You are correct, and you raise a good point. However, just as legal training sometimes over-trains or anticipates interpretation of plain-meaning language, that just by 107 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 context of having a separate paragraph, or under item ii, the fact that it has the requirement of a Pennsylvania or an operator's license by any state containing a photograph, if we read that in context with the first state or federal ID, one would have to ask, what was the legislative intent? If they meant to include a non-photo driver's license, why would they have a separate item that addresses federal or state ID? Why wouldn't they just address it in line 2? So it's just perhaps critical reading but excellent point, Councilman.
That's why you get 12 lawyers and 20 opinions. Councilman Kelly. (Laughter.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. 108 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 Mr. Kaplan, thank you very much for your testimony, and thank you again for your cooperation. You have been very, very cooperative in this whole process. But there are some questions that, of course -- Councilman Greenlee just addressed one of them that I was going to bring to your attention. But I would like to say that the days which you're objecting to, I 13 would like to get Lieutenant Healey's 14 version or comments about why it's necessary for the Police Department to respond to that. But, let's face it, your client, I'm sure, is very legitimate and is a good businessman, and we certainly don't want to put anyone out of business in Philadelphia; God knows we need all the business we can get in Philadelphia. But there are many, many people -- not many, but there are a few people out there that are not legitimate, and 109 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 they're not doing the things that they should be doing, and they're skirting the law, if not breaking the law. And this is why this legislation is so important to get on the books. We can make changes to it during time, and we'll be working with you on that, but we have to address the problems that are out there. Councilwoman Brown addressed a problem in her area that people have been working -- I guess been doing a lot of illegal activity in regard to selling of all sorts of jewelry and precious metals, and God knows what. But we have to make a stand and we have to send a message to them that it's not going to be tolerated. We're not going to be -- I think that we're not going to be the city that's going to allow this practice to continue. We just -- we just can't. So I would like to bring up Lieutenant Healey, if I can, to address 110 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 that days that you seem to be really objecting --
Thank you, 5 Councilman Kelly. 6 May I make a correction, 7 though, on the record that we're not 8 objecting to the 14 days; we merely raise 9 the issue that it is in contradiction 10 with the state law of five days; however, 11 my group was willing to concede to that 12 14 days, not object to it. 13
Oh, all 14 right. Then that's not necessary, then. Again, I want to commend you for your cooperation in this matter.
And I think that we can work with you in the future, we really can. We don't want to see anyone out of business.
Thank you, Councilman Kelly. And we can appreciate the need to be able to weed out the bad actors to be able make the industry as 111 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 clean as possible, because, let's face it, bad actors ruin it for the good actors in any industry. And we're onboard, we're completely in a cooperative stance, as I initially said. But at the same time, I'm certain that your office and that the City of Philadelphia does not want to implement things that would be over- restrictive and put people out of business. As you astutely mentioned, it's important to preserve business in the City of Philadelphia. Can I make -- I'm sorry.
I wasn't sure 'cause I know that your client is here to testify. If he just wants us to submit his testimony for the record or have him read his testimony. (Addressing Mr. Gelber.) Do you want to just put it in the record?
(Addressing Mr. Gelber.) Do you want to read it? 112 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 (Mr. Gelber shakes head.)
Okay. I just want to make a note, and we'll make sure that we give it to the stenographer.
Okay. I would just like to just expand on the most critical point, and that is the hold period of 60 days and even if the hold period was hypothetically 30, which the amendment now is 60 days. The price of gold or precious metal is a volatile industry; it changes on market-based fluctuations and on a day-to-day basis. A 30-day holding requirement essentially is... insisting on precious- metal buyers being able to make predictions that they are not able to predict that even a most qualified economist could. If somebody comes into a store and the price of gold is $1,000 today, they purchased the gold for 900, they make their $100-profit they're entitled 113 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 to. In 30 days, that price of gold can go from $1,000 to $800, in which case, that would cause a tremendous loss based on 150 to 200 transactions per week. It's simply over-restrictive, it's simply unreasonable, it's simply more than what is necessary for law enforcement to be able to do their job. Fourteen days is absolutely -- I'm advocating a very reasonable requirement. You have this requirement for an inventory system, and at the end of each day, that inventory's going to be uploaded. That's two full weeks to be able to take that -- conduct their investigation or provide written notice to the precious-metal buyers. But 30 days would put this group out of business. Thank you.
Yes. You may proceed, Councilman Kelly. 114 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kaplan, one of the reasons why we purposely put it at 60 days is because in this day and age, a lot of people, of course, are away -- they could be away for two weeks or three weeks before they come home and find out that their home was burglarized, there's a lot of property that's missing. And if you're saying the 13 days, the Police Department would be 14 handcuffed; they wouldn't be able to do anything because the material would be wiped out, be gone. This way, I think it gives them an opportunity and it gives them the time that they're going to need. Now, we can tweak that later, but right now, I think that's a legitimate, I think, complaint that the -- or a legitimate tool that the Police Department can use. They need that time to track down some of this material which has been 115 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 stolen, and that's the reason why we have -- right now, we've reduced it from 90 to 60, and I think that's a reasonable amount of time. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman Kelly. With all due respect, just a brief response. For the -- I guess what's important here is being able to ask, At what cost will that come? And although I agree with you, it certainly would give the Police Department 30 days to be able to conduct their investigation, but at the cost it's going to come would be for tens of thousands of dollars' worth of purchases be frozen for a month. In essence, it's like owning a grocery store and having to be forced to take the cash from the proceeds of the grocery store and completely hold them for 30 days. It's not uncommon for a business to do 15 to $20,000 a week in 116 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 their industry, so we're talking about 60 to $80,000 a month. So, basically, what this group would have to do is either have the resources to be able to fulfill that and back 60 to $80,000, which, in a bad economy, is not going to be the case; or go out and secure a loan to be able to pay their creditors and rent and license fees and be able to sustain, and they simply cannot afford to do that. And that's the cost of the 30 day. With all due respect to the Police Department, an extending of the time would come at a tremendous cost and an impossible and untenable way of forcing a policy to do business that would drive them out of business.
I would just like to invite Lieutenant Healey up here to give us the reason -- and Sergeant 117 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 Cella to come up and give us their reasoning for having the 60-day time period involved in this.
I thank the witnesses. If Lieutenant Healey could come forward.
Is it possible to reserve the right to briefly rebuttal after Sergeant Healey?
Yeah. I wanted to note for the record you said we were speeding through this. And, unfortunately, those of in us Council 118 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 would disagree; we don't speed through anything.
I'm sorry. I just meant the passing -- taking it from committee. I didn't mean today's forum; I meant taking it out of committee.
But I am sure that the bill's sponsor will be willing to continue to work with you if further amendments need to be made later on, but we do intend to move this one out of committee today. You know, there's two different weeks of voting, so I'm sure Councilman Kelly will continue to work with you. With that, Lieutenant? LT. HEALEY: Yes. Once again, Francis Healey, from the Police Department. In reference the 60-day -- originally the 90-day, now the 60-day requirement, from a law enforcement perspective, unlike violent crimes that are reported actually contemporaneous 119 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 with most incidents, and there are a couple of different exceptions, with property crimes, there's a delay in the reporting or property crimes from when people do become aware. Even once they become aware, oftentimes, victims are traumatized and don't realize what's been missing. So they'll make an initial police report and, at a later point in time, amend that report saying, you know, my jewelry box from the garage is missing as well, or my guns missing from the gun cabinet. For those very reasons, in addition to the reasons that the Councilman mentioned -- the delay from people, you know, vacationing and stuff like that -- it's just that a lot of times, the property doesn't come into our police reports until days, weeks, sometimes even months after the fact, where a victim will come back and say, Listen, I had something in storage, I had something in the back bedroom I didn't 120 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 realize missing; I need to amend the police report. And we'll do so. That was the initial reason why we asked for the time period. Now, granted, hopefully we will be able to track things in a quicker, more effective manner in tandem with the new computer stuff that's associated with this. So, you know, we'd be willing to work with you to see what is the bare minimum that the Police Department could work with. I mean, the last thing we want to do is inhibit business. We too want businesses to flourish in the City. So I would be willing to work with the Councilman and the industry to see what is a reasonable number of days that we can all work with. So 60 days may be a little too much; I've been talking with the experts. The bottom line is, we need a little more than two weeks but what point do we need to come up with, and I think 121 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 090910 we could work something out.
Nothing to add. Thank you, Lieutenant. Thank you, Sergeant.
Thanks to all of you for your hard work on this matter? Anybody else here to testify on that bill, on Bill 090910? (No response.)
Seeing none, will the clerk read the title of Bill No. 100282.
Bill No. 100282, an ordinance amending Section PM-304.10 of the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code (Subcode "PM" of Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code), entitled "Periodic Inspection of Exterior Walls and 122 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100282 Appurtenances of Buildings," by providing for appeals, under certain terms and conditions.
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'm here to provide testimony on Bill No. 100282, which, if enacted, will further clarify that appeals of façades can be made to the 123 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100282 Board of Licenses and Inspections Review after a decision rendered on the appeal that was made to the Board of Building Standards. Simply put, the first appeal regarding this matter will be made to the Board of Building Standards and Appeals. The Board of Building Standards' decision will be made -- or can be appealed to the Board of Licenses and Inspections Review. The purpose of this bill is to further clarify and highlight the sequence for making such appeals, and the department, therefore, offers no 16 objection to the enactment of this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Anyone here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing 124 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100380 none, will the clerk read the title -- thank you, Mr. Haigler. I believe you're going to stay there for the next couple.
The clerk will read the title of the bill for 100308.
Bill No. 100308, an ordinance amending Subcode "F" of Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Fire Code," by adopting the 2009 edition of the International Code Council Fire Code, with certain amendments thereto, all under certain terms and conditions.
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'm here to provide 125 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100380 testimony on Bill No. 100308, which, if enacted, will amend Title of the 4 Philadelphia Code for the purpose of adopting the 2009 edition of the International Code Council Fire Code as part of the Philadelphia Fire Code. Pursuant to Act 45 of 1999, also known as "The Pennsylvania Uniformed Construction Code Act," all municipalities that have opted to enforce the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code locally must enact legislation adopting the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code and Model Codes adopted thereto, following the publication of the latest edition of the codes. A thorough and comprehensive review was conducted in order to ensure that all previous local amendments that were adopted by the City were carried forward with the adoption of the 2009 edition of the Fire Code. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the department's testimony, 126 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100380 and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. We can proceed with the testimony from the Fire Department. Mr. Richard Bailey, proceed, please. DEPT. CHIEF BAILEY: Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Sanchez and the members of the Department of Licenses and Inspections Committee. I am Richard Bailey, Deputy Chief, Fire Department. I'm in charge of the department's Fire Code Unit, which is responsible for maintaining the City's Fire Code. I am here today to seek your support of an ordinance to adopt the 2009 International Fire Code, with amendments that are needed to address fire hazards in our city. The new code will be known as "The 2010 Philadelphia Fire Code," and will continue the City's use of our latest national fire code to safeguard 127 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100380 residents and businesses from the hazards are fire. Most of the changes in the 2009 international code from the 2006 edition are minor. There is one section that was added to the new code that will have a financial impact on existing buildings. This section has also been added to the new building code which regulates new construction. This section requires owners of high-rise buildings, but excluding high-rise apartment buildings, to install luminescent tape or paint in exit stairways on the edge of the treads on the top of the rails, around the perimeter of landings on protruding obstructions, and on exit discharge doors. The markings are intended to guide occupants exiting a building in an emergency where the primary and emergency electrical power to the egress lighting has failed and the building is in darkness. 128 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100380 This addition to the Building and Fire Codes was prompted by the car bombing in the parking lot of the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993. Regarding the luminous exit marking requirement in the new Fire Code, the department -- meaning the Fire Department -- is planning to exempt existing buildings that have the following: a sprinkler system installed throughout the building and the building's exit stairway lighting is connected to an emergency generator or other secondary power source. The department is planning to permit this exemptions because they believe that a building sprinkler system would contain a fire to a small area, and the sprinkler system confining the fire in a building having a emergency generator, the probability of the loss of primary and emergency power and the building is unlikely. 129 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100251 Thank you. This concludes my testimony.
Think. Anyone here to testify in addition to the Bill 100308? (No response.)
Seeing none, will the clerk please read the title of Bill 100251.
Bill No. 100251, an ordinance amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code," by amending Subcode "PM" (The Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code), by amending Section PM-704.0, entitled "Building Standards Applicable to Designated Areas," by adding portions of the 1st Councilmatic District to the list of areas covered, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. In addition to the 130 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100251 Administration, I believe Stacy Irving will be testifying for the Center City District. She can also begin to approach the witness table. You can proceed, Mr. Haigler.
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'm here to provide testimony on Bill 100251, which, if enacted, will expand the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code, Section 16 PM-704.3.1 related to security devices on commercial business establishments to all establishments within the 1st Councilmatic District. The department offers no 21 objection to the enactment of this bill. Currently, the provisions of this section 23 only apply to certain designated areas of the East Passyunk Avenue Business Improvement District located within the 131 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100251 1st Councilmatic District. The proposed bill will expand the requirements governing the design and maintenance of security gates that are located on commercial business establishments to all business establishments in the 1st Council District. Certain requirements of this section include prohibitions on solid security gates that prevent visibility into the establishment when the gate is lowered and requirements to maintain the gate free of graffiti at all times. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the department's testimony. And I will be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. No questions at this time. If you could just remain in case there's any questions. Will Miss Stacy Irving please approach the witness table. (Witness comes forward.) 132 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100251
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Stacy Irving, and I am the senior director for crime prevention services at the Center City District. In 1994, the Center City District worked in partnership with the Department of Licenses and Inspections and with City Council on the passage of legislation requiring security grills or gates to have 75 percent or more visibility when installed in Center City. This program has proven to be very successful in Center City and has helped to create a more open and attractive environment. As you can see from our publication Storefront Security Grills, published in 1994, we offered suggestions to merchants on how to secure their storefronts and contribute to a greater 133 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100251 sense of safety on the street. In the late '80s and early '90s, merchants throughout the City installed solid-metal security gates, which closed off the entire shop window from view. What we learned at the time was that many of them had installed solid gates only after hearing about a crime in the area and after they were approached by representatives of security gate installation companies who were eager to capitalize on an opportunity to make a quick sale. These security gate salespeople were in a one-size-fits-all business and rarely advised shopkeepers on alternatives. But while these gates may have given the owners a greater sense of security, they had other negative effects on the businesses in the entire commercial corridor, block, or neighborhood in the following ways: Solids gates do not allow police or fire personnel to look into a 134 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100251 shop to determine if anyone has entered such as a burglar or if there is a fire burning inside. They allow a thief who may have entered through the rear of vacant neighboring storefront or rooftop perfect cover while stealing inventory from the business. Solid gates prevent potential customers from window-shopping after hours. They also discourage other businesses from locating in the area for fear that the neighborhood is unsafe. They prevent interior lighting from illuminating the sidewalk, give the shop and the entire street a dark and foreboding feeling, and may actually deter customers from walking on the street. Solid gates also create an opportunity for unsightly graffiti that diminishes the attractiveness of the block and the community. 135 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100251 It was our conclusion that solid gates were actually counterproductive and that they created an unsafe, isolating, and desolate perception that only served as a template for graffiti. In addition, if a business is burglarized and the police responded, they would be unable to see a perpetrator inside. Many merchants were apprehensive about changing from solid gates to a more open grill, fearing an increase in burglaries or broken storefront windows, but there fears were unwarranted. There wasn't an increase in burglaries or broken windows as a result of merchants switching or installing more open security gates. In fact, in 1994, there were 270 burglaries reported in Center City; in 1995, the following year, burglaries declined to 220; and in 2009, to 117. The increased visibility gave shopkeepers the opportunity to highlight 136 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100251 their storefront window, promote their products and services, provide additional lighting onto the sidewalks, which, in turn, helped to animate the block. As a result of the more open security gate, requirement, merchants and the business associations were very happy with the overall change in the public environment. Lastly, if businesses are able to available themselves of any incentive programs to help them offset the costs for installing new security gates in order to be in compliance, they will be more inclined to make the improvements. These funds are critical to small businesses to help them offset costs for security improvements, especially in a challenging economy.
In conclusion, we have found that requiring the more open security gate has a positive overall impact on the commercial corridor and creates an attractive and safe business district. Thank you for the opportunity 137 6/9/10 - L&I - BILL 100251 to testify on behalf of this bill.
Thank you. And thank you for all the work that you do at the Center City District. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we are going to recess for 30 seconds and go into our public meeting. (Short recess.) * * * 138 6/9/10 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING
The Committee on Licenses and Inspections will now go into its public meeting. For the record, Bill No. 100313 is being held by the sponsor, so I will proceed with asking Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 100162.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 100162 be amended. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor. Any opposition? (No opposition.) And a motion to move the bill, please.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 100162, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading. 139 6/9/10 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor? (None opposed.) Bill 100162, as amended, will be moved out of committee favorably, and the rules of Council will be suspended to allow for first reading at our next public session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly for a motion on the amendment to Bill 090910.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the amendments to Bill No. 090910 be adopted. (Motion duly seconded.)
I'd like to make a clarification there. I'm looking at a handwritten amendment to the holding period, which would change it from 60 days in the current amendment to 30 days.
And so, it's that -- that's the only change from the amendments before everybody. Thank you, Councilman.
Yes. Thank you, Councilman. That is the only change from the previous changes that we made to this bill.
Can I get a second? (Motion duly seconded.) All in favor? (None opposed.) Councilman Kelly, a motion to move the bill.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 090910, as amended, be approved be this council. And also, I request a suspension of the rules in order that this bill may be heard at the next session of City Council. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor? 141 6/9/10 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING Any opposition? (No opposition.) Bill 090910, as amended, will be moved out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and the rules of Council will be suspended to allow for first reading at our next public session. Councilman Green, can I have a motion for Bill No. 100251?
I move that Bill 100251 be reported from this committee with a suspension of the rules to allow for first reading at our next session of second.
Can I get a second? (Motion duly seconded.) Any opposition? (No opposition.) Bill No. 100251 will be moved out of the committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council will be suspended to allow for first reading at our next public session. 142 6/9/10 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING Councilman Greenlee, could I get a motion on the amendment to Bill 4 100267?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 100267. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor? Any opposition? (No opposition.) Councilman Greenlee, can I get a motion on the bill?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 100261, as amended, 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. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor? 143 6/9/10 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING Any opposition? (No opposition.) Bill No. 100267, as amended, will be moved out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and the Council rules will be suspended so as to allow first reading at our next public session. Councilwoman Reynolds-Brown, can I get a motion on Bill No. 100282.
Yes, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 100282 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor? Any opposition? (No opposition. Seeing none, Bill 100282 will be out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council 144 6/9/10 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING will be suspended to allow for first reading at our next public session. Councilman Green, can I get a motion on Bill No. 100308.
I move that 100308 be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor? Any opposition? (No opposition.) Seeing none, Bill 100308 will be moved out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and the rules of Council will be suspended so as to allow for first reading at our next public session This concludes the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. Thank you, everyone, for your patience and your 145 6/9/10 - L&I - PUBLIC MEETING time.
You're welcome. (Proceedings end at 11:48 a.m.) * * * 146 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Wednesday, June 9, 2010, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (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.)