It's the same plan.

I'm asking for the purpose of the Planning Commission.

I'm not sure. I have not seen a copy of that.

It's the same 97 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. one that was given to you originally. It was the one that we gave to the Streets originally over a month ago, same plan.

This hasn't changed since?

No, no change. That's the survey. The reason they wanted it --

So let me just -- that's fine.

There's a survey at the upper left-hand corner.

That's fine. So let me just say to the Planning Commission and the Streets Department, I'm sure we'll pass this bill out today. You'll have -- please confirm that it is what passed out of the Planning Commission, and then if not, we can amend it prior to final passage.

Okay.

Thanks. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any 98 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. questions? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions from this Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill. Thank you all.

Bill No. 100358, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill No. 080487) approved July 2nd, 2008, entitled "An ordinance 19 authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 269 by placing on the City Plan Health Sciences Drive from Civic Center Boulevard to Convention Avenue, placing on the City Plan East Service Drive and West Service Drive each from Civic Center 99 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Boulevard to Health Sciences Drive, placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for various purposes adjacent to Health Sciences Drive, placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes at the intersection of Civic Center Boulevard and Convention Avenue, and revising the curblines and grades of Civic Center Boulevard, all under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City, free and clear of all encumbrances, of the beds of Health Sciences Drive, East Service Drive, and West Service Drive," by extending the period for compliance with the terms and conditions stated therein.

The Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 100358. This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Ira Kauderwood, Esquire, University of Pennsylvania, 3101 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA. 100 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the time period for compliance with the terms and conditions of the ordinance for an additional two years. The purpose of this authorization is to establish a new street system to serve a development being constructed by the University of Pennsylvania and Children's Hospital and consisting of six million square feet of proposed hospital and research facilities. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am Michelle Webb, City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 100358, which was introduced by Councilmember Blackwell on May 20th, 2010. 101 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. This ordinance is to amend Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill No. 4 080487) approved July 2nd, 2008 entitled "An ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 269 by placing on the City Plan Health Sciences Drive from Civic Center Boulevard to Convention Avenue, placing on the City Plan East Service Drive and West Service Drive each from Civic Center Boulevard to Health Sciences Drive, placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for various purposes adjacent to Health Sciences Drive, placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes at the intersection of Civic Center Boulevard and Convention Avenue, and revising the curblines and grades of Civic Center Boulevard, all under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City, free and clear of all encumbrances, of the beds of Health Sciences Drive, East Service Drive, and West Service Drive," 102 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. by extending the period for compliance with the terms and conditions stated therein. Bill No. 080487 was approved July 2nd, 2008 and was conditional upon certain requirements being complied with within two years from the date of approval. Bill No. 100358 will extend the timeframe to certain requirements being complied to within two years from the date of this ordinance becoming law or by July 2nd, 2010. Staff recommendation will be for approval when the City Planning Commission hears Bill No. 100358 at its next meeting scheduled for June 8th, 2010. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for these 103 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. witnesses from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Ms. Webb, I just want to go back on to the two bills relating to 3653 Germantown Avenue. Again, the owner went and did what was advised, hired one of the five appraisers that were recommended by -- I'm not sure if it was the Planning Commission or the Streets Department.

The Streets Department list. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: One individual he contacted was not well, so he narrowed it down to four. He chose one. That appraiser came back with an appraised value for that portion. Is that a negotiable number? Does the owner of the property have the right to get an independent appraiser? How do we handle that?

I'm not sure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is it a 104 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. hard and fast number? I'm just curious.

As far as our Commission goes, I don't know that we really get involved in that number and that process. Overall, we're okay with the concept of the striking and vacating, but the number is not really what we're -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Morelli?

The Streets Department used to have a much lengthier list of appraisers that were approved, and recently we weeded through the list and a lot of them are no longer in business, so that list of five is the remaining approved appraisers for Streets bills. You know, any of the appraisers can give us -- have an appraisal done and that would be acceptable to the Streets Department. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, I'm just curious. I personally think that 105 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. $22,000 for a portion of a sidewalk seems to be somewhat excessive, in my opinion. You could probably buy a vacant lot in that same neighborhood for probably that amount of money or less. I'm not here to negotiate on behalf of the owner, but I'm just, for matter of background, trying to figure out, well, the appraiser goes out, comes up with a number. Is that an -- I mean, do I have, as an owner of a property, do I have the ability to come back with a counteroffer or have an independent appraiser come? I mean, that happens a lot when you do condemnation. One side, the government comes out and condemns. They come up with a number that your property is worth. Another side comes up, and then you hire a person in between that figures it all out and you come up to -- again, I'm not trying to make a bargain out of it. I'm just curious. Is it a hard and fast number or is it something that is negotiable, and who 106 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. would negotiate that?

In the past when a person objected to the value of an appraisal, they've gone to the Law Department and discussed it, worked it out with the Law Department. There's no 8 one in the Streets Department that negotiates the values for property. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, I can't speak on behalf of the owner, but if you did a corporate surety bond and someone is telling me it's ten percent of the value of whatever the cost of construction for the improvement is, you're probably 50 percent already of the 22,000, or maybe more. At that point, I'd say maybe it does pay to do the striking and pay the money. But 22,000 seems to be a little excessive for a 12-foot piece of a sidewalk. The point is, he's expanding an existing business, which means he's putting more tables in, which he's going to hire more people, you know, employ 107 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. more people. I just wonder if it's counterproductive to do it that way. Thank you. You did mention something, though, about a letter of credit?

Yeah. The Law Department sometimes will accept a letter of credit in lieu of a bond to satisfy those requirements. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. On the bill that we just heard, are there any other questions? Anyone else who wishes to testify? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 100366, an ordinance authorizing the striking from City Plan No. 169 and abandoning of a portion of a right-of-way for construction and maintenance of sewer which extends southeastwardly and southwardly from City Avenue, southwest 108 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. of 54th Street, and the plotting on the City Plan of a right-of-way for drainage and sewer purposes in an alternate location east of the said existing right-of-way and authorizing acceptance of the grant to the City of the said proposed right-of-way, under certain terms and conditions.

The Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 100366. This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Eileen Quigley from Ballard and Spahr, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of this ordinance 18 is to authorize the striking from City Plan and abandoning of a portion of a right-of-way for construction and maintenance of a sewer and the plotting on City Plan of a new right-of-way for drainage and sewer purposes in an alternate location east of the right-of-way being stricken. The sewer 109 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. pipe within the existing right-of-way was relocated to the proposed new right-of-way several years ago to accommodate construction of a new building on the St. Joseph's University campus. The required legal agreements necessary to revise the metes and bounds of the right-of-way were not completed at that time. Additional development now proposed for the University campus requires that the agreements now be completed and the new right-of-way be formally granted to the City. The ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am Michelle Webb, City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 100366, 110 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. which was introduced by Councilmember Jones on May 20th, 2010. This ordinance will authorize the striking from City Plan No. 169 and abandoning a portion of a right-of-way for construction and maintenance of a sewer which extends southeastwardly and southwardly from City Avenue, southwest of 54th Street, and the plotting on the City Plan of a right-of-way for drainage and sewer purposes in an alternate location east of the said existing right-of-way and authorize acceptance of the grant to the City of the said proposed right-of-way, under certain terms and conditions. The purpose of this bill is to relocate the lines of a right-of-way for sewer and drainage purposes on the St. Joseph's University campus. A sewer pipe was already located several years ago to accommodate the construction of a new building. This bill will legally move the right-of-way to match the existing 111 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. conditions. Staff recommendation will be approval when the City Planning Commission hears Bill No. 100366 at its next meeting scheduled for June 8th, 2010. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 100376, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City 112 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Plan Nos. 146 and 271 by closing Manderson Street, from Delaware Avenue to Frankford Avenue, to vehicular traffic, placing on the City Plan a certain triangularly-shaped area bounded by Delaware Avenue, Frankford Avenue, and Manderson Street, relocating a portion of the westerly curbline of Frankford Avenue, north of Laurel Street, a variable distance westwardly, and relocating the southwesterly curbline of Laurel Street, from Delaware Avenue to Canal Street, a variable distance northeastwardly and authorizing the opening of the heretofore unopened portion of the intersection of Delaware Avenue, Laurel Street, and Frankford Avenue.

The Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 100376. This is an Administration ordinance requested by Mr. Robert Wright, PE of Urban Engineers, 530 Walnut Street, 113 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. 14th floor, Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of this ordinance 4 is to revise the lines and grades of the intersection of Frankford Avenue, Delaware Avenue and Laurel Street and along a portion of Frankford Avenue to facilitate the installation of trolley tracks along Frankford Avenue, including a passing track and a terminal loop at the said intersection, in order to extend the Girard Avenue Route trolley along 13 Frankford Avenue to Delaware Avenue. 14 This ordinance is supported by 15 the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I'm Michelle Webb, City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 100376, 114 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. which was introduced by Councilmembers Clarke and DiCicco on May 20th, 2010. This ordinance will authorize the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan Nos. 146 and 271 by closing Manderson Street, from Delaware Avenue to Frankford Avenue, to vehicular traffic, placing on the City Plan a certain triangularly-shaped area bounded by Delaware Avenue, Frankford Avenue, and Manderson Street, relocating a portion of the westerly curbline of Frankford Avenue, north of Laurel Street, a variable distance westwardly, and relocating the southwesterly curbline of Laurel Street, from Delaware Avenue to Canal Street, a variable distance northeastwardly and authorizing the opening of the heretofore unopened portion of the intersection of Delaware Avenue, Laurel Street, and Frankford Avenue. The purpose of this action is to facilitate the installation of trolley 115 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. tracks along Frankford Avenue, including a passing track and a terminal loop at the said intersection, in order to extend the Girard Avenue Route trolley along 6 Frankford Avenue to Delaware Avenue. 7 Staff recommendation will be 8 for approval of Bill No. 100376 when the 9 City Planning Commission hears this bill 10 at their meeting scheduled for June 8th, 11 2010. 12 This concludes my testimony. I 13 appreciate the opportunity to appear 14 before you today and would be pleased to 15 answer any questions you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you again for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing 116 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. none, please read the title of the next bill.

Bill No. 100364, an ordinance authorizing the paving of Fourth Street from Westmoreland Street to Ontario Street and Westmoreland Street from Lawrence Street to Fourth Street, under certain terms and conditions.

The Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 100364. This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Ms. Maria N. Gonzalez, Vice-President of Hispanic Association of Contractors and Enterprises, 167 West Allegheny Avenue, Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of this ordinance 20 is to authorize the paving of Fourth Street from Westmoreland Street to Ontario Street and Westmoreland Street from Lawrence Street to Fourth Street. This action is part of an affordable housing development on the abutting land 117 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. consisting of approximately 50 new townhomes. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Morelli from this Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, I believe that concludes, but we will stay in the public hearing. Mr. Blum asked to testify, and there was a young lady who was sitting in the front row. Mr. Blum, you can approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.) 118 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're going to be testifying on Bill No. 4 100213?

Thank you, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Council. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is that correct? Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.

First, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Lew Blum. I'm the owner of Lew Blum Towing Company. I've been in the towing business for 33 years. My family has been in the business since 1930. My grandfather was Lew Smith. My uncle is George Smith. I have a lot of experience in the towing business. I'd like to start off by saying these tickets that we have to put on vehicles, we don't need tickets. I think that all we have to do is take pictures of vehicles. I'd like to show Council my 119 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. pictures, if I may. Now, the pictures that I'm going to show you are going to show vehicles in driveways, vehicles on a parking lot. It will show vehicles parked right in front of the tow signs. What it will also do for us, it will show damages on vehicles, because some people say we do damage their car even though we didn't. I wasn't here at the last hearing, but I did download at least 84 pages of that hearing. Things were said about private tow that I didn't like, and I'd like to talk about it. There's four types of towing that is done in Philadelphia. One type of towing is repossession. That, we don't do. The other type of towing is vehicles that break down, vehicles that need roadside assistance, vehicles that need a battery jump, gas, they locked their keys in their car. We don't do that either. 120 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. There's one more piece of towing in Philadelphia, and that's the rotation. Councilman Rizzo passed a law, and I have that information. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're familiar with the rotation.

Okay. He passed a rotation that allowed tow trucks to be available to go out to all accident scenes. Wherever there's an accident, these guys will respond. Now, you might see tow trucks sitting at 7th and Vine. You might see tow trucks that are sitting at Red Lion and Bustleton. These trucks are on standby for the rotation. They have to be available. When there's an accident, they have to respond. Private tow that tows cars off of private property, the only way private tow can tow cars off of private property are a driveway. We must first get permission from the property owner. Could I show a couple of 121 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. letters from the property owners? Thank you. And what you'll see there, you'll see at the top -- I know I brought some blanks with me. What you'll see at the top, it says "I" with a blank line. That's the property owner's name. And as it goes on, if you read it, it will state that we comply with all rules, regulations, state and local laws. And now you go down to the next line, you'll see three lines there. Those are the designated callers. Those are the people who are allowed to call us only to get cars towed. The only way we'll go out to a private driveway and tow a car is from the property owner or its authorized callers. No one else can tow that car. Tow trucks cannot patrol a driveway. Reason why we can't patrol a driveway, because we don't know who is in that driveway. That could be somebody visiting the house. That could be that the property owner gave that person to 122 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. park in his driveway. So we're not going to tow that car. We're on standby. Ninety-five percent of our business is standby. The pictures that you have there is a picture from a Rite-Aid -- excuse me; from a 7-Eleven at 42nd and Chestnut. The only way we can tow a car from a 7-Eleven at 42nd and Chestnut or any 7-Eleven in Philadelphia, the manager or a representative of that property must call us to tow that car. We can just not go by a 7-Eleven because we see cars on the property and tow it. We must get permission. There was something written in the first hearing about an incident about a Wawa problem with one of the towers where they were sitting across the street and they watched somebody park. There's no way that that towing company would still have the contract with that Wawa if they just picked up that car and drove off with it. And that person who got 123 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. their car towed -- and let's just say if he did do that, Wawa would call that towing company and tell that towing company, Bring that car back, and there'll be no charge. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If I could interrupt.

You sure can, Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I appreciate your testimony so far, but could you tell us what your objection to the bill is?

The objection of the bill is, we don't need to put tickets on vehicles that tow cars. If we take a picture, it will show the car parked illegally. It will show the car blocking the driveway. It will allow the police to still do their job, what they're hired to do, fight crime. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is your objection to the ticketing?

Because the ticket 124 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. is not needed. You don't need a ticket on a vehicle to tow a car. And plus a ticket to me -- I also think that a ticket can also be appealed. You can appeal a ticket, but you're not going to appeal a picture. A picture will speak more words than what a ticket -- more words than you can write on a ticket. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would you be opposed to a ticket and a photograph?

I don't think tickets should be put on cars. I oppose, yes, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You'd be opposed to the ticket and --

I oppose the ticket, not to the picture. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, you're suggesting that the ticket -- or the photograph shows proof that the vehicle was --

Illegally parked. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- illegally parked. Why would you be 125 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. opposed to also being ticketed at the same time?

Well, let's say I have a sign on your property and you call me to tow the car out of your driveway, and we got to sit there and wait because now you want to get out of your driveway or either you want to get into your driveway. You can't get into your driveway until you get a ticket. But if I came out there and took a picture of that vehicle when my tow truck arrived, as quick as I take those pictures and report that vehicle to the Police Department, I can tow that car. So the tow truck will sit, you'll sit, and we'll wait for the police to come out and put a ticket on the vehicle. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you. Sir, I think in the amendment that Councilman Kenney is putting forth 126 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. at the -- well, I'll put forth for him at the meeting, it allows, in circumstances like you just said, for the car to be temporarily relocated until it's determined that the car should be towed. So it would not stop a person from getting out of their driveway, for example.

Okay. Let's say it's your car, Councilman, that I relocate 50 feet away. When you come back to your vehicle, you'll find some kind of damage on that vehicle that I did to your vehicle.

You're supposed to --

This is exactly what happens. That's why we want to take pictures. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But if you tow it to your impoundment lots, what's to suggest that I won't find similar damage there?

I have receipts here 127 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. to show that, and on these receipts, you'll see that we also take Visa MasterCard, and there's times on these receipts that will show that when the vehicle was reported to the Police Department -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm talking about the damages that you say --

We write that down, Councilman. Damage all over the vehicle. We didn't take pictures yet because this gave me the idea, this hearing, gave me the idea to start taking pictures on vehicles. First, because we don't need a ticket, and, second, it's going to show the damage on the vehicle. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I know -- my oldest boy lives in Manhattan and I park in a garage across from his condo, and they physically inspect the car before they park it and would mark on a sheet that has a diagram of a car anywhere where there may be a dent or a scratch, so that I don't put a claim in. 128 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. So, again, I'm still not clear as to why you oppose the ticketing.

Because of the time involved. You got to wait, you got to sit there and wait. And our customers -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Even if it's relocated?

Relocated to where? We can't touch a vehicle -- in the police directive, we can't -- what if that vehicle is stolen? What if that vehicle is involved in a crime, it's got to be held for prints? Before we can take a vehicle, before we can move a vehicle, we have to call the Philadelphia Police Department, give them the vin, the tag, the color, the type, the address, everything where we take this car from. There's three situations where we won't tow a car when we call it into the police. First, the vehicle is stolen. They'll tell us to leave the car alone, don't take that car. Second, if the car is involved in a crime, they'll 129 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. tell us, Do not touch that car. They'll send someone out to get that car. The third thing what will happen is, if the tag don't match or if the vin don't match, Police Radio will tell us not to take that car. The only way we will take that car is if they give us an okay to take it. Once that vehicle is on our hook, we're responsible for that vehicle. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Greenlee.

Just quickly, very quickly, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blum, I'm assuming from what you say, you do things the right way. I think unfortunately the reason for this bill is that there are a lot of tow companies that do not do things properly. Do you acknowledge that there are a lot of cases, do you know of a lot of cases where, not your company but other companies, do things?

No, I don't. 130 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

Well, that's the problem. We do. We have lots and lots of examples of it. So I think that's the reason I think this bill was put in, because there are a lot of instances where tow companies do not do things properly, cars are taken for invalid reasons. And there's enough of those examples that I think a lot of us feel that something has to be done about it. And when those kind of laws are put in, sometimes people that do things the right way have to go through a little bit more inconvenience, but if there's enough evidence that there has been enough violations, then we have to make that judgment whether there's enough of them, and certainly just speaking for myself, I've seen that there is far than enough to make this a valid bill.

Can you tell me what you've seen, Councilman Greenlee? What have you seen that has been wrong, and I'll tell you whether private tow was at 131 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. fault.

I'm sorry. Lots of cases from private lots, from --

Give me an example so I can defend that.

Well, first of all, you just gave an example. You gave one that was in the last hearing, and we hear that kind of case --

I wasn't here, Councilman.

Well, you quoted from a hearing. It was quoted from -- removed from a Wawa.

Oh, yes. Yes.

We hear those kind of cases all the time from private -- from driveways, from private lots, from areas that there should not have been a tow, and all we're saying is that the police -- that a neutral entity should be able to validate that that car should be towed. That's all. 132 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

I think that most of your complaints is not private tow out of these driveways and these corners that you're talking about.

They are.

It's Parking Authority.

No, it's not. No, it's not. Because, first of all -- and, again, we've been here a long time, but the City Controller in his report cited a number of private tow companies who continually violate the law. Not the Parking Authority, the private tow companies.

What is it that they're doing? Tell me what wrong they've done, because you might be -- you might be talking about what they called at one time wreck chasers. We're talking about illegally parked towing only. That's what this bill is all about. That testimony that I read was also about a 125 fee, a $250 wench, the use of a flat 133 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. bed. That is rotation towing. That has nothing to do with parking lot and driveway enforcement. The only way -- I don't know how I can stress this to you. The only way that we can tow a car from anybody's property is that we have to get permission to do it.

If you do it properly. That's the problem. There's a lot of companies that are not doing it properly.

You can't put a sign on anyone's property unless they give you permission to do it. What towers are doing -- and then in the Directive 3 of the Philadelphia Police Department, if a police officer went to that location and saw that there was no sign there and that a towing company towed that car, that towing company's driver would be arrested, the tow truck would be impounded, and the driver would be charged with a third-degree felony of 134 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. theft. The police have a right to investigate. They do investigate. When we have cars on the hook and we're driving down the street, they pull us over.

If they catch them at that time.

No, Councilman. This is just a routine stop. This is just something that the police do. It's in their directive. It gives them the right. If they have suspicion or probable cause, if they see a tow truck going down a street with a vehicle on the hook, they will pull that driver over, they will check all information, and they will make sure that that vehicle is in the police computer and he did not steal that vehicle and the vehicle is not stolen from someplace else.

But, again, I think this bill is trying to stop that before it even gets picked up, 135 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. and that's the idea. I know we're not going to agree on this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me just -- I don't want to belabor this point. There is one other witness and we have to get into the meeting, because there's another hearing coming up. It's scheduled for 3 o'clock. You refer to -- your testimony has been that you can't tow a car unless you have been authorized. Now, this authorization agreement, correct me if I'm wrong, simply states that the owner of the property who signed this agreement authorizes your company to tow cars that may be either blocking their driveway or illegally parked. They don't have to call you.

Yes, they do. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You mean if I own a 7-Eleven, I have to call you to tell you there's a car parked there?

That's right. Council, I'll take a moment, call 4-1-1, 136 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. get the phone number to the 42nd and Walnut to the 7-Eleven, ask for Ali, and ask Ali, how is it that we tow cars. Same thing with Rite-Aid. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're suggesting that a tow truck, whether it's your company or another company, could not just be sitting outside a convenience store that has your sign or another company's sign advising people that you're not to be parked there for more than an hour or whatever, that somebody just couldn't wait there and tow that car?

The only way that car could be towed off of that parking lot and any parking lot in this city are in front of your driveway if my sign was at your property, the only way, and that's what all tows that do illegal park -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The owner has to call you first?

You have to call. 137 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. It's the only way. Ninety-five percent and probably the five percent of the businesses -- a property management company that we tow for at 3300 Powelton, they give us a list, names, tag numbers. Now, this property we do patrol, but the only way we'll tow a car from this property is if the tag is not on this list. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I believe there's one other person to testify. Yes, ma'am.

Can I come up? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, ma'am. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else to testify on this bill? 138 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record.

Okay. Yvonne Randolph. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And then proceed with your testimony. Thank you.

Okay. The testimony is, my car was picked up by a towing service. I was in the post office for about ten minutes, and come back out and my car was gone. There was no sign up there. I always park there. There's no sign up there. And the garage that was -- I was parked by the post office and there's a little slant, and that garage door was closed, nothing was going on. And the guy that took my car charged me $189 for ten minutes, and when I got ready to argue with him a little more, he said if I keep arguing with him, he'll keep my car for more towing service. This is Manton Towing, and he's been 139 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. getting a little reputation up there, you know, where I live, Wadsworth Avenue, 66th and Wyncote there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So you parked your car, you went into the post office?

Mm-hmm. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And a portion of your car was in front of that garage?

Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How long were you in the post office?

Ten minutes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And your car was gone?

Gone when I came out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else to testify? (No response.) 140 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I appreciate you staying and sticking around. That's it. Thank you. This concludes the public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. We will now go into the public meeting. Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 090840. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 090840 be approved. All in favor? (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman 141 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Greenlee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 5 090840, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 13 090840, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor? (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those approved -- those disapproved? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 23 has been approved. Councilman Greenlee on Bill No. 25 100213. 142 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 100213. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 8 100213 -- that the amendment be approved. All in favor? (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 18 100213, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that 143 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Bill No. 100213, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council --

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak on this bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.

Thank you. I just want to, for the record, note that this will be 56,000 times every quarter that a policeman may have to be called to issue a ticket, and I'll be interested to see on a map in a couple quarters where policemen were issuing tickets when major crimes were occurring elsewhere in the district. For this reason, I'll be voting no on this bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 100213, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation 144 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. and that the rules of Council be suspended. All in favor? (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed?

No. 9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: One nay. Councilman Green is voting no. 11 Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the amendment to Bill No. 100306. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 100306 be approved. All in favor? (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The amendment is approved. 145 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. Councilman Greenlee.

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 100306, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 11 100306 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 20 is approved.

I have an objection. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: To?

I'd like to separately discuss 100015 and 100359, if 146 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. you could leave those out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I could be wrong, but the discussion is over, right? We're in the meeting. You can vote up or down.

Right. But are we not going to call these bills separately? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, we could call them separately or we can call them all and you can say "with the exception of Bill No." whatever you're voting no. 15

With those two bills, I'd like to call them separately and then consolidate the rest. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the following bills be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council: Bill Nos. 090466, 147 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. 090839, 090880, 090906, 090907, 100015 --

No. 4

I'm sorry. Amend that. That's out. (Continued) -- 100266, 100285, 100310, 100312, 100358, 100364, 100366, 100370, 100371 and 100376. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that all the bills that have just been read into the record be approved, with a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All those bills have been approved. Councilman Greenlee.

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 100015 148 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak on this bill. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Speak? I don't know what the procedure is, to be honest with you. I thought the hearing was over.

The hearing is over, but I can speak before we vote on a matter. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're the lawyer, so I'll yield to you.

The Streets Department and the Planning Commission's testimony on this bill was that they were opposed to this bill. The major reason they are opposed to this bill is because unlike every other encroachment, 149 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. including the encroachments that we allowed for the Oak Lane Diner today, this bill does not contain a surety clause which indemnifies the City in the event that somebody is injured, there are utilities people have to get to, et cetera. So I would ask my colleagues to not report this bill out of Committee unless we amend it to include those clauses. I'm perfectly happy to take 30 seconds or five minutes, whatever it takes, to put in the surety clauses that were read to us by the Streets Department that they would normally get under these circumstances, but I do not think we should pass a bill out of committee that does not contain a surety for the City of Philadelphia in the event something happens on this property. And it is their testimony that we do not ever allow encroachments without a surety, including for sidewalk cafes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It is also their testimony that in lieu of a surety 150 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. bond, a letter of credit has been acceptable. I'm not the author of the bill. I would ask that the bill -- I'm going to call the bill out for a vote. Any amendments that the sponsor of the bill 8 would deem appropriate, I'm sure we can take up between now and the time the bill 10 comes up for final vote.

Councilman, if we could have a colloquy, please. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And it has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 100015 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor? (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed?

No. 24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let the record reflect that Councilman Green is 151 6/2/10 - STREETS - BILL 090466, etc. voting no. 3 And Bill No. 100359 is being held at the call of the Chair. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. Thank you all for attending. (Committee on Streets and Services concluded at 3:35 p.m.) - - - 152 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on June 2, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. -------------------- MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)