Committee Hearing, October 27, 2009

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:30 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ, CHAIR COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILL 090568 - An ordinance amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code"... BILL 090581 - An ordinance amending Chapter 9-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Carriers"... BILL 090590 - An ordinance amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, Subcode "PM" (The Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code)... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2

Good morning, everyone. The Committee on L&I will now be in session. I want to, for the record, note that Councilman Jim Kenney and Frank DiCicco have been appointed to this committee for the purposes of this hearing, and to my left is Councilman Greenlee and Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown. Bill 090590 will be held at the call of the sponsor. So if the Clerk will read Bill 090581.

Bill 090581, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Carriers," by adding a new Section 9-410, entitled "Pedicabs," to provide for the licensing and regulation of businesses operating Pedicabs for hire, and setting forth rules of operation; all under certain terms and conditions.

And the first presenters on the bill will be Mr. Steve Buckley, Deputy Commissioner of 3 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Streets. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning. Before you start your testimony, we'll allow opening remarks from the sponsor, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown.

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, members of the Committee and guests. Let me first thank the members of the Committee today for their attention to the creation of a pedicab business or pedicab businesses here in Philadelphia through the passage of Bill No. 090581. This matter raised my interest and that of my co-sponsor, Councilman Jones, through a number of different channels. First, we recognize that with the creation of a pedicab industry, we will be creating new jobs and businesses in Philadelphia, which is always a goal and interest of this Council. Not only 4 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. will we be creating new jobs with a new tax base, but they will be classified as green jobs, thus not adding to the carbon footprint of our city. Given Philadelphia's rich cluster of cultural locations, it is likely that approved routes will be in tourist areas that allow for a quick, inexpensive and fun way for visitors to view and see our city. Pedicabs have been known to add to the charm of cities where they are currently operating. They have also been known to complement -- I underscore the word "complement" -- other modes of transportation, and one of our testifiers today will share their experiences in working with and improving business for taxicabs in a nearby town. So I'm hopeful that Philadelphia will join other United States cities that have regulated pedicabs, "regulated" being the most important word here, cities like Boston, 5 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Miami and Seattle, to name others, and I'm hopeful that Philadelphia will move from the column of those few cities that do not have pedicabs at all. In the end, the goal is for Philadelphia to be more sustainable and a tourist-friendly city with this structure in place for pedicabs that the Streets Department will create. Please let me thank the Streets Department, the Mayor's Office of Transportation and the Law Department for their tireless work with my office and for your valuable input in creating this comprehensive bill we will see and consider today. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, for consideration of this legislation and hope for your needed support at the conclusion of this hearing. Thank you.

Thank 6 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. you, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown. So we'll begin with Steve Buckley and then we'll have Ben and Tom Dambman, and Ronn Ash will be our next panel and then John Boyle and Russell Meddin. Anybody else who is here and wants to testify on behalf of this bill, please let us know. Otherwise, that is the order we will follow. So good morning. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Good morning. My name is Steve Buckley. I'm Deputy Commissioner for Transportation in the Streets Department. Good morning, Chairwoman Quinones-Sanchez and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Steve Buckley and I am Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Streets. I am here today to offer testimony on Bill 090581. This bill 7 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. amends Chapter 9-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Carriers," by adding a new Section 9-410, entitled "Pedicabs," to provide for the licensing and regulation of businesses operating pedicabs for hire, and setting forth rules of operations. Under this bill, the Streets Department is asking to manage the licensing of pedicabs and oversee the approval of where and when pedicabs can operate. This bill also grants the ability for the Police and any other official who is authorized to issue code violation notices. The Streets Department supports efforts to expand safe and efficient transportation options for residents and visitors. The Administration supports the framework proposed in this bill to license and regulate pedicabs. Based on the experiences of other cities, the crucial element of a regulatory framework are licensing, safety, insurance and the 8 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. time and place of operation. This legislation addresses those elements. In implementing this legislation, the Streets Department will seek to ensure the safety of all users of the transportation system. The maintenance of efficient traffic flows will be given the highest priority in assessing approval of normal and special routes, as well as times of operation. We have been actively working with Council on drafting mutually acceptable legislation. Our primary goal has been to assist in crafting legislation that does not put the public at safety risk or the City at legal risk. Unfortunately, since this is an entirely new issue for us, we continue to work through several small issues. By City Code, pedicabs will not be permitted to operate on sidewalks. Regarding the approval of routes on side paths and/or trails, the Streets Department will consult with the 9 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Department of Parks and Recreation. In light of our current budget issues and due to the fact that we do not have a good sense of the demand for licensing, we are concerned that the $100 application fee and the $200 license fee for the first pedicab and $100 for each additional pedicab will not generate sufficient revenue to support the Administration of this program. Furthermore, we respectfully request the opportunity to work with Council staff to resolve the issues below. We suggest that this legislation includes mandating that helmets be available for use by all pedicab passengers, as state law requires helmets for children on cycles; establishing maximum widths for pedicabs to ensure that they do not impact adjacent travel lanes; requiring an annual safety report by the licensee to ensure ongoing safety of the industry; requiring licensees to forward copies of police reports of all 10 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. traffic crashes to the Streets Department within two weeks of a crash; and permitting the Streets Department to revoke an operator's license for repeated violations of their permit. Again, since this is a new type of industry for Philadelphia, we would like to work with Council staff to assess these operations once a full season of operations is completed.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

Thank you. I recognize Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown. Oh, Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Mr. Buckley. Just a couple of quick questions. I know you alluded in your testimony that you 11 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. don't know how many might apply. Has there been any rough idea how many like ideally that would work out there on the streets? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: One of the main companies that have been pursuing this foresees up to pedicabs 9 out there. 10

Twenty? 11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: 12 And we don't know if there are more 13 businesses out there that may be 14 interested in operating at this time, but 15 we figure it will likely not rev up to 20 16 immediately, so there will be some time 17 to assess the impacts. 18

And I 19 think Councilwoman Brown had said that 20 you're ideally looking at mostly in the tourist areas? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: I guess our primary concern would be -- we suspect that this will be primarily attractive for tourists and visitors, but 12 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. that does not mean that residents won't choose to use it as well.

Right. And, lastly, as far as the streets are going to be on it, will there just be designated streets that they can go on, or maybe you haven't figured all that out yet. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Within the language of the bill, it grants the right to the Streets Department to regulate which streets each operator can operate on. So it may be that they come to us and ask for a certain neighborhood or a certain area and we would likely confine their permit to that operation, but we would be willing to work with them if there are other locations that they would like to build into their permits.

So you're still sort of working that out? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Yes. 13 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc.

That makes sense. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Councilwoman Reynolds Brown.

Thank you. Good morning. For clarity purposes for my colleague, the language of the bill was specifically written so that District Councilmembers would have an opportunity for input, because you may have business corridors or cultural corridors that would be quite appropriate for this type of transportation. So I need to stipulate that provision in the bill. Additionally, of the matters that you raise, again for clarity, after a year of operation, it's understood that you'll report back letting us know what the experience has been so we can look to see where we need to make changes in the regulation of the bill, correct? 14 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Yes, ma'am.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to concur that this bill specifically allows District people to evaluate how those routes work out. In the case of the 4th District, we're looking at the Centennial District where we are trying to kind of encourage a non-vehicular, pedestrian-friendly kind of environment, particularly in the area between the Zoo to the Mann Music Center. And so you have thoroughfares that are really conducive for that in the Parkside area, but we want to take a look at what it does to traffic patterns over a period of a year. In the case of Main Street, 15 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. we're a little more cautious, because we're not talking about major thoroughfares that are wide enough and that we want to really see how it impacts on the traffic, but I think the way the bill is designed, it allows us to monitor that and make adjustments. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Yes, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Again, I want to say a huge thank-you to the leadership and to you at the Streets Department. Your input is valuable as we attempt to roll this out and do it in a way that's correct on the front end versus rolling it out and having no input from the departments that will ultimately be responsible for the administration. So thanks again. 16 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Thank you. We're happy to work with your staff.

Thank you. If you can hang in here with us until we finish the two other panels, I would appreciate that. Ben and Tom Dambman. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Thank you.

And Ronn Ash, if you could come up to the witness table. And then as I mentioned before, John Boyle and Russell Meddin. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning. Identify yourself for the record and you may proceed.

Good morning. My name is Ben Dambman.

And Thomas Dambman.

My brother 17 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Tom. We wanted to thank you really for everyone's work that's gone into creating this ordinance, and we're just thrilled that it's gotten the attention of the City and City Council and everyone here. So we really appreciate all the work that's gone into it. And this is something that we've been working on for quite a few years and really happy to see that we have a lot of support. My brother Tom and I grew up in the neighborhood of Roxborough. We both still live in Philadelphia. To the best of our knowledge, we were the first to introduce pedicabs to the City when we started Chariots of Philly in Manayunk in 2003. We're thrilled that the City Council Members Blondell Reynolds Brown and Curtis Jones, Jr. have introduced this ordinance, which will provide for a safely operated pedicab industry and are here to give our support. We operated in Manayunk for a 18 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. few years with the support of local residents, business owners and visitors. In the fall of 2006, after trying to expand to new parts of the City, we received a cease operations order from the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which we appealed in the Court of Common Pleas. After a few hearings, a decision to overturn the cease operations order was put on hold pending the adoption of an ordinance by City Council that regulates the pedicab industry. Pedicabs are operated and regulated in almost every major city in the U.S., which Councilwoman Reynolds Brown mentioned earlier. There are few cities that remain without them, including Philadelphia. This is despite the fact that we, as well as at least five other companies or individuals that we are aware of, have tried to introduce them to Philadelphia. Pedicabs are an environmentally 19 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. friendly, affordable means of short distance transportation that's fun and memorable. They offer a green mode of transportation that does not compete with other means of transportation in the City directly. Pedicabs don't compete directly with motorized taxicabs, because most rides with a pedicab would be a very short distance, either to get somewhere quickly, but probably more for the thrill of it or just the memory that it creates and a few blocks long. Taxis prefer to take longer rides because of the low fare with short rides a few blocks long. Also, tour operators we do not compete with. We're not looking to start a tour business with pedicabs. It's just simply, like we said, a means of short distance transportation. We believe the two major reasons for City Council to adopt this ordinance are, number one, pedicabs will show the world that Philadelphia is serious in its efforts to become the next 20 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. great city. And, number two, pedicab businesses will provide not just jobs, but green job opportunities to City residents. Our business plan alone provides or more full-time pedicab 7 rider positions by this coming spring. 8 So we'd like to thank you for 9 your support of this ordinance that will 10 attract more visitors to Philadelphia and 11 make it a greater and greener city in 12 which to live and work. 13

Any 14 questions of this witness? 15 Councilwoman Brown. 16

Let me 17 comment. We thank you for bringing your 18 experience to the table, business owners 19 who have a rich history already in what's 20 doable and possible with this new industry. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councilman Curtis Jones. 21 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc.

Just for the record, you said you grew up in what neighborhood?

Roxborough.

And where would that be?

You're an expert on that.

In the 4th District.

Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen. John Boyle and Russell Meddin, if you're in. Ronn Ash, I'm sorry. You can come to the witness table together. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

We do have a copy of Mr. Ash's testimony, so that will be added to the record. I don't know if you want to summarize that presentation. 22 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc.

Yeah. There's a slight revision. Good morning, everyone, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. I am Ronn Ash, founder and operator of Velo-Park. I am here to introduce the Committee to Velo-Park cabs and support Bill No. 090581. Before I begin my testimony, I would like to thank the Streets Department for working with me to secure the required permits to demonstrate Velo-Park cabs at special events and festivals held in the City over the last year. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown and Councilman Curtis Jones and their respective staff, thank you for sponsoring this bill. Growing up in Southwest Philadelphia, I would often bike to two historical treasures in our city, which at the time were unrecognized and underappreciated - Fort Mifflin and Bartram's Garden. As a former General 23 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Manager of Chamounix Mansion Hostel in Fairmount Park, whose founding members were promoting urban cycling and environmental practices back in the 1960s, I became increasingly involved with Fairmount Park and historic preservation, the developments in tourism and hospitality in our city and urban cycling and the environment. While Director of Visitor Services at the Independence Seaport Museum during a challenging time a few years ago, I worked to redefine the Museum to the local community, restructure operations and increase attendance. For years now, I have found meaningful work in assisting non-profit organizations to reach their potential, to connect our residents and those visiting our great city to unique places while raising awareness about environmental concerns. After spending significant time in Copenhagen, one of the most progressive bicycle cultures in the 24 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. world, I began research in 2007 regarding the history of pedicabs in Philadelphia and other cities, evaluating pedicab manufacturers, reading numerous strategic plans prepared by the City, by our tourism and hospitality community and neighborhood business associations. In addition to all the well-documented attributes of pedicabs and the safety statistics, it was easily apparent that pedicabs could also contribute to helping these organizations and local businesses to achieve their goals and objectives by providing an enhancement to transportation in our cultural and historic districts and by promoting the Philadelphia brand. More importantly, I believe pedicabs help define a growing Philadelphia for ourselves and those visiting our Greene Country Towne through providing its residents with an alternative, emission-free transportation option and by extending a service that the rest of the world has come to expect 25 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. while visiting abroad. With the election of Mayor Michael Nutter, I was confident the timing was appropriate to reach out to City officials in an effort to revisit the ordinance of 2006 prohibiting pedalcycles. After meeting with and touring the manufacturing facility of Veloform in Berlin, the creator of the City Cruiser pedicab, Velo-Park was formed as a limited liability company in August 2008. With the aim to establish a triple-bottom-line business centered on working to contribute to a more sustainable and bike-friendly city through promoting urban environmentalism and encouraging foot traffic to assist in creating pedestrian-friendly zones, Velo-Park will provide an emissions-free transportation alternative and a novel option for touring Philadelphia. Velo-Park seeks to promote both the cultural integrity and the diversity of the City while at the same time 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. supporting the Administration's green agenda and creating green-collar employment. My outreach effort to City officials, GPTMC, PCVB, the Parkway Council Foundation, Center City District and others has led me to introducing Velo-Park cabs at the grand opening of the Please Touch Museum.

I had the privilege of providing Mayor Nutter and Nancy Kolb with their first pedicab experience. Velo-Park also recently provided a complimentary shuttle service for the Live Arts Festival and Philly Fringe this year. Based on everyone's reactions, including the positive response we received from taxi drivers, there is a high expectation to see Velo-Park cabs in full operation. Veloform GbmH is the manufacturer of City Cruiser I and II. They are popular and successful, easy to use and a fun human-powered tricycle. They combine gear transmission with an 27 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. electric assist, making it a comfortable driving experience. The rear seat of the cabin provides room for two to three passengers with small luggage. To ensure full safety, all vehicles have been registered by DEKRA, the German Automobile Monitoring Association, thereby providing its operational integrity. Both vehicles are DEKRA and TUV certified in Germany and the only vehicles of their category anywhere in the world to be awarded such certification for operation on all public roads. The City Cruiser is classified as a cycle in Germany and many other countries due to the motor assist, which falls under the category of an acceleration aid, as it does not function without pedaling. The electric assist innovation is integrated in the front wheel hub. A twist grip works at full capacity to operate the motor until the vehicle reaches a speed of about nine miles per 28 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. hour. Propulsion is then increasingly taken over by the rider. On average, the assist adds 50 percent of the power needed to move the vehicle forward from a dead stop. The electric assist will switch off when top speed is reached. Therefore, the City Cruiser falls under the category of an electric-assisted bicycle. The two 12-volt lead-gel batteries are not classified as dangerous goods and can be charged with a special charger that is plugged into the usual 220-volt socket, much like a cell phone. The capacity of the batteries largely depends on how extensively they are used. Experienced drivers can get through their eight-hour shift without any battery power at all. Generally speaking, the electric assist should be used economically, perhaps only when driving slightly uphill or to get support when starting with passengers in their rear. 29 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. The cabin is made of 100 percent recyclable polyethylene. The cabin can be used as advertisement space by covering the whole surface or parts of it with standard high-quality graphic wrap such as 3M Controltac or similar product. Veloform products have a strategic advantage due to its striking design and the safety and security it provides the driver and passengers. Known as a "velo," City Cruisers operate successfully in countries and 35 15 cities worldwide. In addition to 16 Montreal and Toronto, Veloform's 17 innovative pedicabs are only present in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Detroit, Denver, Miami, Boston and Boise. Despite its electric assist, the Federal Ministry of Transport classifies the City Cruisers as a regular bicycle in Germany. The Berlin operation was given a permanent special license by 30 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. the Berlin Senate. The City Cruiser is thus allowed to drive on the same routes as regular bicycles, on bus lanes, on cycling lanes and in the parks. City Cruiser operators required an exemption from an ordinance forbidding the offering of goods of all kinds in the streets that could distract motorists and cyclists in a dangerous way. In some cities like Milan where bicycles are not as common and cars still have priority, the authorities have been much more in favor of allowing the City Cruiser in the pedestrian zones.

Given its successful presence worldwide and the enthusiastic response Velo-Park cabs have received thus far, it seems highly likely that Philadelphians will embrace these pedicabs on the streets of the City. Regarding Bill 090581, I am sure in the subsequent discussions and meetings with the Streets Department and the members of City Council, we will have 31 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. the opportunity to address specifics regarding the bill, the application process and operations. However, I would like to make a few suggestions and recommendations regarding certain proposed amendments. (1)(a) Pedicab - a pedalcycle with three or more wheels, propelled solely by human power, constructed and operated to transport passengers for hire. " It is my understanding that this was amended just recently.

It will be.

It will be, okay. (3)(a) - The licensee shall maintain liability and workers' compensation insurance in the amount determined by the Risk Manager. I suggest that the language be amended to 32 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. reflect that the operator is not required to possess workers' compensation when using independent contractors. For pedicab routes and hours of operation, I recommend that prohibiting pedicabs from park drives, bridges and other streets limits the movement of pedicabs severely, thus compromising their use. It also sets a precedent for a future restriction on the movement of human-powered vehicles. Therefore, I'd like to strongly recommend that normal and special routes or any limit to the hours of operation be removed from the bill or redefined. If they must remain, that this requirement pertains only to pedicabs operating in the historic district as sightseeing vehicles. Philadelphia is a desirable location for pedicabs due to its reasonably short distance between points of interest, the terrain is relatively gentle and there are multiple zones in need of transport augmentation. 33 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Human-powered transportation that reduces gas consumption and problems related to climate change must be included as part of a set of transport options for commuting, errands, outings, tours and commercial use. We simply cannot be the greenest city in America without pedicabs. By making pedicabs available to people who make conscious choices regarding how they purchase goods and services, pedicabs fill a void and enhance the City's transportation system by providing an eco-friendly mode of transport. As an intelligent alternative, this model for urban mobility encourages people to evaluate the carbon footprint they leave behind, thus contributing to the decrease of negative impacts on our environment. While there is certainly a need to recognize pedicabs by legislating enforceable and fair regulations, there is no need to restrict where and when 34 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. they may operate. Pedicabs do not have a negative effect on the City, traffic or taxi service, public safety, the economy and the environment or on public health. In fact, pedicabs improve these things and the lifestyles of our citizens. Any laws, rules or regulations imposed on pedicab businesses should encourage their use and not limit it. Velo-Park is committed to contributing to building a social, eco-friendly and financially sustainable environment that enhances local alliances and creates strategic partnerships. Be assured, Velo-Park pledges to provide safe, insured, skilled, accountable and high-quality pedicab services. Our pedicab drivers will be selected to fit the model of a city ambassador - personable, enthusiastic, environmentally sensitive and knowledgeable about Philadelphia, our history as well as our future. Policies and procedures, 35 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. training and best practices will be implemented and monitored as we will strive to improve our operation and the services we provide to the residents of Philadelphia and tourists alike. I am looking forward to continued discussions with the City Council members and the Streets Department to develop regulations that are consistent with the everyday, on-the-street working conditions of the pedicab industry to ensure a high level of public safety and service while not overburdening pedicab owners and drivers with restrictive rules. I am confident we can learn from how other cities have implemented pedicabs and that pedicabs in Philadelphia will be a welcomed addition to our city's offerings and will enhance the urban landscape of our city. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to present my opportunity today. I'm happy to answer any questions. 36 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc.

Thank you. We're going to hear the rest of the testimony and then we'll ask questions of all our panelists. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is John Boyle. I am the Advocacy Director for the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, and I would like to thank City Council for introducing this legislation. The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia supports the legalization of pedicabs in Philadelphia, as we have seen several bike cab operators start up and fail due to lack of clarity in the law regarding their operation. Bike cabs are city-friendly, pollution-free vehicles, and the trade is in line with the goals of the City's sustainability plan of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by the year 2015. In the same way that SEPTA has added hybrid buses to its 37 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. fleet, we hope that other modes of transportation in Philadelphia work towards reducing emissions for the clean air and to reduce the negative effect of greenhouse gases. Allowing bike cab companies to operate will create green jobs in the City and will boost Philadelphia's growing reputation as a city with an environmentally sustainable economy. In May 2009, the City of Philadelphia was awarded a bronze-level bicycle-friendly community by the League of American Bicyclists, the first award in Pennsylvania. The acceptance of bicycle cabs moves forward our goals to make Philadelphia a platinum-level bicycle-friendly community by 2012. More human-powered vehicles such as bike cabs will raise awareness of bicyclists sharing the road. Studies have shown as bicycle traffic doubles, then the risk of individual bicyclists decreases by a third. This "safety in 38 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. numbers" theory also applies to pedestrians. We support the regulation of this industry that drivers are licensed or certified by completing a road cycling safety course conducted by trainers certified by the League of American Bicyclists. While we understand the specification of a Pennsylvania driver's license, we believe that out-of-state licenses should be accepted to allow non-residents or new residents to gain employment. The Bicycle Coalition does not object to regulating bike cabs by route, but we believe that they should have the freedom to take people to their final destination, as this will impact the operator's ability to garner customers. The process for applying to operate for special events should be simple and one that does not discourage potential companies from applying. Bike cabs are good for the 39 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. environment and the health and quality of life of Philadelphians. They help residents and tourists quickly get where they need to go without increasing air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. We hope that City Council and L&I will continue to work with bike cab operators and advocates to promulgate regulations to help establish and legitimize this growing trade. Thank you.

We have one more testimony. Mr. Meddin came in, and then we'll ask questions. I'm sorry. Before we proceed with your testimony, Councilman Green has a question for the Streets Department.

Well, it's not for the Streets Department. It's based on the last testimony. And it's not really even a question. It's just a statement. I have to leave, and I apologize. And that statement is: I don't think we should be authorizing 40 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. pedicabs without requiring workers' compensation. In other words, I do not think that if you have -- whether you call them independent contractors, if the person does not own the pedicab, they are basically a part-time employee or an employee. They are not going to be independent contractors under state law. And you can try to characterize them that way to avoid expense, but these people will be doing a job that requires physical activity and they should have workers' compensation insurance in case something happens to them, they pull a hamstring, other things. You'd otherwise be creating a situation where the taxpayers potentially are picking up the healthcare costs for these independent contractors. I don't think that that's appropriate, and I just want to put that on the record. Thank you.

Thank you. 41 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Mr. Meddin.

Good morning, Councilmembers. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. My name is Russell Meddin. I'm the founder of Bike Share Philadelphia. My organization is trying to persuade the City of Philadelphia to join the 120 other cities and bring ecologically sound public-use bicycling or bike sharing to its citizens. These programs are considered truly green forms of public transportation. I'm sure Councilman Green and Councilman Greenlee like to hear the word "green" when we speak here. Today, you're considering another form of green transportation, non-polluting bike cabs or pedicabs. I ask that you favorably support this ordinance and not limit the routes of operation for these people-powered vehicles. Let the residents of our city have the opportunity to choose an ecological, sound form of transportation 42 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. to go where they need to go. Let our beloved tourists enjoy our historical Philadelphia with the opportunity to choose an ecological and sound form of transportation. This is a great opportunity for the City of Philadelphia to bring something new, and I think it would be really wonderful if City Council were to pass this ordinance. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown.

Councilman Bill Green raises an important question, and we're commiserating up here to make sure we address that. Now, for the record, we should indicate that on of the bill, No. 23 3, small letter (a), it reads, "The licensee shall maintain liability and workmen's compensation insurance in an 43 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. amount determined by the Risk Manager." So we need to stipulate that for the record. And, Mr. Ash, thank you for your very comprehensive testimony. On the page that stipulates other cities that have this particular mode of transportation.

Yes.

We're in the business of making no assumptions. Are these in these cities the Velo Cab -- is that the correct pronunciation? Are they regulated? Are they regulated?

Some of them are. Some cities they are.

Okay, then. Because I know in Detroit, where I was first captured by this mode of transportation a year ago, I discovered that though they have them in New York, they are not regulated in New York. That's actually pending. Is that your understanding as well? 44 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc.

Yes.

Very well. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you. Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Madam Chair. By way of special permits for special events, can we talk about that. Is there -- I mean, I've been to enough special events and, in fact, participate in them with -- there's some density issues. Is there a maximum/minimum kind of special events where pedicabs make sense or whether they don't, or are you saying that catchall they can accommodate anything? When I went to Welcome America, I mean, there wasn't much room to navigate on foot more or less with a pedicab. Is there a threshold that we should really consider this or should we 45 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. just go as is?

Point of information, Madam Chair. We may want to invite up the Streets Department, and that may be an item we need to look at, evaluate over the next year and report back. Could we please have the Streets Department comment, if you would.

I just want to recognize that Councilwoman Joan Krajewski has joined us. (Witness approached witness table.) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Once again, Steve Buckley, Deputy Commissioner, Streets Department. I think that there are times and locations where we think that this would definitely be problematic, both from an operational and a safety standpoint. Operating pedicabs on the Parkway during Welcome America might not be the best environment to do that. However, I, who live in East Falls, know 46 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. that they also close down Kelly Drive as part of that and I see lots of people walking at three miles down there. So when it's closed down or partially closed down, that might be an opportunity during a special event where we would grant a special permit for operations that we think would be both safe and --

So to speak to my colleague's point, we will monitor this over the next year to try to gauge where it makes sense, when maybe a permit that is printed out that says that it's going to be a million people at the Phillies parade, that maybe we might not want to do that there, but we will look to your guidance and feedback from the respective companies to say how we can manage this and at what thresholds on a permit per se these kind of activities make sense. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: For the time being, I agree. We'll have to rely on our judgment and we will 47 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. evaluate whether or not things seem to be working.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Councilman Jones, are you projecting a win?

Freudian.

Streets Department, for the record, there are members of the Committee, including me, where we want to have input every single step of the way on the regulations and a report back prior to the next public hearing a year from now on this issue. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: Yes, ma'am.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this bill? Any other questions? (No response.)

Thank 48 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. you, gentlemen. So if the Clerk will read the next bill, 090568.

Bill 090568, an ordinance amending Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code," by amending Subcode "PM," by requiring the periodic inspection of the exterior walls and appurtenances of certain buildings, the filing of reports of such inspections, and the repair and maintenance of certain conditions discovered during such inspections, all under certain terms and conditions.

Thank you. I want to recognize the sponsor of this bill for some opening remarks as we discuss this very important topic. So Councilman Kenney.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity, but 49 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. I don't have any opening remarks. We can just get started.

We want to get started. Great. For the record, we have Otis Haigler from the Department of Licenses and Inspections, then we will have Donald Haas and Jonathan Memmel, in that order. (Witness approached witness table.)

Thank you. Proceed with your testimony.

Good morning, Chairwoman Sanchez 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 090568, which, if enacted, will amend the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code to create a new section 23 for the purposes of regulating the inspection and maintenance of building facades in the City. 50 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. As a department with a mission dedicated to public safety, we support the enactment of this bill and the technical amendments that will be offered by the co-sponsors, Councilmen DiCicco and Kenney. L&I has worked cooperatively with both offices with regard to the proposed bill and will continue to do so during the implementation phases of the bill once it has been enacted. Current provisions of the Property Maintenance Code require that all exterior parts of a structure must be maintained by property owners in accordance with minimum requirements for building maintenance and safety. The proposed bill will specifically require that the exterior facades of all buildings located within designated areas of the City, other than a one- or two-family dwelling up to two stories in height, must be inspected at prescribed intervals by either a registered structural engineer or 51 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. architect of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that is hired by the property owner. In addition, where deficiencies are found in facades which result in a declaration of unsafe, steps must be taken within hours by the property 9 owner to ensure the protection of the 10 public and notify the Department of the 11 unsafe condition for follow-up 12 enforcement and monitoring. The report 13 that is submitted by the engineer or 14 architect must also include 15 recommendations for how the facade can be 16 made safe and a timeframe for when work 17 to make the corrections will begin and be 18 completed. All work to correct an unsafe 19 condition must commence within ten days 20 of the filing of the report and continue 21 progressively until completed. 22 Finally, the building owner 23 will be required to retain copies of all 24 inspection reports on site and make such reports available for future inspection 52 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. and review upon request of Department personnel or other City agencies charged with public safety. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony on this bill. Now I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions from the Committee? (No response.)

Thank you. I'll ask that you hang in there with us until the rest of the testimony.

Sure.

Mr. Donald Haas. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Don Haas. I am the Operations Manager for the Bell Atlantic Tower, a 53-story high-rise building 53 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. located in Center City. I am also presently the current Chair of the Building Owners' and Managers' Association of Philadelphia, commonly referred to as BOMA Philadelphia. I would like to thank Councilmember Quinones-Sanchez and the Committee on Licenses and Inspections for this opportunity to testify on Ordinance 11 No. 090568. We also appreciate the efforts of Sarah Sachdev from Councilmember Kenney's office and Brian Abernathy from Councilmember DiCicco's office to meet with BOMA representatives and listen to our concerns regarding this ordinance. While BOMA heartily supports the public safety concerns of the bill's sponsors, there are nevertheless some points that we would like to bring before the Committee. By means of background, BOMA is a non-profit organization whose members provide, within the City limits alone, over 51 million square feet of office 54 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. space for over a half million office workers. Member buildings include virtually all the major high-rise towers in the City, including One and Two Liberty Place, Commerce Square, Comcast Center, Bell Atlantic Tower and Mellon Bank Center, just to name a few. Our member buildings not only define the City skyline and add character to the City, but they are also a tremendous economic driver for the region. 7 billion. This translates into real estate tax revenues of approximately $250 million per year. 16 billion annually. Total tax revenues received by the City from BOMA-member buildings and 55 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. 3 billion each year. Our industry and tenants, as a whole, represent 70 percent of the tax base to the City of Philadelphia. I would like to reiterate that public safety is the utmost importance to BOMA and its member buildings. As a civic-minded organization, BOMA stands ready to endorse and promote those courses of action that will help create and maintain a safe, positive and forward-looking environment throughout the City and the Greater Philadelphia region. Building owners and managers are, by their nature, concerned with maintaining the structural integrity of their assets. The buildings are our livelihood. It's to our advantage, economic and otherwise, to keep the buildings well maintained. Indeed, a variety of means already exist for ensuring the safety of high-rise buildings and their facades, including 56 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. insurance inspections and routine maintenance inspections by building staff. By and large, our members subscribe to the "front page theory," taking proactive and prudent measures to avoid being on the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer or the Daily News. Upon review of Bill 090568, it is BOMA's conclusion that the bill, as written, targets BOMA-member buildings, which do not tend to present the safety issues which the proposed bill attempts to address, while permitting those buildings throughout the City which pose the greatest risks to escape detection and remediation, and will have a tremendous economic impact on businesses, large and small. Thus, the proposed ordinance, as written, fails to achieve its safety goals while adversely impacting all businesses in the heart of the City's economic body. Again, while BOMA does not consider such an ordinance to be 57 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. necessary for owners of high-rise buildings, we applaud the City's efforts to protect the public. Our members take life safety and public well-being to heart. The track record of BOMA-member buildings and a majority of the City's commercial high-rise stock speaks volumes in this regard. Outside of some minor structural issues with the bill as drafted, BOMA has three major concerns associated with the ordinance. First is the lack of a uniform application throughout the City.

Second is the aggressive timetable associated with remedial action, and last, but not least, is the lack of a corresponding appeal process. Let me first address the issue of geographical boundaries. From BOMA's perspective, safety knows no boundaries. As currently written, the ordinance fails to list the specific areas of the City that will be governed by its provisions. 58 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Gerrymandering should not be a method of establishing affected buildings. No 4 political body should be in the business of picking winners and losers when it comes to public safety. To achieve the ordinance's safety goal, the ordinance 8 should apply citywide and to all buildings two stories or higher, not including one- and two-story single-family homes. No other major American city which has an ordinance like the one under consideration excludes any areas from coverage. This is not a central business district issue. To select particular areas for enforcement completely dilutes the intent of this legislation; namely, public safety. If safety is important in Center City, then it is also important in the neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia. Citizens in the Northeast, Germantown, Mayfair, up and down North and South Broad, as well as University City are entitled to the same public 59 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. safety concern as those in Center City. Again, safety knows no boundaries. The ordinance lists specific criteria for inspection. These criteria need to be enforced citywide. If not citywide, on that basis, and that basis alone, this bill is seriously flawed and may be open to a constitutional challenge. Again, to be clear, BOMA agrees that the height qualification for application should be all buildings located in the City which are two stories or more. Additionally, with regards to the defined areas governed by this bill, it should be noted that the cost impact of compliance is going to be tremendous. While a value can't be placed on public safety, this legislative body needs to be mindful of keeping all areas and sections of the City on a competitively even keel. According to BOMA's estimates, the compliance costs associated with this bill, while already substantial, is 60 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. incalculable without a fully defined affected building's scope. It will impact building at both building owners and their occupants, big and small, alike, potentially placing them at a competitive disadvantage with other jurisdictions outside the purview of this bill. This could be other sections of the City or neighboring townships, counties or states. In today's challenging economic environment, we can't afford to promote the proverbial job drain and exodus of companies and organizations from our great city. The next major concern with this ordinance is the timetable associated with complying with an unsafe designation. As drafted, the ordinance 20 states that an unsafe designation should be reported to the City by a professional within 12 hours of discovery and, further, that within hours of notice 24 of an unsafe designation from a professional, an owner should take any 61 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. necessary action to protect the public safety, such as erecting sidewalk sheds, fences or other safety netting. This does not take into calculation when the notification is given nor the necessary and prudent steps to comply with same, such as out-of-town owner notification, securing contractors, negotiating agreements, securing permits, et cetera. All of these take time and may not necessarily be accomplished within 13 hours. 14 BOMA agrees that safely 15 securing the area and, thus, protecting 16 the public is of paramount importance, 17 but if a building owner or manager first 18 learns of the situation on a Friday 19 afternoon, meeting the timetable could be 20 problematic even under the best of 21 circumstances.

Based on a recent BOMA 22 member's experience, the process of 23 bidding and arranging for the erection of 24 scaffolding took nearly a week to complete. 62 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Further, depending on the severity of the unsafe condition, there could be a significant review and additional investigation followed by a construction documentation period. This is then typically followed by a bid process, securing of a funding source, contract negotiations and awarding of that contract. Attempting to do all this within ten days may be unreasonable, especially if the area beneath has been secured. This raises BOMA's third concern, which is the inclusion of a formal appeal process within the ordinance by which an owner has the ability to seek alternate professional opinions as to the building's need for repair, the method of repair and/or the time period in which the repairs should be made. Without a vehicle for contesting unsafe findings and/or remedial repairs noted by a professional or a vehicle for seeking a second 63 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. professional opinion, building owners will truly be at the mercy of the ones who will derive the immediate economic benefits from pressing an unsafe condition or plan for extensive repairs. Again, BOMA recognizes and appreciates the need for protecting the public. However, in its current form, Ordinance No. 090568 should be held in committee for further modifications. Advancing the same in its current form would be a disservice to the City and the public it serves. BOMA stands ready to assist in refining the ordinance. Lastly, I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier in my testimony. Brian Abernathy and Sarah Sachdev have been extremely professional and wonderful to work with throughout this entire process. Councilmen DiCicco and Kenney are both fortunate to have such professionals on their team. I think we were getting close, and with the benefit of additional time, this 64 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. legislation could be perfect. Any questions?

Thank you. The Chair will recognize Councilman Kenney.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate the testimony, but I'd like to kind of walk our way through some of the issues that were raised by the witness and some of the remedies that have already been in place in the bill in the form of changes or amendments. There have been nine requests, some large, some small, from BOMA itself relative to changes in this bill. All nine of those have been accommodated, at BOMA's request, and let me go through some of them. First of all, there is implication in the testimony that this is not a citywide plan or citywide requirement. It is in fact a citywide 65 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. requirement, because all buildings six stories or higher, no matter where they're located in the City, come under this requirement. The issue that BOMA raises I think is -- I don't want to say disingenuous, but a bit misleading, in that I think they know if we were to add buildings over two stories citywide, there will be a residential outcry that would probably kill the bill, and I hope that's not their intention in suggesting that, but I think that would be the end result of that action. We reduced, at BOMA's request, the height of the buildings that came under the ordinance. New York City, for example, is 70 feet, Boston 70 feet, Chicago is 80 feet, and we reduced ours to 60 feet to include a number of other properties throughout the City, and that was at BOMA's request. Additionally, we had intention to start this process sooner than later, but at BOMA's request, we added an 66 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. additional two years to its requirement. And then at BOMA's request -- I'll get to that in a second. If all facades of an affected building have been substantially restored during the five years immediately preceding the date of any required inspection, the owner may apply to the Department for a waiver of the required inspection, and that was at BOMA's request, and that was accommodated. And that, I think you could argue, is somewhat of an appeal process in itself, in addition to giving consideration for work that had been done. Additionally, buildings that are ten years or younger would not trigger the inspection process until they reached an older age, and that was also at their request. Originally the reporting requirements were 12 hours, and at BOMA's request, we accommodated them again and extended it to 24 hours, but apparently that's not acceptable at this point, but 67 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. it was an accommodation made as a result of all of the conversations that were going on. There's some other smaller technical amendments that we added, a statement that needed to be signed by the owner. We added -- or agent at their request so that the agent for the owner of the building can be the one conducting the business of the inspection and reports. Per BOMA, again, with the 24-hour issue, we went from 12 to 24 at their request. We also gave them an opportunity to have an extended period of time to do the inspection and the work if there was any interruptions relative to unsafe conditions or unforeseen delays, like weather or labor strikes. " 68 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. 1, BOMA felt that the language was absolute in their terms, and that was changed to accommodate them also. Additionally, there is an appeal process, and that's the Board of Building Standards, which anyone is able to go and to file an appeal with, which will give them due process. There's waiver opportunities. There's an appeal process. I mean, I think we've done our best and, again, with the witness's testimony, in a cooperative and helpful process to get us where we are today. So I see no other reason for delay. We are going to hear from some other people who have a different opinion, but I wanted the record to be clear that this is not something that we were jamming to anyone.

I understand that they're opposed to it, but I think there's been substantial changes made to accommodate their needs. No one wants to do this and no one wants 69 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. to have a piece of building fall on them when they're walking on Chestnut Street either. So, I mean, in balance, I think we've gotten there. I will just say, I can't take credit for this for BOMA, but members of this Council just sheltered you from a 9 percent tax increase. I would have -- 10 real estate tax increase. I probably 11 would have gone with the Mayor, much to 12 everyone's chagrin, but I think that 13 Council should get credit for at least 14 looking out for the interest of property 15 owners in the City and shielding them 16 from a pretty substantial property tax 17 increase. So I think with those savings, 18 perhaps we can get our buildings 19 inspected. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions?

A comment on Councilman Kenney. The staffs, Brian and 70 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Sarah, have been absolutely terrific from where this bill started out to where it is today, but we still have three major issues. And, again, many changes have been incorporated, which we feel were applicable. This bill as it targets BOMA-member buildings -- and we have a substantial stakeholdership in the City. Our high-rise buildings, I don't think we've had any -- and they're above 75 feet. I don't think we've had any buildings that have an incident of something falling off of it. So as BOMA's perspective, we're not opposed to this legislation even though it will economically impact us. We do see the merit for having these inspections, but bear in mind, we're just looking for some latitude within this ordinance, so when we do an inspection, we can get a second opinion, which is extremely important to us from a professional standpoint. Not all professionals are going to agree with the 71 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. magnitude of a defect or the repair process. Those things can take -- you can spend six months just documenting what repairs are going to have to be accomplished to put the building back to safe, and once the protection is up, we would prefer to do it right, because we're talking substantial sums of money. Most of the time if you had a major failure, you're going to look at the entire building, and you can be in the three, four, five, six million dollar expenditures. You don't want to rush and do this in ten days. The hours can be 16 problematic for safing it off, but I 17 think every one of our members would do 18 whatever they could to get it done under 19 24 hours. So I do take exception to 20 that. 21 This ordinance targeting all 22 buildings doesn't really affect us yet. 23 We still think it's a viable option to 24 do. But the second point is the affected buildings. Without that in the bill 72 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. before it's voted on, we're really concerned about where the carve-outs are going to be, what districts aren't going to be protected the way Center City will be.

Thank you. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I need to make sure I understand. I have a few points here, but your last point, you believe that this bill is intended to protect Center City?

No. It's tailored from Center City outward; is it not?

That would be a question for the sponsor of the bill.

When the affected building isn't completely delineated, it leaves a concern.

I think 73 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. just to reiterate, I think Councilman Kenney mentioned that in some cities, they do 75 feet. He took it to 80 to accommodate BOMA.

But those other cities have no reserved area.

But it's important to understand that it's six stories or more citywide. So this contention that somehow the rest of the City is being exempted from this is not accurate. If the building is six stories or taller in any part of the City, it's required to go under this inspection.

But I think the affected area is ambiguous at this point.

But that's a regulatory issue, and we can deal with that.

Again, we would appreciate that, but I'm saying if this bill was passed out of committee, that's still a concern for what's going to happen to it before it is finally 74 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. enacted.

We will make a note of that as we develop the regulations. That's a good point. Another question, Councilwoman?

Councilman Kenney also clarified the appeal process. So what are we to understand, that you believe the appeal process should come to City Council, many of whom are --

After we have the safe -- the area safed off in hours, 14 then we have ten days to start work on 15 the remedial repairs. It might take us 16 two months to figure out exactly what 17 those repairs are. That turnaround time 18 is extremely quick. 19 The other problem we have with 20 the professional is, if the 21 professional -- it's almost like a 22 doctor. If the doctor says you need a 23 heart transplant, you can go to another 24 doctor and he says, No, we can do medication or valve replacement or 75 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. something else and not have to go to the extent of a full heart replacement, that's the analogy that I would draw right here. Professionals are still going to come up with different opinions on how to do it. Once we get locked in with a professional who has done the inspection, our concern is if we're not comfortable with the recommendations and the direction that that professional is giving us, under this ordinance we have no appeal process and we've got to keep the timeline moving to meet the ordinance. We just want to have an appeal process, whether we can go to L&I and say, We need to file for an extension because we're not comfortable with the professional that we have on staff that is detailing the work that needs to occur, we want to get a second opinion.

So you believe the appeal process should happen 76 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. with Licenses and Inspections?

As long as Licenses and Inspections is aware of it. Whether L&I is involved in it or allows us the opportunity to go out and get the time needed to get another opinion, that's what we're asking for.

I don't understand what in the bill stops you from getting a second opinion. And additionally, there's a year between the enactment of the bill, between January of 2010 and 2011. You have a full year to plan for this. It's not like it's coming next week.

No. Getting that professional once you're involved with the professional, once you've engaged them and they've done an inspection of your facade, their report, if there is an unsafe condition in their opinion, that gets filed with L&I. The temporary protection has to go up within 24 hours, and then within ten days -- 77 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc.

You have to begin.

-- we have to start repair. We may not be comfortable with the professional's recommendation and we may look for --

But this is remedial. This is not replacing the facade of your building entirely.

Remedial could be a piece.

Well, for example, on Walnut Street when -- I don't know the name of the building, but where Brasserie Perrier was, there was a masonry panel that fell off the building, and, thank God, it fell sideways and not on the street. This bill would not require them to replace their entire facade. It would require them to remediate the problem on the ground so that nothing else falls on anyone and then to get up there and to see what's going on. And I think as a building 78 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. owner, I would think -- and maybe I'm incorrect because I don't own property like this. I would think that your insurance companies would be thrilled that this kind of prophylactic effort would be taken so that they don't have to pay some big claim down the road. (Witness approached witness table.)

Councilman, if I may, Fred Masters from Buchanan, Ingersoll and Rooney representing BOMA. The issue that we have and the concern is that the way the ordinance is currently drafted, it's the selected professional, whether it's the registered architect or registered engineer, who makes these determinations and there's no 20 ability once they've made a determination that something is unsafe and that then that professional is required under the ordinance to recommend the repairs, the methodology of the repairs and the timeframe within which those repairs have 79 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. to be made, we're locked in at that point to that professional and there's no 4 ability to go seek a separate opinion. Let me just address one thing. We understand that the building has to be made safe, and we acknowledge and agree that at that point there's a process, we step in, we make the building safe to protect the public. What we don't want to be in is in a situation that at that point, we've now been locked into what that original professional determined is the repair needed and the timeframe in which it needs to be done.

I would agree with you if we were requiring you to accept a specific professional, whether L&I was telling you it had to be done. This is the guy you hire or the person you hire, and I would think that most of the property owners, especially in large buildings, have some ongoing relationship with engineering and/or architectural professionals that they're 80 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. involved in when the building was built and when it was -- how it's been maintained. I mean, I'm not telling you you have to follow what my inspector from L&I says. You have the freedom to hire your own folks who you are comfortable with, and I would think based on your confidence in them, you should follow their advice. I mean, if your doctor you've been going to for years tells 12 you you're sick, maybe you are. 13

But usually you 14 would follow and try to get a second 15 opinion if he's calling for heart 16 surgery. 17

But there's 18 no prohibition on the second opinion. 19

But the point is 20 that the second opinion doesn't help you 21 out. It doesn't -- there's no process, 22 and that's our whole point, is that 23 there's no process in the ordinance that 24 then says, Wait a minute, the original 25 inspector said we have to do this. We've 81 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. now gone and gotten -- and it has to be done in X period of time.

Why would not the Board of Building Standards be able to issue additional --

I'm not sure that the timing in order to get that appeal in the way the ordinance works would address that. We would feel more comfortable if the ordinance permitted us, once it's been made safe, that the public is secure, that nothing is going to fall down immediately or into the public, that before we're locked into implementing what that original professional required, that we have an ability to get another opinion from another qualified inspector.

How much time do you need to do that?

We appreciate -- we don't know the answer right now, to be honest with you. I don't know how much time it would take to get that second opinion. I don't know if it's ten 82 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. business days. I don't know. The issue should be -- and we appreciate that you've asked that. We will respond to that, but we do want to stress that at that point in time, the owner has stepped in and made the condition safe.

Right.

So we should be able to then seek an alternative opinion as to what is required in terms of maintenance and repair and the time period in which to get it done.

If you can tell me how much time you need, I'll give it to you.

Can I get back to you on that?

But not like in three weeks.

Not in three weeks.

Well, like maybe today.

Yes, sir. 83 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc.

Because the ability to amend is here.

We would like to have 30 days in which to respond to the original opinion of the professional.

Let us give that some consideration while other people have some questions.

Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just wanted to say that I think we understand and I do respect and appreciate your concerns. There may be some language we can get in there that will accommodate. I think it's a legitimate issue that you raise there. And the only other thing I just want to for the record, we probably wouldn't be here today had it not been for the issue or the incident at the Bellevue. The Bellevue is a BOMA member; is that correct?

How many stories is that? 84 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know.

Again, lowering -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You said no BOMA building --

There's always an anomaly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just want to clear the record. And that's a great building, and I know that the people who own it really love that building and want to take care of it and maintain it. But it happened. So I just wanted to be clear for the record. And, again, as Councilman Kenney said, we'll work on something. I'm sure we'll come to an agreement on that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I wanted to acknowledge that Councilman Kelly has joined us. I want to recognize 85 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds.

Yes. Councilman Frank DiCicco actually stated what I was thinking, the fact that it happened, one incident is one incident too many, and purposes of legislation like this are to hopefully prevent cases where it never happens. So the fact that it has happened becomes an impetus for us to do something. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you all for your time.

If it's at the Committee's pleasure and the Chair's pleasure, what I would request from the Committee is to vote the bill out of committee today without a suspension, have some time to have some more additional discussion for potential floor amendments, that would be helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you. 86 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc.

For the record, gentlemen, so if we vote this out of committee today, there will be ample time for additional amendments, if necessary. So we thank the sponsor of the legislation for entertaining those recommendations. We'll move on to the last person, Jonathan Memmel. As that person approaches the witness table, I wanted to acknowledge that there was a letter submitted by the General Building Contractors Association, which has been circulated to the members, outlining their support for this legislation. (Witness approached witness table.)

Thank you. You may proceed with your testimony.

Good morning. Thanks for having me here today. My name is Jonathan Memmel. I'm the President of 87 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. the Delaware Valley Association of Structural Engineers, referred to as DVASE, and I'm here today to relay our organization's stance on the proposed City Council Bill No. 090568. We have issued a number of detailed comments to the City for consideration when finalizing this bill, and we believe the following items are the most critical: The inclusion of a national standard, ASTM E2270-05, Standard Practices for Periodic Inspection of Building Facades for Unsafe Conditions, as a reference to this bill is important and will help establish a common criteria for all parties involved in evaluating facades included within the scope of the proposed bill. The definition of "professional" shall be refined to include language about professionals licensed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See our detailed comments 88 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. for specific language defining the professional. The definition of "complete" should be revised to reflect the national ASTM standard mentioned above, as well as other standards on this topic in other U.S. cities. Complete inspections cannot be achieved within the scope of this bill. Please refer to our comments submitted to the City for further review. One of the issues that our organization is struggling with is the definitions of "safe," "safe with a repair and maintenance program" and "unsafe." It's a liability issue for structural engineers to, in a sense, certify that a building facade is safe when we may not know what's lurking behind the wall without performing extensive destructive and non-destructive testing, as well as reviewing a hundred percent of all wall surfaces. A limitation statement on the scope of the inspection needs to be 89 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. incorporated. We have noted this in our comments to the amended bill. A similar type of limitation statement has been adopted in Chicago and is included in the referenced ASTM standard. I would like to thank you for your time and allowing the structural engineering community the opportunity to participate in the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for the witness? (No response.)

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else here who would like to comment on Bill 090568? You want to come forward.

Hi. My name is Joe Fattore. I have a PowerPoint prepared. We're just having a -- make sure it's on the zip drive here to load it up. 90 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. (Pause.)

Thank you. Just for the record, I want to alert our witness that we do have another hearing at o'clock. So if you can 7 give us the cliff notes version, given 8 that we have the visuals. 9 (Pause.) 10

Can you 11 begin?

Just real quick, facade inspection stabilization. My name is Joseph Fattore. I'm a member of the AIA. I'm a lifelong resident of the region, Temple graduate, years of 17 experience, including preservation. I'm 18 an ACE Board of Directors, which is 19 Architectural, Construction and 20 Engineering, in the public school system. 21 Currently, I'm the IMI Director of Market 22 Development and Technical Services for 23 the IMI, meaning I'm the person that a 24 lot of people in the City call when they 25 have facade problems. I've been going 91 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. out to a lot of buildings of various types, whether it's on behalf of building owners, contractors, general contractors, Philadelphia school improvement team, Salvation Army. So I'm out there in the field seeing these situations. Real briefly, IMI, we support all masonry products. We do it through training, education, technical services, research and development, and certification programs for contractors and professionals. We go out to firms, offices, schools, PSIT, everywhere, whoever wants to listen to making a better environment. We have training centers nationwide, and we do all kind of technical programs. So facade inspections: I structured this in the real quick why, what, when, where, how and who. Not providing answers or saying how to do things. I'm just pointing to the issues that I find and things to be considered when you evaluate all your things that 92 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. you need to evaluate. So why facade inspections. And for those people not in the audience who may be more lay to the construction industry, it's a little bit of background for all the situations we have in the City. Well, the number one reason, as we all know, is public safety. This is not only for the citizens and residents of the City, but also we must consider the workers and people who commute to the City, and also equally important are various guests and tourists from around the world. Public safety I feel and security is the primary roles of government, and this is purely a public safety issue. So we're looking at this, how -- if we're really going to be idealistic and make this public safety, how do we best make things safe. What adds to this is really the complexity of our built environment 93 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. nowadays in the modern world really. I mean, we have buildings, here in Philadelphia especially -- I go to Europe a lot too, and Europe is a whole other ball game, but here for America, we're an older American city. We have multitude of building types, ages, materials, means and methods of construction throughout the City's 300-plus years, and it's very diverse, and that adds to the complexity of the issue. Our buildings are not getting younger, and gravity is a constant and persistent force. Briefly about the numerous building types, we have things from the colonial, baroque, contemporary. We have converted warehouses that were never conditioned that are now being conditioned, adding to the envelope's requirements. We have second empire buildings, art nouveau and skyscrapers. None of the pictures you see are from Philadelphia, just so you know. 94 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Some are made with traditional building materials, triple-width load-bearing masonry wall. The building we're in is purely a pile of bricks. At the base it's foot thick of bricks. 7 Nothing but hand-laid bricks, this whole 8 building. It's one of the tallest 9 freestanding load-bearing masonry 10 buildings in the world. Just a pile of 11 bricks pretty much, with stones tacked 12 onto it. 13 We have brick veneer nowadays, 14 which is a new thinking of a wall. We 15 have terra-cotta all over the place. 16 Brownstone is a terra-cotta, which is another building material that's been used over our history. And then we have stone and glass-clad buildings.

There's other more modern materials that are being brought to the marketplace in today's global economy, thin brick panels, which bricks are cast into place on panels and craned into a building and bolted back, whether it's concrete or 95 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. metal stud structure to it. We have metal panel buildings that can do all kind of wonderful things, curve or linear, stainless steel-clad buildings. We have precast concrete panels that are now being done. Ten Rittenhouse is a prime example of that just being done. And we also have the green environmental issues coming to the forefront. We're getting buildings that have solar panels as a veneering system, and we have glass nowadays that can support loads, and we have load-bearing glass buildings and facades. So it's really a magnitude of not only building types, but materials that are out there. So the question is, what will the buildings look like in not only the near future, but the distant future. Nowadays we're looking at -- architects are envisioning buildings that rotate and are dynamic, moving, intelligent, adjust to the conditions. And these are buildings envisioned for Dubai. On the 96 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. right is other buildings that are vegetated and landscaped and green. And so then you have water and soils on top of these buildings and the conditions they bring to an envelope. We also have wind turbines being mounted on parapets of buildings. In the very, very new future you'll probably see this to capitalize on the wind tunnels in the City to create energy. We have intelligent hybrid buildings and we also have double-skinned buildings where there's actually two exterior cavities to create a greenhouse effect or enhanced cavity system. All of these materials and all these systems, all these styles are anchored and tied with connections. These are masonry connections for brick, a whole bunch of manufacturers, all type of metals. And here's some things how terra-cotta is tied back to brick in the traditional methods. Right here are some 97 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. other anchors. You can see how the metal ties are where it's connected. And this is where a lot of the problems occur. Here's some other connectors for curtain wall systems, and you can see in the lower picture here how the anchor bolts are -- now, these things are tied back with just -- with some plates, and these are some of the details for curtain walls, whether that is glass, stone, metal or some other hybrid fiberglass products, but it's all anchored. And here's, in the idea of making things faster or quicker, prefabrication and then being shipped and then screwed or bolted back. Here's some panels that they get attached back now to aluminum tracks and rain screen systems and all kind of things are being brought to the marketplace. If you can think of it, there's somebody making it and trying to sell it to a building owner or architect and install it. So here's -- it's something in 98 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Boston that's a brand new structure. This is the tunnel, brand new construction, and it was in the collapse and some people died, and it came down to a bolt. So my point is that no matter new, old, things get tied back and it's in those connections. Ferrous materials, non-ferrous materials, all kind of metals, moisture. So the point is, there's a lot of issues out there. Why facades fail? Lack of maintenance, incorrect maintenance, incorrect application or use of materials, incompatible. Sometimes we'll get a facelift, and that exacerbates a facade problem or hides it. Temporary repairs becoming permanent. Incorrect repairs and restoration, this is something that I do see. So in terms of getting a waiver because you've recently restored your building, I have an issue with that. I'm 99 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. a little concerned about that.

I go on a lot of projects that were recently restored, and sometimes if it's an unskilled professional or contractor doing that restoration, it actually can exacerbate the situation and bring it to its forefront and make it worse. Incompatible materials, wrong details, not understanding the complexity of the building in its skin and how it's to behave. So restoration is no excuse to avoid an inspection. And if you're going to try to allow that, a waiver for a restoration, somebody is going to have to go out there and inspect and verify that the restoration is done right in the first place and compatible. So you might as well just have it follow the regular inspection schedule. It's the same cost probably indifference.

I'm sorry. You're going to have to move along quickly. I'm going to ask if you could share that with us electronically, 100 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. I'd be happy to share it with all members of Council.

Okay. I'll just get to the point today. We know why we need inspections, then. Really big economic impact, not only the building's owners, citizens and all that stuff. So all buildings are more strategic and selective approach to targeting buildings. This is real quick. We mentioned about Chicago, New York and Boston 70 feet above, but the cities below also have facade inspection agendas, and they're lower. In Pittsburgh in particular has all buildings except residential, is the way they define it. So just some ideas to think about. There are other options. And the legislation currently talks about inspection of walls. Just a point is that the parapets are more, if not equally -- equally, if not more 101 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. dangerous. That's where there's a lot of problems. So you might want to specify not only just walls, but parapets and cornices, because it could be argued that a parapet is not a wall, and the parapet is where a lot of danger occurs. All things have lifespans. We say maintenance is important. It keeps the -- it prolongs the lifespan. So we say four, five years are right on target there, we agree. Facade inspections, where? Everywhere or more strategic. Loss of life versus collateral damage. If you're going to do -- choice is all buildings or more selective. If you're going to do a more selective approach, we suggest that you focus on those places where people and vehicles are most concentrated in the public realm and are in proximity to buildings. So you want to look at the specific areas in districts, Center City, Old City, Convention Center, Chinatown. 102 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Pedestrians and vehicular corridors, Main, Broad Street, Market Street, or things like adjacent seats to parks and squares. Rittenhouse Square, some outdoor cafes along there. If a catastrophe happens there, it's a big media event. Other places. Flood inspections, how? They must be done prima facie, which means face first, in face and on site, period. No distance, telecommuting to the City to do facade inspections. You must be here with your feet on the ground and your nose to the wall. That's the only way they should be done properly. There's a whole bunch of other methods that go along with that, once you're on site and in the City. Ordinances should have penalties. I think we have some penalties imposed. Appeals process, we think that's a very good, viable alternative. Appeals process sounds valid, and I 103 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. concur with the issues of BOMA. There are a lot of different professional opinions, all valid. The only concern is that if you're going to do that, we say that you might want to consider a pre-qualification program, because it's easy to go out and buy a second opinion that agrees with your opinion, but if you're going to have numerous pre-qualified contractors or engineers providing an opinion, well, you could choose any one of the certified engineers in the program that you want, and that's good, but there's a lot of -- what we talk about here is who. We talk about a lot of -- not a lot. The majority of people in this room -- really everybody in this room that I know and the majority of people in the City are conscientious citizens and building owners, professionals and architects and contractors alike, but it's that small percentage of rogue owners, contractors and professionals that we have to 104 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. legislate for, otherwise we wouldn't be here. And they're the ones we need to target and think about. So it is the accidental collapse and the small minority of rogue owners, professionals and contractors that we must legislate for. We do not want to provide or create a legislative environment in which the rogue, transient, absentee and unconscious owner, professional or contractor can operate, gain a competitive advantage and capitalize in.

So the fact of equalizing the table for everybody, building owners, architects, engineers and contractors, is fair. There must be a level playing field. When inspecting and stabilizing facades, the professional and contractor must know what they are doing. There's a lot of specialization. Just because I'm a doctor doesn't mean I can do brain surgery or be a pediatrician. Likewise with architects, just because I'm an 105 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. architect doesn't mean I can inspect a terra-cotta facade from the 1890s. They should have specific knowledge and experience with the type of facade they're inspecting. A qualification/certification program gives them more certainty of quality. Also, a qualification/certification program is an investment of time on those that participate in it and creates a financial incentive to do good work. I experienced this myself. The risk of being removed from the program is greater than the profit on any one particular project. I recently had my heating and air conditioning replaced, and in order to qualify for the manufacturer's rebates, I had to use their certified contractors and installers. I could choose any one of them I wanted to because they were all qualified and they knew -- that manufacturer knew they were going to do a good job. 106 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. That's it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, everybody.

As I said, if you share that electronically, I'll share it with members of the Committee. We thank you for your thoughtfulness and preparation of your presentation. We're sorry that we --

That's okay. I appreciate the time you gave me.

Thank you so very much.

I'm available for any other consultations if you need them.

Thank you. This concludes our public hearing. We will move into our public meeting of the Committee of Licenses and Inspections. The Chair calls on Councilwoman 107 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. Blondell Reynolds Brown for an amendment to Bill 090581.

Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 090581 be amended as presented. (Duly seconded.)

All in favor? (Aye.)

Any opposition? (No response.)

Thank you. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds, can you move for the adoption of the bill.

Sure will. Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 090581 be reported out of Committee as amended and move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next scheduled session of City Council. 108 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. (Duly seconded.)

All in favor? (Aye.)

Any opposed, abstentions? (No response.)

Thank you. Bill 090581 has been moved and passed from Committee with a favorable recommendation and with a rules suspension for our next public session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jim Kenney for an amendment to Bill 16 090568.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 090568 be amended accordingly as was circulated earlier in Council and discussed in testimony. (Duly seconded.)

All in favor? (Aye.) 109 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc.

Any opposition, abstentions? (No response.)

Thank you. Bill 090568 is amended. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney for a motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 11 090568, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)

All in favor? (Aye.)

Any abstentions or oppositions? (No response.)

Thank you. Bill 090568 has been moved out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. As noted previously, Bill 110 10/27/09 - L&I - BILL 090568, etc. 090590 is being held to the call of the Chair. This concludes our public meeting. Thank you all for your time and your patience. (Committee on Licenses and Inspections concluded at 11:05 a.m.) - - - 111 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 October 27, 2009, 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.)