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.
No, no change. That's the survey. The reason they wanted it --
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 --
Well, you quoted from a hearing. It was quoted from -- removed from a Wawa.
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.
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.
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?
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'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 --
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.)