Committee Hearing, November 16, 2010

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON RULES3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, November 16, 20107 10:20 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY10 COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO11 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE12 COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR.13 BILLS 100555, 100556, 100656, 100673, 10053615 and 100710 - - -17 2

Good2 morning, ladies and gentlemen. The3 Council Committee on Rules is now in4 session. We have a quorum with5 Councilmen DiCicco, Goode, Greenlee and6 Clarke in attendance and Councilman7 Kenney chairing for Council President8 Verna.9 We have a number of bills today10 to hear. Our first bill is Bill No.11 100555, which is an ordinance to amend12 the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing13 the zoning designations of certain areas14 of land located within an area bounded by15 Broad Street, Cecil B. Moore Avenue, Park16 Avenue, and Oxford Street.17 (Witness approached witness18 table.)19

Please20 identify yourself for the record.21

Good morning,22 Councilman Kenney, members of the Rules23 Committee. I am William Kramer, Division24 Director of the Development Division of25 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 the Philadelphia City Planning2 Commission. I am here today to testify3 on Bill No. 100555, which was introduced4 into City Council September 16th, 2010.5 Bill No. 100555 will rezone the6 block bounded by Broad Street, Cecil B.7 Moore Avenue, Park Avenue, and Oxford8 Street from its base zoning of "C-4"9 Commercial to a new classification of10 "IDD" Institutional Development District.11 Additionally, Bill No. 100555 will amend12 the Master Plan for Temple University in13 order to permit the construction of the14 new South Gateway Student Residences on15 that site.16 The Temple University Gateway17 Residence Complex is a high-rise student18 resident community comprised of19 approximately 1,576 student beds20 organized in various suite21 configurations. The residential areas22 include lobbies, lounges, teaching and23 administrative support spaces. The24 complex includes a dining pavilion/food25 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 court with approximately 950 seats and2 food preparation facilities; a parking3 garage/service area at grade with six4 loading dock positions and approximately5 70 parking spaces; a raised open-air6 exterior courtyard in the center of the7 site and several residential apartments8 at the street level along Oxford Street.9 The facility is anticipated to10 be LEED-certified construction and is11 designed to fully accommodate12 accessibility needs of the Temple13 community.14 The Philadelphia City Planning15 Commission at its meeting of September16 21st, 2010 approved the rezoning of this17 block to the "IDD" zoning designation as18 well as the required amendment to the19 Institutional Development District Master20 Plan for Temple University by21 recommending that Bill No. 100555 be22 approved.23 At the request of the Law24 Department, we would respectfully request25 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 that Bill No. 100555 be amended to allow2 a large hard copy of the proposed new3 Master Plan to be listed as an exhibit to4 the bill and kept on file with the City5 Clerk's Office as part of the public6 record.7 This concludes my testimony.8 I'd be happy to answer any questions you9 may have.10

Thank you11 for your testimony.12 Any questions for this witness?13 (No response.)14

Anyone else15 to testify on this bill?16 (No response.)17

Seeing18 none, we'll move to Bill No. 100556, an19 ordinance to amend the Institutional --20 yes, Councilman Clarke.21

I think...22 (Witnesses approached witness23 table.)24

Anyone else25 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 to testify on this bill?2

Good morning,3 Councilman Kenney, members of the4 Council.5

Please6 identify yourself.7

My name is Anthony8 Wagner and I serve as Executive9 Vice-President, CFO and Treasurer of10 Temple University. 17 Temple University has embarked18 on several major projects as the first19 steps towards its goal of transforming20 the main campus into a state-of-the-art21 21st century learning and living22 environment. 1 development, Temple 20/20: Destination2 Temple. As can be seen on Broad Street,3 we have begun the framework with a $484 million renovation and expansion of5 McGonigle and Pearson Halls. The work to6 upgrade these 1960 era buildings will add7 additional athletic courts, exercise8 space, classrooms, faculty and coaching,9 staff offices, upgraded studio for the10 Department of Dance, new men's and11 women's basketball practice courts and a12 new front atrium providing retail13 opportunities in transparency to Broad14 Street. 1 functions. The main entrance to the2 facility will be on 13th Street. It is3 our hope that the new Architecture4 building will be designated to meet LEED5 certification. 12 Temple's Board of Trustees this13 past March authorized the University to14 secure $175 million in bonds to finance15 construction of a new residence hall16 complex with student dining and retail17 space and a parking facility. 10 The L-shaped mid-rise facility11 will consist of lower-level12 back-of-the-house areas, a plaza-level13 lobby, eight residential floors and14 rooftop mechanical spaces. 17 The street level will have a "Taste of18 Philly" theme operating in a market-style19 configuration with access from Broad20 Street. The second level will be a more21 standard food court and can be accessed22 from the central terrace or stairs from23 the market. The third level will be a24 special functions area. 5 Temple University desires to6 exert a positive economic impact on North7 Philadelphia through job creation. The8 University is recognized for its9 leadership in contracting with minority,10 women and disabled business enterprises11 and its longstanding emphasis on hiring12 local workforce. It is our desire to13 promote and facilitate employment of14 residents residing in the University15 area, and the University expects the16 South Gateway project to create17 approximately 110 new positions at the18 University and its associated service19 providers. It is expected that20 approximately ten of the new positions21 will be housekeeping positions and22 approximately 100 will be food service23 positions. 2 Further, we have an expectation3 to achieve a substantial and meaningful4 level of participation by minority5 businesses, women businesses and disabled6 business enterprises as subcontractors7 for the Gateway South. The University8 also desires meaningful and appropriate9 participation by minority, women and10 disabled workers. Subject to an analysis11 of the project requirements as well as12 qualified contractors and workers13 available, the University, working with14 the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs15 Coalition, expects to establish16 participation goals of 25 percent or more17 for minority business enterprises, women18 business enterprises and disabled worker19 business enterprises subcontractors and20 the like. 7 The Temple 20/20 plan:8 Destination Temple framework will ensure9 that the University has the facilities10 that support its education and research11 goals, and it is securely anchored in12 those goals the faculty outlined so well13 in the academic compass. 6

Councilman7 Clarke.8

Thank you,9 Mr. Chairman.10 Good morning.11

Good morning.12

Thank you13 for your testimony. Pretty detailed.14 Just real quick, as you all15 know, anything we do at Temple,16 particularly something of this size, of17 this significance, tends to bring some18 level of controversy. Do you have the19 support of the local community on this20 one? I know the answer, but I have to21 ask it on the record.22

I'm Ken23 Lawrence, Senior Vice-President for24 Government, Community and Public Affairs.25 15 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Thank you for the opportunity to testify.2 We've worked very closely with3 the community on this project. We have4 letters of support from the Yorktown5 Residents Organization and Jefferson6 Manor, which are the two major7 neighborhood groups in the area there,8 and also several letters from area9 non-profits and businesses as well in10 support of the project.11

My12 understanding is that the most13 significant basis for the support is the14 hope that it will create an environment15 where the students will now be back on16 campus as opposed to in the community,17 which has been a significant challenge.18

Absolutely. Our19 neighbors are very excited for us to draw20 the students back onto campus and have21 them in one building as opposed to spread22 out.23

All right.24 Thank you.25 16 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2

Councilman3 Goode.4

Thank you,5 Mr. Chairman.6 Good morning. You talked a lot7 about diversity in your testimony without8 any specificity, but beyond what you've9 done or haven't done in the past and10 while you've cited some things within11 your testimony, we don't have copies of12 your written testimony. My question13 really is, is there a formal economic14 opportunity plan?15

Yes. We have16 submitted an EOP.17

And do you18 believe it should be attached as an19 amendment to the bill?20

If Councilman21 Clarke -- yes.22

Thank you.23 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.24

Thank you25 17 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 very much.2 Any more questions for these3 witnesses?4 (No response.)5

Anyone else6 to testify on this bill?7 (No response.)8

Seeing9 none, we will now move to Bill No.10 100556, which is an ordinance to amend11 the Institutional Development District12 Master Plan of Temple University, located13 on the block bounded by 13th Street,14 Diamond Street, 12th Street, and Norris15 Street, by allowing for the construction16 of a new building addition for use as the17 School of Architecture.18 Please identify yourself for19 the record.20

Good morning,21 Councilman Kenney, members of the Rules22 Committee. I am William Kramer, Division23 Director of the Development Division of24 the Philadelphia City Planning25 18 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Commission. I am here today to testify2 on Bill No. 100556, which was introduced3 into City Council September 16th, 2010.4 The purpose of Bill No. 1005565 is to permit the construction of a new6 School of Architecture for Temple7 University, which will consist of four8 floors plus a mechanical penthouse. The9 total gross floor area of the new school10 will be approximately 51,020 square feet11 and will be located on the Mini-Arts12 Campus as an addition to Presser Hall on13 the block bounded by 13th Street, Diamond14 Street, 12th Street, and Norris Street.15 The new Architectural School16 building will consist primarily of open17 studio spaces for the Architectural18 Department, as well as classrooms,19 offices, shops and related support20 functions. The main entrance to the21 school will be at 13th Street, with a22 one-story enclosed corridor connecting23 the addition with the student lounge.24 The Philadelphia City Planning25 19 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Commission at its meeting of August 17th,2 2010 approved the amendments to the3 Institutional Development District Master4 Plan for Temple University.5 Subsequently, the City Planning6 Commission at its meeting of September7 21st, 2010 recommended that Bill No.8 100556 be approved as an item in accord9 with previous policy.10 At the request of the Law11 Department, we respectfully request that12 Bill No. 100556 be amended in order to13 allow a large hard copy of the proposed14 new Master Plan to be listed as an15 exhibit to the bill and kept on file with16 the City Clerk's Office as part of the17 public record.18 This is the conclusion of my19 testimony. I'd be happy to answer any20 questions you may have.21

Any22 questions for Mr. Kramer?23 (No response.)24

Do you have25 20 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 any testimony to add?2

My previous3 remarks actually included some discussion4 of the Architecture building.5

Fine.6 Any more questions for these7 witnesses?8 (No response.)9

Seeing10 none, thank you very much.11 Anyone else to testify on the12 bill?13 (No response.)14

Seeing15 none, we will move to Bill No. 100656, an16 ordinance amending Section 14-305 of The17 Philadelphia Code, entitled "'C-4'18 Commercial District," all under certain19 terms and conditions; and amending the20 Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the21 zoning designations of certain areas of22 land located within an area bounded by23 Hamilton Street, 19th Street, Callowhill24 Street and 20th Street.25 21 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Mr. Kramer, please identify2 yourself.3

Good morning,4 Chairman Kenney and members of the Rules5 Committee. I am William Kramer, Division6 Director of the Development Planning7 Division of the Philadelphia City8 Planning Commission. I am here today to9 testify on Bill No. 100656, which was10 introduced by Councilmember Clarke on11 October 7th, 2010.12 Bill No. 100656 amends the13 Philadelphia Zoning Code by amending14 Section 14-305 of The Philadelphia Code,15 entitled "'C-4' Commercial District" and16 amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by17 changing the zoning designations of18 certain areas of land located within an19 area bounded by Hamilton Street, 19th20 Street, Callowhill and 20th Street.21 This bill amends the22 Philadelphia Zoning Maps by rezoning the23 area just mentioned from the existing24 zoning designations of partly "C-2"25 22 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Commercial, partly "G-2" Industrial and2 partly "RC-4" Residential to designations3 that are partly "C-2" Commercial, partly4 "RC-4" Residential and partly "C-4"5 Commercial in order to facilitate the6 redevelopment of the Granary building7 located at the northeast corner of 20th8 and Shamokin Streets. Additionally, the9 proposal calls for the construction of a10 new mixed-use structure along Callowhill11 Street between 19th and 20th Streets.12 The project will consist of13 approximately 209,000 square feet and14 will provide 174 residential units,15 31,000 square feet of retail, 110 parking16 spaces and 64 bicycle parking spaces.17 This property will take a vacant lot and18 the former Granary building and create a19 mixed-use development compatible with the20 neighborhood just north of the Benjamin21 Franklin Parkway.22 Bill No. 100656 also amends23 Section 14-304 of the Zoning Code in24 order to permit accessory parking on this25 23 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 lot at a ratio of one space for every two2 dwelling units. There are provisions to3 allow legally required windows to be4 located within 25 feet of the property5 line.6 The current plans indicate a7 pedestrian bridge to be located above8 Shamokin Street, a canopy and terrace9 above the sidewalk on Callowhill Street,10 and a cluster of four columns on11 Callowhill Street, all of which will12 require additional legislative action.13 After Bill No. 100656 was14 drafted, the owners acquired additional15 property along the northern edge of the16 property and have requested that the maps17 be amended to reflect this acquisition.18 I have respectfully submitted the19 requested amendment for your20 consideration.21 The Philadelphia City Planning22 Commission considered Bill No. 100656 at23 their meeting of October 19th, 2010 and24 recommended that it be approved with the25 24 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 requested map amendments.2 This concludes my testimony.3 I'd be happy to answer any questions you4 may have.5

Thank you6 very much for your testimony.7 Any questions for Mr. Kramer?8 (No response.)9

Seeing10 none, Mr. Slogoff, Mr. Pearlstein.11 (Witnesses approached witness12 table.)13

Good morning.14

Good15 morning.16

Good morning,17 Council. My name is Reed Slogoff and I'm18 here today with my partner, Jim19 Pearlstein, and our counsel, Bill Martin,20 from Fox Rothschild. We're the21 principals of Pearl Properties, a Center22 City-based full-service real estate23 investment firm and we're here to speak24 in support of Bill No. 100656.25 25 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

Excuse me.2 Didn't we just do this in another3 hearing? Didn't you present these plans?4 Because they look awful familiar.5

No, not at a6 Council hearing.7

Was it8 Streets?9

We were at Street10 Services.11

I12 apologize. Please proceed.13

Sure. Jim and I14 were both born and raised in Philadelphia15 and have been investing and developing16 properties in Center City Philadelphia17 over the past 15 years. We have acquired18 and developed more than 50 urban19 mixed-use properties in important20 locations throughout Center City. 1 Our developments have included2 office buildings, apartment buildings,3 retail and restaurants, and have been4 instrumental in stimulating economic5 growth, including bringing new residents,6 employees, shoppers and diners to Center7 City. We are currently under8 construction on several new developments9 and have been continuously over the past10 ten years, even during these most11 difficult recent economic times. 14 In 2006, we acquired a large15 site between 19th and 20th Streets along16 Callowhill Street in the Logan Square17 neighborhood. Our site is notable for18 the Granary building, which sits vacant19 on approximately 10,000 square feet at20 the northwest corner of the site. 1 distribution center for grain grown in2 the farmlands of Pennsylvania. The3 Granary was originally constructed in4 1925 to function as a grain elevator in5 the long-since-passed industrial era in6 Philadelphia. The building contains 727 silos, which make their way vertically8 through the building and encompass the9 entire midsection of the building. These10 thick concrete silos render the bulk of11 the building unusable. For many years,12 grain elevators were a common sight in13 the City. 17 In 1981, the Granary building18 was placed on the Philadelphia Register19 of Historic Places, and in 1982, it was20 placed on the National Register of21 Historic Places. 1 grain elevator which dated back to the2 Civil War. 5 The Granary building is a6 unique remnant of Philadelphia's7 industrial era. Buildings like this are8 in danger of disappearing. Its9 construction is robust and specific,10 making it extremely difficult to11 repurpose. The Granary building is12 located in a precinct that was once13 ground-zero for the Industrial14 Revolution. In 1895, Baldwin Locomotive,15 Malleable Iron Works and Bement, Miles16 and Company were immediate neighbors and17 world-class producers. 22 Today, the Granary building23 remains as the only industrial trace left24 in the surrounding neighborhood. 1 Granary building is now adjacent to a2 busy Whole Foods Market, the planned Free3 Library expansion and the soon-to-be4 global tourist destination with the new5 Barnes Foundation. There are several6 important historical buildings in the7 area, and the future points to a new8 collection of significant architectural9 pieces. 11 Over the past several months,12 we have worked closely with the Logan13 Square Neighborhood Association to14 develop exciting plans for a mixed-use15 development on our site. 1 respond to concerns. 18 The new building will be below the 12519 foot height limitation in the Benjamin20 Franklin Parkway Controls and will21 complement the exciting and developing22 immediate neighborhood, including the new23 Barnes Museum, Whole Foods and the24 planned Free Library expansion. 4 Our plans for the Granary5 building are to revitalize and bring the6 unique structure back to life, adaptively7 repurposing the building to house active8 ground floor retail and restaurants,9 amenities and 12 apartments at the very10 top of the building. 1 and retail - active retail and restaurant2 along both Callowhill Street and 20th3 Street in the Granary building and4 parking and circulation, significant5 parking below ground and parking on6 grade. 12 Residents will have access and use of a13 green roof. 22 Bill No. 1 application of the "C-4" requirements to2 our parcel. The change of zoning which3 the bill will facilitate will leave the4 parcel in a new zoning classification in5 harmony with the surrounding parcels and6 no longer as an isolated spot of "G-2"7 zoning.

11 With respect to the12 construction of the development, we are13 mindful of the City of Philadelphia's14 economic opportunity plan and the City's15 anti-discrimination policy administered16 through the Office of Economic17 Opportunity. We are committed to the18 principles established in the plan and we19 are committed to the implementation of20 these principles in connection with the21 construction and operation of this22 important project. 21 In closing, thank you very much22 for your time today. in a very challenging economic time.

Councilman4 Greenlee.5

Thank6 you, Mr. Chairman.7 Good morning. There's a lot of8 good things I think that are in this9 plan, and I'm familiar with this area. I10 live a little bit north of it, but the11 one thing that I noticed when Mr. Kramer12 spoke and you didn't get specific on13 this, but you talk about the parking,14 because as somebody who goes through that15 area, I see right now I would call it a16 little parking challenged. Now, you're17 talking about maybe one -- I think it's18 one spot for every two units?19

There's a minimum20 in the legislation I believe of one for21 every two units, correct.22

Why do23 you think that's enough? What kind of24 studies did you do to show that that's25 36 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 enough? Because it sounds like a lot of2 people that won't have parking.3

Do you want to4 take that.5

Reed and I6 have developed several hundred apartments7 throughout the City and we find that 0.58 to one is more than sufficient enough to9 handle the apartment dwellers who are10 going to be in this building.11

Do you12 think -- and I know you can't tell13 exactly. Will these be people that maybe14 were City dwellers or a lot of people15 come from outside the City? Do you have16 any idea? I mean, in your other17 experiences what kind of has happened18 there?19 The reason I ask that, because20 I found where I live, if you come from21 the suburbs, you're kind of wedded to a22 car. So that's one of the ways.23

Sure. Sure.24 In the rental community, we find that our25 37 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 apartment buildings maybe average 202 percent of residents having a car.3

Twenty4 percent?5

Maybe 206 percent, maybe less.7

That8 sounds awful low. Look, I've never9 studied it. It just seems like in the10 units, again, in that general area --11

Very, very low12 percent. And as part of our plan, we13 have several spots that are for CarShare.14 We have several spots that are for like15 ten-minute parking, like if they get a16 delivery or something to get them off the17 streets. We are reopening Shamokin18 Street. Shamokin Street has been closed19 for several years. I'm not sure exactly20 how many, but there's bollards up on both21 sides. We're going to reopen that to22 help the circulation, to get people23 bottlenecked off of 20th Street up.24 We're working with the Streets Department25 38 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 to be able to come in to Shamokin Street2 so you don't tie up traffic.3

You got a4 lot of circulation, but you probably5 won't be able to park on Shamokin, right?6 That's pretty small.7

Not on8 Shamokin, no.9

All10 right. Just on that one last thing, I11 know you worked with the Logan Square12 Neighbors. So they're comfortable with13 the parking? Has that been something14 that's been in dialogue?15

Well, there have16 been several issues that were raised,17 which we responded to. Initially we got,18 after several meetings -- we hosted19 meetings in our office, we attended20 meetings throughout the entire summer,21 and we got the unanimous non-opposition.22 And then we're now in the process of23 finalizing the development agreement. We24 received a number of comments. We25 39 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 responded to them twice. We are2 absolutely in discussions about the3 parking, if there's a concern.4 Just to give a little more5 color on the parking question, one of the6 benefits, as you know, to living in the7 City is that you can walk to work. You8 don't necessarily need a car. So if9 you're in your 20's, late 20's, you can10 actually get the benefits of City living11 and walking to work. So we've seen that12 in our properties and we anticipate that13 at this development.14

Okay.15 Again, I've never done the study on it.16 Just visually it seems like a lot of17 people do the walking in Center City, but18 they still want to have a car. But I19 hear what you're saying.20 All right. Thank you.21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.22

Thank you23 very much.24 Councilman Goode.25 40 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

Thank you,2 Mr. Chairman.3 Good morning. Thank you for4 your testimony. Is there a formal5 economic opportunity plan for this6 project?7

Councilman, Bill8 Martin, attorney for the project.9 Yes, there will be. We've been10 in dialogue with Councilman Clarke's11 office. He shared with us --12

We've had13 this conversation, Mr. Martin. We had14 this conversation in several hearings,15 haven't we?16

The plan will17 clearly be in place in advance of any18 legislation being passed.19

We've had20 this conversation before, right?21

Not in connection22 with a privately financed project. We've23 had this conversation in public projects24 that I was involved in.25 41 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

But you2 represent other developers on projects?3

Yes.4

You've come5 before this Committee before?6

Yes.7

You've said8 the same thing, and I've said that the9 plan should be available at the hearing;10 did I not?11

Sir, I don't12 recall that conversation, but I'm sure13 you may have.14

Okay. It's15 on the record now in this transcript.16

Yes, sir.17

So next time18 if you bring a client here without an19 economic opportunity plan, I'll just pull20 out that transcript.21 Now, do you have any objection22 to it being included as an amendment to23 the bill?24

Sir, if that's the25 42 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 preference of Council, that will be fine.2

Thank you.3 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4

Thank you5 very much.6 Any other questions for these7 witnesses?8 (No response.)9

Thank you10 very much.11 Jovida Hill, Ashley Angert and12 Ed Panek, please.13 (Witnesses approached witness14 table.)15

Good16 morning.17

Good morning.18

Please19 identify yourself for the record.20

Good morning. I'm21 Jovida Hill. I'm a resident of 419 North22 20th Street. I reside on the same block23 as the Granary project.24 I appreciate Councilman25 43 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Greenlee's comments in terms of parking.2 Just to give you an idea, we live in the3 same neighborhood practically. We're4 practically neighbors.5 An idea, when Korman Suites6 converted to condominiums, if you will7 recall, there was not one-for-one parking8 there. That really did impact the9 neighborhood tremendously. There are10 more people who live at CityView, which11 is now the CityView Condominiums. There12 are more people who live there who want13 parking and don't have it. And as you14 have said, our neighborhood is parking15 challenged and it probably -- as the16 Barnes Foundation is built and the Free17 Library expansion is built and this new18 project goes forward, we will be even19 more challenged.20 And so those were comments that21 were not on my prepared text, and now I22 will proceed to my prepared statement.23 I am opposed to the passage of24 this bill on the following grounds:25 44 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Number one, the Logan Square Neighborhood2 Association issued a letter of3 non-opposition prematurely. Residents4 have not had adequate time to review and5 weigh in on Pearl Properties' development6 proposal for this site. And while we are7 in the process of negotiating our8 neighborhood development agreement, there9 are still major unresolved issues,10 including the plan's inadequate parking11 as required by a "C-4" zoning12 designation.13 Two, the developers are seeking14 spot zoning through ordinance to bypass15 the ZBA, which would require the16 developer to provide more parking spaces17 than the proposal calls for with regard18 to the planned number of residential and19 commercial units.20 Number three, there is21 sufficient concern that the proposed plan22 for 100 percent valet parking would pose23 serious consequences to already congested24 20th Street traffic. We expect that25 45 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 traffic will double after the completion2 of the Barnes Foundation and the Free3 Library expansion, all of which will4 share the same intersection at 20th and5 Callowhill Streets.6 Our fourth concern is that7 outstanding issues still include a8 complete plan for landscaping and9 construction materials. This is10 extremely important, considering the11 signature buildings that will be in close12 proximity to this proposed project and13 its proximity to the Benjamin Franklin14 Parkway.15 Until these outstanding issues16 are resolved, I ask that Council not pass17 this bill, and your consideration will be18 greatly appreciated.19

Thank you20 very much for your testimony.21 Sir, would you please identify22 yourself for the record.23

Yes. I'm24 Dr. Ashley Angert. I'm a near neighbor25 46 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 to this project. I live right next door2 to it.3 Can I give these to the4 members?5

The6 Sergeant-At-Arms will take your --7 they're coming this way.8

What I'm passing9 out is the diagram given to us by the10 developer of what the parking would look11 like, and one of the reasons we're12 testifying -- let me precede this. 18 Parking is one example of the19 difficulties that we face, and I guess20 it's the major one. If you look at this21 Exhibit E, it shows little rectangular22 representations of cars, and if you23 notice, they're stacked two and three24 deep. 1 park their own car. There are only 982 spaces for 210 people, and it's3 impossible to do this without valet4 parking. 7 Now, I'd like you to imagine8 for a minute -- this project is not at9 20th and Shamokin. It's really at 20th10 and Callowhill. 12 Imagine for a minute the Barnes13 Museum is up, the Library project is14 underway, 20th Street is already backed15 up because of the supermarket, and16 imagine people coming home from work17 dropping off -- driving in with their18 car, getting out and waiting for valet19 parking. 1 situation. 7 at a11 minimum. That's 70 percent of the people12 in there should have parking. 17 In addition to that, this is a18 commercial area as well and there's going19 to be at least one restaurant, and we20 were told that there would be valet21 parking for that restaurant so that it22 wouldn't cause problems. Well, where are23 they going to park the cars? or whatever, for that purpose. The contention that there5 aren't that many people who have cars in6 the City is simply not true. We checked7 around. 9 CityView, as Jovida said, has people10 lined up waiting for spaces. If you go11 down further, all of the buildings, if12 you go to down to 18th and 17th, those13 are rental buildings and they're backed14 up with people waiting for spaces. There15 is no parking in that area. So I do not16 believe that it is correct to allow17 someone to put up a new building without18 having completely adequate parking, fully19 in compliance with the zoning for that20 area. 22 The other issue is that we need23 information. 1 put some parking underground. I have no2 idea what that means. 5 In order for us to go along6 with this project, I think we need7 specific diagrams, specific drawings. 11 They talk also in terms of12 "C-4" zoning being required because of13 the types of businesses that they want to14 put in there. Nobody will tell us what15 they want. I don't know if they want to16 put a bowling alley in there. We have no17 idea. We need specific ideas of what18 is -- what are the sizes of the stores19 they're putting in, what types of stores20 do they plan to put in, does "C-4" allow21 more than what we think the neighborhood22 should bear. 4 The other thing I'll just add5 is that the Logan Square Neighbors6 Association did pass on this bill. They7 did write a letter of non-opposition. We8 are the near neighbors. We are on the9 north side of the Parkway, and I don't10 know why they jumped the gun and did11 this. I can only assume that being north12 of the Parkway it was always felt to be13 great to have developers there. People14 are happy to have that area developed,15 but now there are a couple of thousand16 people living in high-end condominiums17 and apartments in that area and we're18 very concerned about what comes into that19 area. 1

Thank you2 for your testimony.3 Councilman DiCicco.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,5 Mr. Chairman.6 Good morning. Notwithstanding7 your issues and concerns for the valet, I8 did hear both of you mention your concern9 for the Barnes and the Library expansion.10 Might I assume that you're concerned that11 patrons to those facilities will be12 parking in your neighborhood?13

No. I'm sorry. The14 concern basically is, it's already15 congested. No, we're not -- I mean,16 actually, we welcome this new project.17 We welcome the Barnes. We welcome the18 Library expansion. What we're saying is19 that there is -- this project, as far as20 we can tell, has inadequate parking for21 the residents. It's residential parking22 we're concerned about.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I hear24 that. I just didn't know if you were25 53 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 concerned about the parking being more2 problematic or is it more about3 circulation? Because I believe you4 probably have permit parking?5

Yes, and we're6 already tight on -- as a matter of fact,7 it took us a year and a half to negotiate8 with a businessowner who wanted four9 spaces taken from our Permit 6, because10 Permit 6 parking is still -- our11 neighborhood is very big and there's not12 even enough Permit 6 spaces for the13 people that already live there.14

The other thing15 is, this project will take away Permit 616 parking, because in order for trucks to17 be able to get onto Shamokin Street,18 they're going to have to have no parking19 across from the driveway. There's no way20 trucks could swing in there without21 taking away parking places.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, I23 just was concerned -- I do represent a24 district that has parking issues, South25 54 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Philadelphia, Center City, Society Hill.2 You can figure out what I'm talking3 about, if you've ever driven through4 there. I just was concerned that you5 thought you might be losing some parking6 spaces as a result of more patrons coming7 to the Barnes, not necessarily ignoring8 your concern for circulation.9

Yeah. We're10 concerned that the residents who will be11 moving into the apartments will not have12 enough parking spaces.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I14 understand that again, but I thought you15 might think you were losing additional,16 and I'd say maybe you need to talk to17 your Councilman about adjusting the hours18 that are permitted with the permit19 parking to a lesser amount of time,20 because my guess is -- I don't travel21 20th Street all that often, but when I do22 at certain hours, I do notice it is a bit23 congested, and I think most of it -- and24 you live there, so you would know better25 55 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 than I would obviously -- that comes out2 of the Whole Foods --3

I live right across4 from Whole Foods. I'm on the block.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You got a6 lot of that circulation stuff going on7 with Whole Foods and I didn't know if8 patrons who go to Whole Foods were9 parking on 20th Street or adjacent10 streets. So you may want to look at11 readjusting the permit time that's being12 allowed anyway. I mean, if you have13 two-hour permit parking -- I'm not sure14 what you have up there.15

Permit parking is 2416 hours, and I don't think any of the17 residents would --18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I know19 it's 24, but for non-residents what's the20 maximum?21

It varies. Some22 places it's two-hour parking, some places23 three-hour parking, some places four-hour24 parking.25 56 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, you2 may want to look to adjust that, because3 my guess is you're getting people who are4 maybe doing business in the area parking5 there for two, three and four hours,6 taking up parking spaces that would7 traditionally be for the community. You8 may want to look at -- overall, I'm9 saying look at the entire area and see if10 you need some adjustments.11

As a matter of fact,12 there have been discussion about looking13 into an overall parking plan for the14 neighborhood.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That may16 help. Again, I'm not sure what it does17 to the circulation, but it may help at18 least with the on-street parking issues a19 little bit.20

Thank you.21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.22

Thank you23 very much for your testimony.24 Any other questions for these25 57 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 witnesses?2 (No response.)3

Seeing4 none, thank you very much.5 Mr. Panek.6 (Witness approached witness7 table.)8

Please9 identify yourself for the record.10

Good morning,11 members of City Council. My name is Ed12 Panek, P-A-N-E-K. I'm the Chairman of13 the Zoning Committee for the Logan Square14 Neighborhood Association and I'm here to15 give testimony in respect to Bill No.16 100656.17 The first thing that members of18 Council are to be aware of concerning19 this project is that it is not the20 original project that was proposed for21 this site. The original project was very22 unacceptable to the neighbors, and to the23 developers' concern and to their credit,24 I should say, in response to the concerns25 58 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 of the near neighbors, they completely2 redesigned the project to what you saw3 presented here today. In concept, that,4 I believe, is a good project for the5 neighborhood. What remains to be done,6 however, is the finalization of a7 neighborhood development plan.8 We have done neighborhood9 construction and development plans with10 respect to any number of projects in the11 Logan Square area, and those are12 important in terms of providing guidance,13 rules and principles with respect to14 construction dates, times, hours, as well15 as to what gets built on it and how it16 looks and how it's maintained.17 We are in the process of going18 through that neighborhood type of19 development plan now. As a matter of20 fact, both Dr. Angert and Jovida Hill are21 members of the committee, which I chair,22 to produce the final neighborhood23 development agreement.24 My testimony here will be, I25 59 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 don't think, totally inconsistent with2 either the developers' testimony or the3 testimony that you just heard from Jovida4 Hill and Dr. Angert. I believe that we5 do need more time to finalize the6 neighborhood development agreement, and I7 believe that it is important that that be8 done before this ordinance is passed.9 But I don't know, I can't give a specific10 timeframe on it right now.11 Here is my understanding of how12 the bill is scheduled to proceed: It's13 my understanding that the bill would be14 read in public for the first time on15 Thursday, the 18th. The second reading16 of the bill, if required, would be on17 December the 2nd. As I understand it,18 there is a provision that would allow19 someone to apply for a waiver of the20 second reading; in other words, a21 suspension of the rules, so the second22 reading would not be required. I'm here23 to oppose that. We want both dates24 required for the reading of the bill,25 60 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 which would mean, as I understand it,2 that the earliest that this bill could3 possibly pass is December the 9th. That4 may well be adequate time for us to be5 able to finalize the neighborhood6 development agreement with the7 developers. And they've been responsive,8 frankly, to what our concerns are.9 Because this is a redevelopment, they are10 perhaps a little bit behind in terms of11 where they might otherwise have been12 concerning the detailed nature of their13 plans, but I think that this is something14 that we can in fact do and I think it can15 be worked out. And I think the option,16 if it's not finalized before December the17 9th, the option would be to go back to18 Councilman Clarke and say we need some19 additional time to do this. And I think20 it's premature to make a judgment as to21 whether the bill needs to be held on22 passage at this time until we know more23 about exactly how far we can get with the24 neighborhood development agreement.25 61 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 So that's my testimony, and I'm2 here to answer any questions anybody may3 have.4

Thank you5 very much for your testimony.6

My name is Sam7 Little. I'm the President of Logan8 Square Neighborhood Association, and I9 would like to support but for a little10 bit stronger, more general position, that11 you Councilpeople hear controversies all12 the time, and this is a project that13 started as a highly controversial one.14 And, in fact, Logan Square Neighborhood15 Association, when the first controversy16 occurred, which was in June, met with the17 developer. We've had over nine meetings18 in terms, and each one has been an19 interaction back and forth. More has20 been added, and the developer has been21 responsive to the concerns that have been22 raised.23 We are actually right now --24 it's always fun being in the middle --25 62 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 we're in the middle between the developer2 and the near neighbors, but we're also in3 the middle in terms of the process. And4 we are right now planning a meeting at5 the end of this week. And what Ed is6 talking about in terms of the 9th, we not7 only think it can be done, but it's an8 obligation to provide you a report at9 that time, Councilman, as to where it is.10 We think that the remaining issues can be11 resolved, and if they're not, we should12 not. But we would like Council in13 general to support these neighborhood14 development agreements and getting15 developers and communities together to16 work things out. I think that's17 important.18 That's my testimony.19

Thank you20 very much.21 Any questions for these22 witnesses?23 Councilman Clarke.24

Thank you,25 63 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Mr. Chair.2 First, how you doing today?3 Just real briefly, because I know a4 number of people are here and I5 anticipate that at least one of the bills6 on the docket today will be rather7 lengthy, so it's probably best that you8 not have to sit to determine what the9 outcome of this particular bill would be.10 So what I would like to do at this time11 is ask the Chair to hold the bill in12 Committee today, have the bill recessed13 until I believe we have a hearing on the14 29th.15

29th.16

29th in17 Rules.18

At 10:0019 a.m.20

That will21 give you some time to do some work. I22 don't necessarily anticipate that you23 will have it resolved by the 29th, but it24 will delay the first stage of this25 64 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 process, which is passage out of the2 Committee.3 So while we understand that4 there has been significant changes to the5 development, some of which actually may6 have diminished parking opportunities,7 because I believe we're building out as8 opposed to up, I think it's fair to say,9 to use that term to the developer to show10 some sense and acknowledge that there has11 been some changes. But as the12 Councilperson for the district, I believe13 that community residents should have14 every opportunity to have significant15 input. The closer you live to the16 project, frankly speaking, the more I pay17 attention to it. So I think those18 individuals who live directly adjacent19 should have some additional time and not20 feel that they're under the gun to come21 to some solution before it's time for22 that solution to be put before us.23 So I would ask the Chair, if he24 could, at the time of the public meeting,25 65 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 to have the bill held in Committee today,2 refer it to the 29th, and we can kind of3 see where we are at that time.4

Thank you,5 Councilman Clarke.6

And as this7 proceeds, personally I don't think that I8 will ask for this Committee to proceed on9 a vote of the bill until it's ready to be10 voted on. All right?11

Thank you,12 Councilman Clarke. Just one additional13 comment. It is true that parking is an14 issue. It is, however, something that I15 believe is resolvable, and the developer16 has recently committed to put parking17 underground for the new building, which18 is a significant expenditure. Now we19 have to deal with the number of spaces20 and that type of thing. But I think it's21 a resolvable issue.22 Thank you.23

Thank you24 very much for your testimony.25 66 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Anyone else to testify on this2 bill?3 (No response.)4

Seeing5 none, we will move to Bill No. 100673, an6 ordinance approving the thirty-eighth7 amendment of the redevelopment proposal8 for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area,9 being the area beginning at the northwest10 corner of Front Street and Spring Garden11 Street, including the thirtieth amendment12 to the urban renewal plan and the13 twenty-seventh amendment to the14 relocation plan, which provides, inter15 alia, for the additional land acquisition16 of approximately 15 properties for17 residential, institutional and related18 uses; the provision of certain relocation19 services, as required by law and20 declaring that condemnation is not21 imminent with respect to the project.22 Please identify yourself for23 the record and proceed, whoever wants to24 go first.25 67 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 (Witnesses approached witness2 table.)3

Good morning,4 Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules5 Committee. My name is Richard Redding.6 I am Director of Community Planning at7 the Philadelphia City Planning8 Commission. I am here to testify in9 support of Bill No. 100673.10 The bill approves the11 thirty-eighth amendment of the12 redevelopment proposal for the Model13 Cities Urban Renewal Area. It authorizes14 acquisition of 15 properties at four15 locations in North Philadelphia: 131216 North 16th Street where Community17 Ventures proposes to construct affordable18 rental housing. That's the first area of19 acquisition, and the second is six20 properties in the vicinity of 26th and21 Fletcher, where Michaels Development22 Company proposes to construct affordable23 rental housing. Thirdly, five properties24 at Susquehanna and Fairhill Streets where25 68 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 APM plans a new headquarters; and,2 finally, acquisition of three parcels at3 2310 to 14 North Marshall Street where4 APM intends to create outdoor play space5 for children using the adjacent community6 center.7 All of the properties are8 vacant lots. The proposals are in9 accordance with the North Philadelphia10 Redevelopment Area Plan. The Planning11 Commission staff approved this proposal12 on October 19th of 2010.13 I'll be happy to answer any14 questions of the Committee.15

Thank you16 very much for your testimony.17 Councilman Clarke, do you have18 anything?19

Thank you,20 Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, just for the21 record, I just want to say some of these22 properties are actually in Councilwoman23 Maria Quinones-Sanchez's district, but24 because they're in the same Model Cities25 69 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Area, I believe that they had to2 consolidate those properties in one3 particular bill, and for the record, she4 has indicated support for the passage of5 this particular legislation.6

Thank you7 very much, Councilman.8 Please identify yourself for9 the record.10

Good morning,11 Chairman Kenney and members of the12 Committee. I am Ed Covington, Executive13 Director of the Redevelopment Authority14 of the City of Philadelphia. I'm joined15 by Michael Koonce, Deputy Executive16 Director. I am here to speak in support17 of Bill No. 100673, which is the18 thirty-eighth amendment to the19 redevelopment proposal and the thirtieth20 amendment to the urban renewal plan for21 the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. All22 of these properties will be acquired23 utilizing funds from the Neighborhood24 Transformation Initiative.25 70 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 The proposal and plan provide2 for the acquisition of a total of 153 properties. One vacant lot will be4 acquired on behalf of Community Ventures.5 This property will be assembled with6 others already in their ownership for the7 development of 39 new construction8 affordable rental units.9 Six vacant lots will be10 acquired on behalf of Michaels11 Development. These properties will be12 assembled with others already in RDA's13 ownership for the development of a 50- to14 55-unit townhouse and apartment complex.15 Five vacant lots will be16 acquired and combined with several17 properties that APM already owns to18 create the assemblage necessary for the19 development of their new headquarters.20 And, finally, three vacant lots21 will be acquired that are adjacent to22 APM's community center, which will be23 used to create outdoor space to use by24 the children in their Head Start program.25 71 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Chair and members of the2 Committee, I respectfully request3 favorable consideration of Bill No.4 100673, and I would also ask the5 suspension of Council rules to allow6 first reading on November 18th, 2010.7 That concludes my testimony.8 We welcome any questions.9

Thank you10 very much for your testimony.11 Any questions for this witness?12 (No response.)13

Anyone else14 to testify?15 (No response.)16

Seeing17 none, thank you very much.18 We will now hear testimony on19 Bill No. 100710, which is an ordinance20 amending Section 9-605 of The21 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Towing," by22 revising the requirements for signs that23 give notice that unauthorized parking is24 prohibited and unauthorized vehicles will25 72 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 be towed from a private lot or private2 property, under certain terms and3 conditions.4 Mr. Haigler, please.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7

Good morning,8 Chairman Kenney and members of the9 Committee. I am Otis Haigler --10

Hold on.11 Hold on. Hold on.12

I'm sorry.13

Thank you.14 Please proceed.15

Again, good16 morning, Chairman Kenney and members of17 the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr.,18 Director of Legislative Affairs for the19 Department of Licenses and Inspections.20 Today, I am here to provide testimony on21 Bill 100710, which is a technical22 amendment to Section 9-605(11)(a) to23 indicate that the size of the lettering24 of signs placed on properties that25 73 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 authorize towing from said property must2 be of sufficient size in order to be3 easily read from the public right-of-way4 leading to the property in question. All5 other requirements related to the content6 required to be included on the signs7 remain intact.8 The proposed bill will have no9 impact on L&I's operations and,10 therefore, we offer no objections to its11 enactment.12 Thank you for the opportunity13 to provide the Department's testimony,14 and I'll be happy to answer any15 questions.16

Thank you17 for your strong lack of objection. I18 appreciate that.19

You're welcome.20

Any21 questions of Mr. Haigler?22 (No response.)23

Seeing24 none, anyone else to testify on this25 74 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 bill?2 (No response.)3

Thank you.4 We will now move to Bill No. 100536,5 which is an ordinance amending provisions6 of The Philadelphia Code relating to7 towing; in particular, amending Section8 9-605, entitled "Towing," by revising the9 provisions for the licensing of towing10 companies; by revising the rotation11 system for towing certain vehicles; by12 providing for fines, penalties and13 license suspensions, and for14 administrative adjudication of certain15 violations; and by delegating the16 administration of enforcement of the17 Section to the Philadelphia Parking18 Authority; and amending Section19 12-2406.1, relating to fees for towing20 and storage of immobilized or impounded21 vehicles; all under certain terms and22 conditions.23 I'd like members of the24 Administration who are going to testify25 75 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 to please come forward.2 (Witnesses approached witness3 table.)4

We've had a5 few hearings on this issue already. This6 hearing is being conducted for the7 purpose of recognizing amendments to the8 pending bill, but prior to the taking of9 testimony, I wanted to take an10 opportunity to have the individuals who11 are primarily now responsible for the12 administration and enforcement of our13 current system to view a short video that14 appeared on cable television recently. I15 believe there are four installments16 scheduled. This was the first17 installment, and this is under our18 current system that we are operating19 under now. So it doesn't have20 commercials in it. We won't probably21 show the whole thing, but it's not that22 long. So I would like to just take an23 opportunity for you to view this, if you24 haven't seen it, and offer whatever25 76 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 comments you feel appropriate relative to2 the discussion that we're having.3 (Video shown.)4

Thank you5 very much. I'd just like to get some6 reaction from the Administration on what7 we currently have out here relative to8 two instances in this particular case,9 one involved an accident and the10 break-neck response to the scene, and the11 second is the issue that we've dealt with12 recently relative to whether or not a car13 should be ticketed prior to being towed14 off a private lot. So I just generally15 would like to get your reaction and then16 we can discuss some of the amendments.17 DEPUTY

Yes.18 Thank you. Everett Gillison, Deputy19 Mayor for Public Safety. Thank you to20 members of City Council present and to21 you, Councilman Kenney, for the22 opportunity to provide testimony.23 The reaction to what I just saw24 on the screen, obviously the reason why25 77 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 we put and the reason why Council passed2 the rotational tow was to stop wreck3 chasing, was to create a better4 environment for the citizens of the City5 of Philadelphia, to provide better6 safety. Obviously there are some7 additional issues that this shows.8 I will say that we do9 understand that a part of the problem was10 is that the airwaves were being11 monitored. And by the "airwaves," I mean12 the radio transmissions from police were13 being monitored by the various aspects of14 the towing industry, and we have since15 August stopped deploying in that manner16 in order to curb some of the abuses that17 we would see racing, going from one place18 to another. We still have issues19 concerning that and we are trying to20 address those issues when we come21 forward.22 The second issue, the illegally23 parked vehicle -- strike that; the24 vehicle that was in the shopping area25 78 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 that was reported to be parked illegally2 overnight, before a car can be towed, we3 have instituted the fact that a police4 officer has to ticket the car before they5 can move. That gives a modicum of6 requirement by the industry to see that7 there's a ticket on the vehicle by a8 Philadelphia police officer. That will9 keep that discretionary aspect from being10 done, and we will be able to monitor11 compliance with those kinds of issues and12 regulations.13 So all of those things taken14 together, those are problems. I don't15 like seeing what I just saw, but every16 time we try to see what's happening, we17 try to have an adequate response, and we18 believe that we are working with Council19 on a variety of ways to respond to the20 things that we've seen.21

Thank you22 for your testimony.23 Anyone else like to respond at24 the table?25 79 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 (No response.)2

Have any or3 all of you had the opportunity to review4 the amendments that have been circulated5 as a result of our past hearing and now6 this hearing specifically dealing with7 the proposed amendments and the chart8 explaining what was initially introduced,9 what's amended and what's to come?10 DEPUTY

Yes.11

Do you have12 any comments relative to that?13 DEPUTY

I know14 that we have worked over the summer on a15 lot of these amendments, and both your16 matter that has come forward -- also, I17 see Councilman Rizzo to my left, and18 we've had several discussions.19 We have looked at the20 amendments to the matter and we find as21 an Administration these are an22 improvement to where we are currently and23 we can be in support.24

Is that25 80 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 concurrence with --2 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good3 morning.4

Please5 identify yourself.6 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Fran7 Burns, Commissioner of the Department of8 Licenses and Inspections.9 I also just want to go on10 record for Bill 100536 that we are11 supportive of the proposal in the12 amendments, and we'll look to work with13 City Council on the further details.14

Okay.15 Lieutenant Healy.16 LIEUTENANT HEALY: I'm sorry.17 Lieutenant Healy for Philadelphia Police18 Commissioner's Office.19 Deputy Commissioner -- or20 Deputy Mayor Gillison addresses the21 Police Department's concerns.22

Thank you23 very much.24 Are there any other questions25 81 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 for these witnesses?2 Councilwoman.3

No. I4 have questions of the amendments.5

Okay. You6 could ask them now, if you'd like.7

It's not8 of them. Who made the amendments?9

The10 amendments were done in conjunction with11 my office, License and Inspections, the12 Police Department, the Parking Authority13 and Deputy Mayor Gillison.14

Okay.15 Then I'll ask them now, then.16

Okay.17 Thank you.18

On my way19 into this Chambers today, I was having a20 discussion with some folks, particularly21 some of the legislative assistants, and22 as I read the amendments and the bill, I23 thought if I had AAA, I could call my AAA24 and get my car towed, and someone said I25 82 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 cannot do that now. It's my2 understanding that you can, but people3 think you can't because of some state4 law.5 I want to make sure that people6 have a choice in this matter, and if I'm7 in an accident, if I want to call AAA,8 that's who I want to call.9

Correct.10 Lieutenant Healy.11 LIEUTENANT HEALY: Yes, ma'am.12 The way the rotational system is set up,13 there's a distinction between a14 consensual tow and a non-consensual tow.15 Only the non-consensual tows can the City16 set statutory rates to make sure that17 people don't get price gouged that are in18 accidents. To do that, though, however,19 only a small limited number of those type20 of tows fall within the parameter of the21 rotational tow. So if you have a22 contract with somebody else and your23 vehicle is not blocking the sidewalk or24 not in an accident, then you're free to25 83 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 contract with whoever you want. However,2 if your vehicle is immovable and it's3 blocking the scene of the highway, from a4 public emergency perspective, we have a5 responsibility to clear the scene as6 quickly as possible. So we will move the7 car. You don't really have a choice.8 That's the whole point of the9 non-consensual. But you have a choice of10 where it goes. So you can move it to the11 side of the road, get it out of the way,12 move it down the street to an available13 parking spot and have AAA pick it up from14 there. That's the whole concept of the15 non-consensual tow, is that you don't16 have a choice because it's a public17 emergency exception. And it should be a18 very small number of the accidents that19 fall within that purview. I mean,20 because they have to be immovable. If21 the car can roll off to the side of the22 road, it doesn't really comport with the23 rotational tow program.24

Okay. So25 84 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 consensual versus non-consensual, moving2 it to block -- so that it's not blocking3 the highway.4 LIEUTENANT HEALY: Correct.5

But there6 is no state law that would forbid AAA or7 my son or my cousin or my friend that has8 a tow truck from coming in and towing my9 car?10

The only11 thing I think there may be confusion12 with -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is13 that there is a requirement on state14 highways that only certain tow truck15 operators are contracted with PennDot to16 go on interstate highways, not from City17 streets.18 LIEUTENANT HEALY: Correct.19

I think20 that was brought out at the last hearing.21 I'm not sure about the state highways.22

Right. So23 just for the record, that was imposed24 upon us by the state. That was not an25 85 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 action of City Council. The state2 required that.3

I'm fine4 with that.5 I had some questions regarding6 the weight of the tow truck, the weight7 of the actual tow truck, and moving it8 from 10,000 pounds to 16,000 pounds and9 15,000 to 18,500 pounds, and I just want10 to know why. Why is that?11 DEPUTY

That's12 a safety issue. On our review of the13 requirements of the tow truck itself, we14 believe that these weights are consistent15 with the overall safety that we want to16 bring to the area. So that's why they17 were part and that's why we were18 supportive of the bill.19

Was there20 data to say that 16,000 can move -- I'm21 sure a heavier truck has the capability22 to move heavier objects. However, does23 the average car need a 16,000 pound tow24 truck?25 86 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 DEPUTY

The2 evidence that we are looking at and the3 suggestions that we have seen indicate4 that this will provide a safer5 environment, and that's why we're6 supportive.7 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:8 Councilwoman, part of the issue relative9 to this particular item is that the way10 cars are manufactured today, a lot of11 them are, as you know, much bigger and12 heavier than the average four-door13 passenger car. So --14 If we're going to have15 continual comment, we just need to have a16 discussion about the amendments, and17 everyone will have a chance to testify,18 but we can't have just stuff thrown out19 from the audience.20 When we put a license on a21 vehicle, we are stating or it's implied22 that we believe that the vehicle is safe23 to do what we're licensing it to do. In24 the event that a smaller truck, which is25 87 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 probably not a manufactured -- a factory2 manufactured truck, which was done after3 the fact with a F-350 or F-450, whatever,4 that in the event that there is an injury5 or some other calamity as a result of6 towing a car that's too heavy for that7 vehicle, the City now is liable because8 we licensed that vehicle. So if we want9 to set the standards of what can be10 licensed, it's also protecting our11 liability in the event that we get sued12 along with whoever else is getting sued.13 And that was the reason they came up with14 the 16,000.15

Well,16 this is new and we've been operating,17 what, with the 10,000 for like many,18 many, many years?19

Yeah,20 and --21

Is there22 data that talks about accidents?23

I'm sorry.24 I can't hear because people are yelling25 88 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 out.2

I was3 wondering if there was data that supports4 the need to move from 10,000 to 16,000.5

Well,6 before the data discussion, these trucks7 were not street legal in prior8 legislation that I sponsored and passed9 probably 10 to 15 years ago, and for some10 reason or another, the process of11 licensing allowed those trucks to be12 licensed when they should have never been13 licensed more than a decade ago.14

You're15 talking about like a pickup that people16 kind of make a homemade tow truck?17

Yes, a18 homemade tow truck.19

I'm20 talking about a regular tow truck, as I21 know it, not --22

My23 understanding -- if we could get --24 Mr. Fenerty, could we get someone from25 89 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 your technical people to talk about the2 size or, if you know, could you please3 come up and help.4 DEPUTY

I was5 going to see if -- there's no one here6 from the police to speak to it.7 (Witnesses approached witness8 table.)9

Please10 identify yourself for the record.11 Did you hear Councilwoman12 Miller's question?13

I did.14

Please15 identify yourself for the record.16

James Hoch from the17 Philadelphia Parking Authority.18

Please19 respond.20

During the course of21 the discussions when all of this was22 going on, A, it was first discussed to23 stop the homemade pickup trucks. It was24 next discussed with the flatbeds, simply25 90 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 because they may move multiple vehicles2 from a scene. If you have two, three3 cars involved and you've got a flatbed4 that's rated 11,000 or 12,000 pounds and5 he's coming out and putting a6 15-passenger van that's been involved7 with a car on the back of this flatbed,8 he's obviously overweight.9 We're not trying to discourage10 the use of regular tow trucks by any11 means. We're trying to say that12 basically we don't want somebody coming13 with homemade tow trucks onto a scene and14 towing a vehicle in an unsafe manner.15

Right.16 You know, if the weight has to do with17 the homemade tow trucks, I'm not18 supporting those at all. I'm just trying19 to get information about how much does a20 regular, ordinary tow truck, a real tow21 truck -- that's my description of real,22 meaning what I see on the street -- what23 do they weigh? I mean, what's their24 average weight? They would comply with25 91 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 this? Most tow trucks would comply with2 the 16,000 pound? Yes or no?3 See, you know what my -- my4 sentiment is this: I think we need to5 clean up the industry, that's very clear,6 but I don't want to see small businesses7 moved out. I just don't want to see8 that.9 (Applause.)10

So we11 understand what we're discussing here,12 it's not the weight of the truck itself.13 It's the weight of what the truck is able14 to tow.15

Well, I16 understand that.17

And my18 concern is relative to small business, I19 mean, I do understand and respect your20 position. However, I don't want the City21 to be in a situation where we are22 sticking licenses on trucks that are23 potentially a danger, because I don't24 want the liability -- in addition to25 92 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 putting the public at risk, I don't want2 the liability of the City on that tow3 truck license if it's not capable of4 towing these vehicles that are generally5 larger in size in this country today.6

Well,7 listen, I don't want to see the City take8 on liability either.9 How much does the tow trucks10 weigh at the Parking Authority?11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: 15,000.12

We're going13 to have to have a reasonable hearing here14 without people yelling out from the15 audience.16

Who said17 that?18

The19 Councilperson asked the question. The20 witness is going to answer.21

We have various22 weights, from 12,500, we have 15,00023 pound trucks. We've recently increased24 the size to our regular tow trucks, we've25 93 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 increased the chassis from what would be2 called a 450 chassis to a super-duty 5503 chassis for increased weight and4 stability when towing vehicles, small5 vans, things of that nature.6

So,7 therefore, the 12,000 capacity has the8 ability to tow?9

That's correct, pick10 a car up, but in combination, there was11 nothing safe. That's correct.12

Right.13 So I'm just trying to figure out, again,14 if something has the capacity -- I mean,15 the weight is one thing. I just don't --16 I have a lot of questions, Jim, and maybe17 this is not the place for all of them,18 but I'm just going to stop for a second.19 Okay?20

I mean,21 obviously the purpose of the hearing is22 to ask as many questions as necessary and23 to have this discussion. I mean, we're24 all -- we have all been through this25 94 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 process on various different pieces of2 legislation, and things evolve.3

All4 right.5 What does the weight6 capacity -- how does that --7

I can give you an8 example, Councilwoman.9

How does10 that impact businesses? Will people have11 to go out now -- the tow trucks that they12 own they can't use because they don't13 weigh enough, they don't have the14 capacity? I thought -- I mean, certainly15 I know larger vehicles need trucks with a16 higher capacity. I understand that,17 clearly understand that. But where does18 that put the existing businesses with the19 weight increase?20

Let me address the21 question of the weight increase. There's22 two things that come to play. If a tow23 truck picks up a vehicle that is too24 heavy, you run the risk of lifting the25 95 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 front wheels of the tow vehicle off the2 ground, and now you have a steering3 situation. You also get involved where4 there's accidents -- you're familiar with5 the small SEPTA, the little 15-passenger6 vehicles that go out and pick people up7 from their homes, take them back. You8 get out -- you have an accident, you get9 out on one of these jobs with a regular10 tow truck, not only do you run the risk11 of the truck's not rated for pulling the12 front wheels off the ground, but now13 you're into a sway and you're going down14 the street like this with a vehicle that15 doesn't have the front wheels completely16 on the ground. So you lose steerability17 and you've got a vehicle that's on the18 back of the truck -- I'm sure you've been19 behind them, where you're like, why is20 that vehicle wobbling like that? That's21 why, it becomes a stability factor.22 Can a 10,000 pound tow truck23 pick up a car? Absolutely. I mean,24 that's been done forever. What is your25 96 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 situation when you get to an accident2 scene? You don't know what you're coming3 up on.4

Okay.5

And this is for6 rotational tow only.7

For8 rotational tow.9

Strictly for10 rotational tow.11

But in12 Philadelphia, won't it just be rotational13 tow? I'm not talking about the Parking14 Authority tows -- not the Parking15 Authority. The parking lot or parking16 space tows.17 DEPUTY MAYOR GILLISON:18 Councilwoman --19

If we20 don't do rotational tow, what else is21 there?22 DEPUTY MAYOR GILLISON:23 Councilwoman, again, the difference24 between when the rotational tow is in25 97 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 effect and not in effect, this bill is2 talking about the rotational tow. This3 bill is only about the non-consensual4 tows. We're kind of trying to answer the5 questions of making it safer for everyone6 and also with this small group of tows7 that this applies to, make sure that we8 have standards that can be applied easily9 across the industry and easily for the10 citizens of Philadelphia.11 So when you're looking at this12 fulcrum effect of narrowing, it's really13 a small group of matters and a small14 group of tows that this is actually going15 to be applying to. We're just trying to16 get our hands on how do we end up making17 this safe for everyone and look at it18 that way, and I think that the industry19 can actually look at that and say that20 they will be able to bring -- we'll be21 able to take those that have been just22 pieced together that we're deeming to be23 unsafe, that we want to be able to just24 increase the weight so that we'll be able25 98 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 to make sure everybody is operating on2 the same playing field; that's all.3

Point of4 information, please.5

Yes.6 Councilman Rizzo.7

I'm still --8 and I just would like to follow what9 Councilwoman Miller said. Why would we10 arbitrarily increase the weight of -- the11 capacity of a tow truck just to cover it12 all? If a tow truck can safely carry a13 10,000 pound vehicle with no difficulty,14 it's a matter of common sense and people15 understanding what they can do and what16 they can't do. So why would we --17 (Applause.)18

Why would we19 knock all of these operators that have20 tow trucks that can carry a 10,000 pound21 load? Is it that you're just spec'ing22 them out of the business? That's what I23 think.24 (Applause.)25 99 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

And I think2 it's a disgrace to use legislation to be3 hurtful.4 Thank you.5 (Applause.)6 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:7 Councilwoman Miller.8

Thank9 you. I'm going to leave the weight alone10 for a second and move on to something11 else.12

Point of13 information.14

Because I15 don't know why we're even doing that.16

Point of17 information. Councilman Goode.18

If you're19 going to move off the weight issue, then20 I'll ask a quick question.21 Of the tow trucks that are22 currently in the rotational system, do we23 know how many fall under the different24 weight classes?25 100 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 DEPUTY

I don't2 have that here. I'd have to provide that3 to the Chair. I know that we have -- we4 take that information on the L&I5 information, but we'd have to get that to6 the Chair.7

Thank you.8 DEPUTY

That9 was not an issue that -- we're trying to10 look at the bill as a way of getting more11 safety. So I don't have that right here.12

I understand13 that. I'm actually just curious, as it14 comes up and we have discussion, if the15 majority of people already in the16 rotational system meet the higher17 threshold, then it might not make a18 difference.19 DEPUTY

I20 understand. I'll get that to you,21 Council.22

Thank you.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of24 order on the weight.25 101 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

Okay.2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:3 W-E-I-G-H-T.4 So it's your testimony that5 based on today's vehicles -- and that's6 the four-passenger, two-passenger up,7 SUVs -- that a 16,000 pound tow truck8 capacity would be the adequate, safer way9 to transport tow vehicles through the10 streets of Philadelphia? That's, I11 think, what we're saying. I know the12 Councilwoman is talking about 10,000. It13 isn't that some vehicles could not be14 transported safely with a tow truck that15 has a 10,000 pound capacity, but is it16 your testimony that the majority of the17 vehicles exceed that capacity?18

No. It's my19 testimony that crashes are not20 discretionary. So when you get called to21 a crash, you don't know if you're coming22 to a crash that has four Ford Cobalts or23 three Hummers that have been involved.24 Flatbeds, another situation, if a car has25 102 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 got to be flatbedded, all the wheels are2 flat, you're not picking this up with a3 regular 10,000 pound tow truck. This guy4 got to be put on a flatbed. Multiple5 vehicles. It was done with all of that6 in mind, what is the scene when you get7 to it.8 Accidents, unfortunately,9 aren't discretionary. Who gets in them10 aren't discretionary.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think12 we're saying the same thing. My point is13 that the 16,000 would more adequately in14 the majority of cases be the appropriate15 weight of a tow truck --16

Absolutely.17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- based18 on all those things that you said and19 unknowns that we're not familiar with20 until the scene?21 I mean, I've seen these huge22 tow trucks that are just made for buses23 and large trucks, tractor-trailers,24 what-have-you. Obviously you need more25 103 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 than 16,000 pounds for that, but2 generally speaking. So the testimony is3 that that's the kind of weight limit that4 we believe, you believe is the adequate5 safe way, not to put people out of6 business but actually make it even safer7 for the tow truck drivers, who are, most8 of them, employed driving trucks that may9 not be adequate to remove a car from a10 scene or a disabled car?11

Yes.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So it's13 not about putting people out of business.14 It's actually making it safer for the15 people who work in those businesses as16 well.17

Absolutely.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.19

Councilman, just20 to --21

Identify22 yourself.23

Vince Fenerty,24 the Executive Director of the Parking25 104 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Authority.2 Just to summarize the weight3 for 30 seconds, it's to have the4 responding tow company better prepared to5 clear the accident, number one, to fall6 within the motor vehicle laws. Number7 two, to safely tow the vehicle. And it's8 not just for the safety of the tow9 driver; it's also for the safety of the10 other motorists who have to pass by a tow11 truck or a tow truck has to pass by them,12 so there's no sidewinders or anything13 like that. It was spec'd out at a little14 higher for the safety of others.15 If you have a vehicle with16 disproportionate weight towing17 disproportionate weight, you have a18 bigger chance of an accident. When you19 have an accident with a tow vehicle, it's20 not an accident with one vehicle, it's an21 accident with whatever the tow vehicle is22 also towing. So we spec'd just a little23 bit higher in order to provide safety for24 the public. That's simply what it is.25 105 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

Councilman, to kind2 of give you an idea, if it will help you,3 and Councilwoman Miller. I'll use a UPS4 truck, which everyone is pretty familiar5 with, cube van that delivers throughout6 Center City all day long. With our tow7 trucks, if you look at our new Dodge 5508 tow truck chassis, we can come in to an9 accident, not that we're looking to do10 that, but we can come in to an accident11 and pick that UPS truck up and tow it12 from the scene. You can't do that with13 these 10,000 pound tow trucks. And14 that's how this was done, because15 accidents, as I said, are not16 discretionary. So you don't know what17 you're coming to the scene of. You're18 coming to an accident, and those weights19 send you to the scene better prepared to20 handle what's there when you arrive at21 the location.22 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:23 Councilwoman Miller.24

You know,25 106 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 I understand that. I mean, I understand2 that the heavier the truck, the better3 the capacity. I really do understand4 that. But has there been accidents? I5 mean, have there been accidents with the6 10,000 pound or whatever?7 DEPUTY MAYOR GILLISON:8 Councilwoman, I don't have any9 information before me right now. I can10 actually do that if you'd like to --11

Yeah.12 DEPUTY

-- do13 the analysis of that.14

I'd like15 to do that.16 DEPUTY

I can17 provide that. What I'm trying to and18 what I would just state to you is that as19 we were looking at how to make sure that20 we were providing a level base, that we21 wanted to have a way for the industry to22 respond to whatever they came upon, and23 the idea was that this might be a way for24 us to provide a safety response to any25 107 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 particular accident, and by raising this,2 we'd be able to -- raising the weight3 level of the vehicle, we would be able to4 provide that.5

So then6 if this becomes law, how long do people7 have -- how long will people have to8 comply with the new requirements?9 DEPUTY

I10 believe that the law would be, if I11 remember correctly, there was a12 discussion about not having this go into13 effect immediately, but delaying the14 matter. We also have to go to the state15 in order to work out additional details.16

We did not17 put an effective date of enforcement on,18 because we did have the issue of an MOU19 that had to be developed between the City20 and the Parking Authority and we also,21 prior to that, needed state approval,22 which we believe we can get but we're not23 sure, on the exact timetable for that.24

So in the25 108 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 meantime, if someone gets called on a2 rotational tow, if their vehicle only3 weighs 10,000 pounds, then it's okay?4 DEPUTY

Yes.5 Yes. I mean, as long as they can tow it6 safely, the answer is yes.7

All8 right.9

But part of10 the problem that we're addressing is the11 rotational tow system is grossly12 dysfunctional and what we wind up with is13 this interim catch as catch can with14 people at a high speed getting to the15 scene first because there's really no16 rotational system, so to speak. And17 that's part of what is being addressed in18 this bill, is that the actual dispatch of19 the next person up on the rotation list20 will be done 24/7 by the Parking21 Authority dispatcher as opposed to a 91122 overworked call taker.23

You know,24 I understand the purpose of the bill. I25 109 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 just want to understand the purpose of2 all these amendments, like where did you3 come up with some of this stuff.4 (Applause.)5

Point of6 information.7

Yes,8 Councilman.9 COUNCILMAN RIZZO:10 Mr. Gillison, are you telling me that11 basically you've given up? You told me12 that you were well on the way to fix the13 rotational system, that you were going to14 install laptops in fire apparatus and15 medic units to again dry up the airwaves.16 What I'm hearing today, the Nutter17 Administration, you as the Deputy Mayor,18 have given up on fixing this system? Is19 that what I'm hearing?20 DEPUTY

No.21 You're hearing that --22

Going to the23 Parking Authority, which I have a lot of24 respect for, but you're telling me today25 110 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 that you've basically given up in fixing2 what you already have.3 DEPUTY

No.4 What you're hearing is that we are doing5 both things. We are looking at the6 amendments that has been put forward by7 Councilman Kenney. We are agreeing that8 it would make sense for us to move to9 that area. We are also continuing to do10 what I suggested to you that I am doing,11 which is not only placing the MDTs in,12 but also to make sure that we're putting13 the MDTs in the fire. I'm doing both.14 I am trying to make sure that15 we provide a modicum of safety for this16 city that makes sure that what I saw on17 this doesn't exist anymore, and also I'm18 going to make sure that I provide safety19 for the citizens of the City.20

What you saw21 today was before you pulled the plug on22 the radio system. You also didn't see23 some of the conduct of City employees,24 which we never got to talk about, in the25 111 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Police Department.2 (Applause.)3

This is old4 tape. It's old news. What you should be5 talking about today is what you've done6 to fix it and why you can't fix it.7 DEPUTY

Well,8 Councilman, in response to information9 that you provided me, I did -- I was10 given the opportunity to look at some11 things that you provided me.12

Did you see13 some conduct that you didn't appreciate14 it?15 DEPUTY MAYOR GILLISON:16 Absolutely. And I saw exactly what was17 being done, and we are trying to make18 sure, which is why we've put out various19 new training to help with that.20

So if you21 could fix the rotational system based on22 the legislation that's in place -- and,23 listen, I told you a long time ago, I'm24 for whatever fixes this problem --25 112 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 DEPUTY

And2 that's where I am.3

-- but it4 seems like we're cutting off our arm5 unnecessarily here.6 Fix the problem. You told me7 you had a plan in fixing this problem8 without resorting to this drastic step.9 The insurance industry already called me10 and said the minute the Parking Authority11 takes custody of a vehicle, A, they have12 it hostage if there's any tickets; B --13 (Applause.)14

-- B, that15 most of these wrecks will be picked up by16 the insurance companies and immediately17 taken to Bensalem, across City lines --18 (Applause.)19

-- for20 repair, where they can get the job done21 as cheaply as possible, not in our City22 of Philadelphia.23 (Applause.)24

So I would25 113 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 have been impressed if the Nutter2 Administration would have tried to fix3 and look out for people that have an4 interest in Philadelphia.5 (Applause.)6

They know7 that some of the conduct has been -- the8 conduct is bad. The conduct is bad, but9 all I can tell you is this: That what10 you've done already to try to fix the11 program is working. The conduct of the12 wreck chasers and the people in this13 industry has improved since you've taken14 dispatches off the air and --15

Point of16 information, Councilman.17

Yes.18

What we19 viewed here is pretty recent.20

No, it's21 not.22

Yes, it is.23

It's months24 old. Months old.25 114 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

Recent is2 not years old. Recent is not years old.3

Before the4 Administration took the new --5

By the way,6 there's a new -- you're going to have to7 sit down, sir.8 Now, listen, you are right,9 they stopped the MDTs. Now they monitor10 police radio for rescue dispatch.11

But the12 Deputy Mayor is going to put the laptops13 in the fire equipment.14

I15 understand, but so they went from the16 MDTs to the fire band in order to wreck17 chase to a scene. So it's really18 improved.19

But that's20 going to go away.21

When?22

Very soon.23 The Deputy Mayor said he's in the process24 of installing the laptops in the25 115 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 rescue --2

This3 hearing, as I said at the outset, is to4 discuss the amendments. If there's5 questions on the amendments, we'll be6 happy to have a back and forth. If you7 disagree with the bill in concept, then8 you'll vote against it, and that's fine.9

Just what10 you said earlier, we're here to discuss11 it.12

We're here13 to discuss the amendments.14

But --15

We had a16 prior -- let me finish. We had a prior17 hearing on the concept. This is the18 amendment to that concept. We're going19 to have weeks before we ultimately vote20 on it, so there's going to be a lot of21 discussion. But this is a hearing on22 these amendments, and if there's23 questions on the amendments, we'll24 certainly try to answer them.25 116 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

Well, I2 don't know -- the amendments weren't3 circulated to everyone in this Council.4

Sarah?5

They were6 circulated to Committee members.7

They were8 circulated to Committee members.9

But you want10 us all to vote on it.11

If you'd12 like to vote on it, you can vote on it.13 If you don't, you don't have to vote on14 it.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman16 Rizzo, that's a cheap shot. You know17 that all committees get amendments, and18 then if members who are not on those19 committee want those amendments,20 everybody is entitled to them. You get21 an opportunity to read those amendments22 before you get to vote on it. So don't23 make it sound like this is some sort of a24 new way of doing business in the Council.25 117 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

No. It's2 just like changing the weight3 classification --4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You've had5 amendments, too. I'm not going to argue6 with you.7 (Applause.)8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You've had9 amendments, too.10

Are there11 any other questions on the amendments?12 Mr. Fenerty? I'm sorry;13 Councilman Clarke.14 Councilman Clarke has a15 question.16

Thank you,17 Mr. Chair.18 I'm probably the least19 knowledgeable person in this room on this20 particular issue, and for that I21 apologize, because I've been focused on22 so many things, and that's no excuse. So23 I have to get educated on this whole24 issue as we proceed.25 118 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 But I just wanted to go back to2 this weight classification issue, if I3 may, and I don't want to belabor the4 point. My understanding, that there is a5 proposal on the table to essentially6 build capacity within the industry, so7 all of these vehicles would have to be8 able to accommodate whatever. So that9 requires that all of the vehicles be of a10 certain weight classification.11 DEPUTY

Sorry,12 Councilman. At least a minimum13 classification.14

Which would15 be? I keep hearing this 16,000 pound.16 Is that --17 DEPUTY

I18 believe that's correct.19

And this is20 based on?21 DEPUTY

Yes.22 It's on , Councilman. It goes23 between the flat car rate of --24 manufacturer rated capacity of at least25 119 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 eight, from eight to 16,000 pounds gross2 vehicle weight. So that's the idea.3

So the4 purpose of this is to essentially make5 sure that when these vehicles show up,6 they'll be able to tow whatever?7 DEPUTY MAYOR GILLISON:8 Whatever happens, they can handle and9 handle it quickly.10

So the11 earlier question -- and you answered in a12 way by essentially saying you don't have13 the information -- that have there been14 incidences where we have had a situation15 where the front wheels raised on a16 vehicle because the weight load was too17 heavy, I mean --18 DEPUTY

That's19 only by anecdote, but what I've asked and20 what I have instructed to get additional21 information is is that to look at the22 industry that's out there currently. I23 don't have that before me now. That's24 what I've asked L&I.25 120 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

Does2 anybody know, people from the Authority3 or the Administration, if that's4 happened? And I'm asking this question5 because, you know, I'm a little6 concerned, and I've expressed my concern7 to the Chairman about just the whole8 issue, and I don't know where I'll be9 yet. If somehow say 50 percent of the10 existing tow drivers don't have vehicles11 that can accommodate that particular12 weight load and then somehow there's13 not -- they're not in the position to14 adequately respond to the new15 requirement, then the option would be16 essentially to use the Parking Authority17 maybe?18

No.19

No. No.20 No. No.21

I'm trying22 to get educated on it. The option would23 be what, the next person in line?24 DEPUTY

Yes.25 121 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 The answer is yes.2

It would be3 the next vehicle in line?4

There was a5 desire to take this -- if there was an6 initial desire to take this entirely away7 from the industry, this bill would have8 been drafted to have the Parking9 Authority respond to every accident10 scene. The key to this whole bill is the11 ultimate disposition of the car. The12 problem is where the car goes and what13 its condition is and how it's held and14 how it's released that's not consistent.15 I didn't want to take the16 private industry out, because we would17 have done it in the original bill. We18 wanted them to tow, but just tow to a19 certain location.20

You've21 answered my question. I'm just trying to22 get to a point.23 So it goes to the next24 available tower --25 122 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 DEPUTY

Yeah.2 We wanted to keep --3

-- or4 private person?5 DEPUTY

We want6 to be supportive of the private. That's7 why we wanted to keep it as a rotation,8 which is why we were just looking at the9 standards, to make sure we're playing on10 a level playing field.11

Do we have12 a sense of how many of the vehicles13 currently owned by private people meet14 that criteria?15 DEPUTY

No.16 That's the question that was asked by the17 Chair, and I will be able to get that18 from L&I and I will provide that to the19 Chair, because I don't have that before20 me right now.21

L&I would22 have information on all of the towers23 within the rotational system?24

Point of25 123 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 information.2 DEPUTY

Yes.3 We currently have 87 to 94 that are part4 of the rotational system.5

Point of6 information.7 DEPUTY

And8 we'll be able to get that information to9 you.10

Just very11 quickly, because I just want to clear the12 air. There seems to be a debate here13 that's not in the right context. It's14 not in the context of the legislation. I15 think there's a misunderstanding of the16 legislation. I just want to make one17 point clear very quickly.18 Deputy Mayor, if this bill is19 passed by this Committee, passed by the20 full Council, signed into law by the21 Mayor, the effective date is in fact22 whenever he signs it. Who is in charge23 that day?24 DEPUTY

When25 124 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 you say "who is in charge," the2 rotational program is under me.3

The4 Administration is in charge?5 DEPUTY

Yes.6

The7 enforcement agency is a branch of --8 executive branch of government?9 DEPUTY

That's10 correct.11

So that12 doesn't change from what exists right13 now?14 DEPUTY

No.15 The only thing that --16

So if this17 were to become law, nothing changes in18 terms of who is in charge?19 DEPUTY

That's20 correct.21

I don't22 think that's clear to everyone here.23 DEPUTY

That's24 correct.25 125 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

There's2 people here saying it's not true, but3 that is true.4 DEPUTY

Right.5

That is6 true, and that's why I made the point of7 information. The day that this is signed8 into law, if it is, regardless of what it9 says, the same people are in charge.10 DEPUTY

Right.11

That is12 true. If you don't believe it, you don't13 believe it, but that is true.14 DEPUTY

Right.15

The same16 people are in charge the day it is signed17 into law.18 DEPUTY

Right.19

Councilman20 Clarke.21

Thank you.22 So with respect to this23 amendment, the only issue that changes is24 the requirement of a higher25 126 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 classification of vehicle by --2 DEPUTY

No.3 That's not the only one. There are4 several different amendments about --5

Just on6 this particular issue. I'm trying to get7 educated. Again, I apologize for not8 being as well prepared on this particular9 issue, but if you don't ask the question,10 I don't want to vote in ignorance.11 And I do think I believe12 earlier you said with respect to the13 numbers -- and we don't know; it could be14 75 percent of the people that don't meet15 that classification -- they would be16 required to buy new vehicles to be17 prepared to be in the rotational system?18

Let me make19 a suggestion relative to the information20 that we're bantering about now because we21 don't know the answer. Once we have the22 information on just how many folks in the23 current system it affects, I'd be open to24 amending the initial weight to a lower25 127 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 number to accommodate as many as2 possible, as long as we fall within3 safety guidelines. So, I mean, I'm4 not -- if this bill gets out of Committee5 today, it's still open for amendment6 relative to the initial minimum gross7 weight based on the information that's8 provided by L&I on how many would be9 eliminated.10

Councilman --11

And with12 respect to that commitment, who13 determines safety standards? Because if14 it's found -- and we don't know -- that15 there have been no incidences where16 current vehicles have had problems17 lifting vehicles, then how is that18 determined? Is it based on history or19 based on an arbitrary decision, well, you20 know what, it should be this?21

Well, it22 could be based on what other cities23 require, what the industry standard. I24 mean, there are certain -- certainly this25 128 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 particular number is open for reduction2 in regards to what information is3 provided or comes to light relative to4 their getting --5

This6 question who would be --7

Mr. Chairman, can8 I possibly take just a stab at this?9 We'll go back and we'll look at10 the minimum gross weight again and see11 what adjustments can be made or should be12 made and make that recommendation to the13 Chair.14 Whatever date this would become15 law, I would also suggest to the Chair16 that the possibility is out there that we17 could possibly look at a timeframe of18 grandfathering those vehicles in that19 don't meet it and restricting them to20 certain types of tow until we give them a21 date that the grandfather provision would22 expire. That would be fair, and it23 wouldn't put anyone out of business. It24 may just diminish the pie that they could25 129 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 tow as far as rotational tows. They2 wouldn't be able to tow something that3 was out of their weight scope, but it4 would give them time and means to upgrade5 their tow fleet. I think that would be6 very fair.7 And also, to answer one other8 question that was brought up here and9 brought up again, is on the rotational10 tow system when a vehicle is brought into11 our yard, we would not be holding a12 vehicle for outstanding parking tickets.13 We do not do that with crash tows.14

I'm sorry,15 Mr. Fenerty. We'll wait until you have a16 little quiet.17

I'm very sorry if18 there's some people who don't believe in19 my truthfulness, but right now when we20 tow from the interstates, when a vehicle21 is impounded because of a crash on an22 interstate, that is a crash tow. Those23 individuals are victims. They've been in24 an accident. It was not done25 130 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 intentional. They pay the towing fee and2 storage fee and they're released. Their3 vehicles are not held, they're not held4 in order to collect parking tickets. The5 vehicles to be released do have to have6 proper tags and insurance, as any vehicle7 would, or else they have to be removed by8 towing from the premises. But we do not9 intend to hold crash tows from rotational10 towing for parking tickets, and that11 would be part of the standard operating12 procedures. So if that would put13 anyone's mind to ease, we're not going to14 victimize the crash victim a second time.15

Not that16 you're advocating not paying your parking17 tickets.18

Most certainly19 not, but we don't do that with crash20 tows, since that's been brought up. We21 list them for further hearings. If they22 don't appear, we get them by other23 enforcement methods, by booting, by24 towing them or by going to court with25 131 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 them.2

Councilman3 Clarke.4

Thank you,5 Mr. Chair. I've actually become versed6 on that particular issue. Thank you.7

Any other8 questions for these witnesses on the9 amendments?10 Councilwoman Miller.11

I just12 want to get clarity again on this AAA13 issue. If I am involved in an accident14 and I'm going to -- my car has a15 non-consensual tow, it's blocking the16 highway and you said you'll move it, who17 moves it and maybe if you only move it a18 block or just move it from blocking the19 highway, who does that?20 DEPUTY

That21 would be -- the rotational tow would be22 activated. The person, the private tower23 who is next up on the rotation, would24 come, would move the vehicle, would take25 132 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 the vehicle to the side or take the2 vehicle a block or whatever -- however3 you've constructed the matter.4

Or take it5 where you direct them to. You can direct6 them to take it where you want.7 DEPUTY

You can8 actually, yes, tell them --9

You could10 take it back to your driveway.11 DEPUTY

Say,12 Take it back to my house. You can do13 that.14

So if I'm15 in an accident and I'm hopefully well16 enough to understand that I don't need to17 go to the hospital but I need to get a18 tow operator here, and if I call AAA and19 if they can't get there quick enough,20 then I'm out, right?21 DEPUTY

You22 have to understand, the idea of the23 rotational tow is to, A, allow for people24 to get the vehicle out of the traffic25 133 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 flow. Once it's out of the traffic flow2 and once we've activated the rotational3 tow to do that, you as the consumer can4 say to the person since it's a5 non-consensual tow, Okay, move it out of6 the road of the street. You can tell7 them to put it on the side. You can tell8 them to take it home. You can tell them9 to put it over just 15 feet out of the10 way. And then you can call AAA at that11 point if you'd like and then you can take12 it from there. That's what you can do.13

But I'm14 paying $175 just to get them to tow it15 like right there.16 (Applause.)17 DEPUTY

The18 nature of the non-consensual tow is to19 make sure that in public safety we have20 opened up the lanes for both the citizens21 of Philadelphia for flow as well as to22 make sure that you as a citizen can23 actually move the vehicle where you need24 to. If you ended up deciding that you25 134 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 wanted to have your AAA vehicle -- your2 AAA tower to come and get the vehicle,3 they're not part of the rotational tow.4 That's what the private folks that we are5 trying to support. So we want to make6 sure that they get there, they move the7 vehicle, they move it to the side or they8 take it where you need it to go. After9 that, then, yes, you can use your AAA10 because your vehicle is disabled, you can11 move it and you can take it from there.12 We're trying to make sure that13 we keep an even playing field to how to14 respond to the accident scene and moving15 it out of the traffic flow. That's why16 we have non-consensual tows under the17 bill.18

Just as an19 addendum, I would suspect, although20 probably not in every instance, that a21 person who has AAA also has insurance,22 which most likely that they would, and23 the insurance would pick up the cost over24 your deductible of the costs that occur25 135 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 as a result of being in an accident.2

So the3 insurance would probably pick up the cost4 of the tow?5

Above your6 deductible.7

If you8 have full tort.9 Okay. You know, I just want to10 get some of this stuff on the record. On11 the -- under Towing Operator License12 amendment, I just want to make sure who13 we're talking about in terms of14 ex-offenders or offenders when we15 describe -- I just want to make sure the16 ex-offenders are not excluded from17 working for a tow company. So for the18 record, what ex-offenders or offenders19 are we talking about?20 DEPUTY

Mostly21 Megan's Law and also persons who have22 violated the matters dealing with vehicle23 theft and chop shop kind of related24 matters. We wanted to make sure that we25 136 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 didn't have the proverbial -- and, as you2 know, I'm an extreme supporter of3 ex-offenders and all the work that we're4 trying to get done with that. I wanted5 to make sure that we tailored who would6 be excluded to only individuals that the7 law should apply to. I'm really big into8 rational relationships between what's9 going on and what's not -- what you10 shouldn't do. I don't suggest to banks11 that they need to hire an ex-offender if12 that's a bank robber. I don't want to13 put anyone who is in a Megan's Law14 situation who has to deal with the public15 that has to deal with -- to deal with16 this particular situation, and similarly17 those who have violated the chop shop18 provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code or19 the Criminal Code, we want to make sure20 that they're not associated with this21 either.22 Those are the things that are23 tailored, to make sure it's a narrowly24 defined area rather than just being some25 137 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 broad prohibition, because obviously I2 would like to see as many people get3 jobs, especially ex-offenders, and this4 is an opportunity for them to work.5

Okay.6 Good. And have we yet -- I was told by7 the Parking Authority actually that -- I8 did ask the question I think of Kevin9 Feeley -- Healy when I believe when10 Councilman Rizzo's bill was being heard,11 did we have a number on the number of12 daily accidents so we could figure out13 this rotation business with 87 people14 signed up to be a part of rotation and15 many of them saying that they've never16 been called. Well, how many accidents17 are we having daily and how often would18 someone be called?19

The information20 and feedback we've gotten, Councilwoman,21 is about 30 a day.22

Thirty a23 day, right. That's my understanding.24 DEPUTY

And I25 138 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 will just add to that, if you recall,2 currently we have approximately the 87 to3 94 people on the rotational tow. As a4 result of how that works, that obviously5 the large number keeps the number of6 times a person would be called down. We7 are still -- we're auditing how people8 are dispatched and what happens, and9 we'll be able to provide that. You10 should have that pretty soon, and that11 will be provided to the Chair.12

Okay.13 Because that was -- that's really an14 issue, that the towers are saying they15 are not being called.16 For now, Councilman Kenney,17 that's it. I know you want to call some18 of the other folks.19

Okay.20 Thank you very much. Thank you.21 Any other questions for these22 witnesses on the amendments?23 (No response.)24

Seeing25 139 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 none, Mr. Steffa and Mr. Giral, please.2 I would ask -- I'm sorry to ask3 you to wait around, but I have to. I4 apologize.5 (Witnesses approached witness6 table.)7

Please8 identify yourself for the record and9 proceed with your testimony on the10 amendments.11

Good afternoon,12 Council. My name is Jose Giral from13 Durkas Towing, and I just want to get14 back to something that you guys were15 talking about, the weight class. I have16 like four tow trucks and I'm not an17 expert on the weight class, but we do18 have an expert here on weight class.19

I'm sitting next to20 you.21

No; the other guy.22

I'm sitting next to23 you. I'm a WreckMaster.24

We have two experts25 140 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 actually here that can testify on the2 weight class.3 So you want to...4

Just to elaborate a5 little more --6

Please7 identify yourself for the record.8

My name is Arnold9 White.10

Excuse me.11 Before we go further, is Mr. Steffa here?12

I'm sorry?13

There was a14 Mr. Steffa that was --15

Yeah. He was -- he16 left. He had to go.17

Thank you.18

My name is Arnold19 White.20

Please21 proceed.22

I'm the23 owner/operator at Unique Transport and24 Recovery. of the City. I've logged about 15 years2 in the business. 4 You guys are talking about5 weight classes. Well, you have three6 different classes of towing. You have7 light duty, you have medium duty and you8 have heavy duty. In the light-duty9 class, a light-duty truck starts at10 10,000 GVW, gross vehicle weight, and11 that number comes from a formula that's12 used for towing capacity, and that13 formula is half of the front axle weight,14 multiplied by the wheel base, divided by15 the overhang. 18 The axle on the tow truck might19 be 4,000 pounds. You take half that20 weight, which is 2,000 pounds. You take21 the length of the vehicle in inches, you22 multiply that by 2,000, then you divide23 it by the length that the car hangs over24 the back axle. 2 I have a light-duty flatbed,3 which is 19,000 pounds. I also have a4 medium-duty flatbed, which is 25,9505 pounds. 9 When you're talking about a10 wrecker, a wrecker is what you guys call11 a tow truck, and that picks up half the12 weight of the vehicle. If the vehicle13 itself, just to give you an idea so you14 understand, a Neon would weight about15 2,400 pounds. A Bentley would weigh16 about 5,700 pounds. Most of your SUVs17 fall in around 3,600 pounds. If I'm18 picking up the front of the vehicle where19 the engine is located, that would be the20 heaviest end of the vehicle. That would21 be about 1,900 pounds, is all I'm22 carrying. I wouldn't need a truck for23 16,000 GVW for that. 1 small-class flatbed. 3 The safety, when it comes to4 towing, you go to the dual axle. When5 you have four wheels in the rear, you6 have stability. 7 The reason why you guys changed, I guess,8 about six years ago, you changed from9 8,000 GVW to 10,000 GVW. That was a very10 good move. Eight thousand GVW is a11 single-axle truck. That person going12 down the highway, God forbid they get a13 flat tire, they have no stability. You14 go to a 10,000 GVW, which is a one-ton15 truck, that's considered a one-ton truck,16 now he has four tires. 18 So what you guys call a19 homemade tow truck, which I think is a20 negative term, you have a 350 wrecker21 that starts out as a 350 pickup. The22 wrecker body that you put on the truck is23 certified by the wrecker company. 2 You guys passed a law that we3 have to have everything certified before4 we go to Truck Enforcement. 8 The other thing that I wanted9 to mention to you guys was, when you're10 towing a vehicle under 1,700 pounds,11 federal law dictates that you cannot12 charge more than $150 for the tow. 14 In our rotation system that we15 have, we had to agree to the rate being16 150 for the tow, the storage being $2517 for a maximum of seven days. If the car18 sits there a year or not, it doesn't19 matter. We had to also accept credit20 cards. 24 I'm on that list. 3 In the last year and a half to two years4 since the rotation has started, I've5 gotten maybe 40 calls, 40 calls. 6 In over 18 months. The reason that we're7 having problems is because -- you guys8 saw that entertainment over there9 earlier? That was strictly10 entertainment. Everything on that show11 was scripted. I didn't see the area12 where we had a captain from our area13 simply say we can't survive without these14 guys. And we're not there to clean the15 cars up. 21 Okay? My three employees are just as22 important as the 1,100 employees that my23 position has. 3

You said4 you had 40 calls in a year?5

In a year and a6 half.7

Year and a8 half. Well, what makes you think you'll9 get less under this?10

No. The reason why11 we don't get the calls -- there's a few12 reasons why we don't get the calls, and I13 can explain a lot of things to you right14 now. The reason why we don't get the15 calls is, we're limited to broken-down16 vehicles and accidents. You go to any17 other municipality in our immediate area,18 they're doing the impounds for the19 police, which gives you more work to do.20 They're doing the abandoned vehicles for21 the police, which gives you more work to22 do. They're doing the stolen cars for23 the police, which gives you more work to24 do. So you take five different things,25 147 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 accidents, abandoneds, thefts, impounds,2 and you give us just accidents. It's not3 enough work there for us.4 If the police officer gets5 there and the police officer sees a6 tower -- I don't know the law for being a7 policeman, he doesn't know the law for8 being a tower. He can get there and say9 the car is not drivable or the car is10 drivable. It's up to the police11 officer's discretion to make the phone12 call.13 Now, if he gets there and he14 got two or three other trucks there,15 it's, quote/unquote, understood that they16 can go ahead and handle their business.17

It won't be18 the police officers' discretion in the19 future.20

So you're saying21 every accident call is going to be sent a22 tow truck to?23

It's going24 to be sent from 911 to the Parking25 148 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 Authority 24/7 dispatch. They will keep2 the list. They will make the call.3

No, no. That's not4 going to happen --5

Excuse me.6 The police officer on the scene will not7 have the discretion. Part of the problem8 with the system now is police discretion.9 Part of that problem is they making10 decisions on the street they maybe not11 should be making. So we're going to take12 all of that out of their hands, take out13 the overworked 911 room, which really14 shouldn't be handling this stuff, and15 allow Parking Authority dispatch 24/716 operation to make the calls to the next17 rotation tow up on the list.18

Okay.19

I think you20 should wind up with more work than you're21 getting now.22

Well, we might.23 The question I was asking is, when24 somebody calls the police and they had an25 149 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1 accident, whether it's a fender-bender or2 a major accident, you're saying every3 time an accident comes into police radio,4 you're going to dispatch a police officer5 and a tow truck?6

Any time7 there's a call --8

Point of --9

Can I10 finish, please.11 Any time a call comes into 91112 about an accident on the scene, it will13 be sent over via radio to the 24/714 Parking Authority dispatch, who will keep15 the list, who will take care of -- keep16 the count of who gets called, how fast17 they respond, how many times they get18 called, and they will make the call. The19 911 room is out of it, hopefully, as they20 should be out of it, because they got21 other things to do rather than22 dispatching and calling tow trucks.23

Well, I disagree24 with that, because towing --25 150 11/16/10 - RULES - BILL 100555, ETC.1

Well,2 you're getting 40 calls in a year and a3 half now. I don't see how --4

No, no. Hear me5 out. Forty calls in a year and a half is6 not going to sustain my business.7

Correct.8

Just so you9 understand what I'm saying, the reason10 why I said I disagree with you is this:11 If you guys are going to use the Parking12 Authority to govern our rotation that's13 already been -- that's working fine, I14 haven't had one complaint.15

How do you16 tell me it's working fine? You said you17 got 40 calls in a year and a half. How18 is that working fine?19