COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 8, 2009 2:15 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ BILLS 090746, 090838, 090839, 090840, 090846, 090827, 090742, 090745, 090811, 090749, 090812, 090832, 090713, 090741, 090743, 090747, 090748, 090775, 090779, 090781 and 090848 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, everyone. The Committee on Streets and Services is now in session. This is the public hearing. In attendance are, to my extreme right, Councilman Jones. To my immediate right is Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller. To my immediate left is Councilman Bill Greenlee. I believe Councilman Green is also -- well, he was here. He'll be back. We do have a quorum. Also in attendance are Councilmembers Jannie Blackwell and James Kenney, who are not members of this Committee, but are here to -- I believe Councilman Kenney has a --
I'm just watching you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I need watching, they say. Okay. I'll ask Mr. Abernathy to read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 090746 is 3 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. being held at the request of the sponsor. Bill No. 090838, an ordinance 4 establishing a one way regulation on Old York Road, from 66th Avenue to North 67th Avenue, southbound. Bill No. 090839, an ordinance 8 authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 242 by striking from the City Plan and vacating portions of the beds of Old York Road and a certain cut-back area at the southerly side of Sixty-sixth Avenue between Old York Road and Broad Street, thereby reducing the width of Old York Road from Sixty-sixth Avenue to a point approximately one-hundred sixty-three feet southwestwardly therefrom, by relocating the southeasterly curbline of Old York Road from Sixty-sixth Avenue to a point approximately one-hundred ninety-eight feet southwestwardly therefrom, and by placing on the City Plan a curb bumpout at the northeasterly corner of Old York Road and Sixty-fifth 4 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions; and Bill No. 090840, an ordinance 5 granting permission to ABEER, LP, owner of the property Oak Lane Diner, 6528 North Broad Street, to legalize a one-story concrete masonry construction, under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilwoman Miller just indicated to me that Bill No. 090838 is also being held. And let the record reflect that Councilwoman Sanchez, who is a member of this committee, is also present. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good afternoon. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good 5 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. afternoon -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We have copies?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We do have copies. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Clarena Tolson, Commissioner of the Department of Streets, and I would like to offer testimony on Bill No. 090839 and Bill No. 14 090840. These bills are not Administration ordinances, but are ordinances requested by ABEER, LP, owners of the Oak Lane Diner located at 6528 North Broad Street. The purpose of Bill No. 090839 is to strike from the City Plan certain portions of the bed of Old York Road, from 66th to a point approximately 163 feet southwestwardly therefrom and of the bed of 66th Avenue from Old York Road to 6 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. Broad Street, and to relocate a portion of the southeasterly curbline of Old York Road from 66th southwestwardly and establish a curb bumpout at the northeasterly corner of Old York Road and 65th. These actions will modify the street's lines at this location to conform with certainly recently constructed additions to the restaurant building which occupies the abutting property. As proposed in this bill, the right-of-way width of Old York Road will change from 70 feet to 51 feet at the most narrow portion, and the cart way will change from 44 feet to feet at 17 the most narrow portion. This reduction 18 in width will necessitate the 19 establishment of a one-way regulation to 20 change the traffic direction of Old York Road from two-way to one-way, southbound. The purpose of Bill 090840 is to legalize a one-story concrete masonry addition that encroaches onto and below the sidewalk at 6528 North Broad Street. 7 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. The Streets Department does not support these bills. The building encroachment and curbline changes that they seek to accommodate were initiated without the approval of the Streets Department and without permits and approvals required from various other utility companies and public agencies. Over the past year, the Streets Department has, through numerous meetings and correspondence, attempted to work with the property owners to arrive at a resolution that will protect the interests of the City and the public while also preserving, to the maximum extent possible, the owner's development goals. To date, no resolution has been reached, despite a proposal offered by the Streets Department which would allow approximately 90 percent of the illegally built structures to remain and proceed to permitting. This proposal was most recently restated in a letter to the restaurant 8 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. owners dated November 19th, 2009, which clearly states the actions and conditions required of the owners in order to obtain Streets Department support for the proposed changes. A copy of this letter is included with the written testimony submitted by the Streets Department to the Committee. Until such time as the owners have substantially complied with the actions and conditions with which the Department has outlined to them, the Streets Department is opposed to the passage of these bills. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Morelli, do you have testimony?
I have no 21 testimony. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Erickson. (Witness approached witness table.) 9 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am William Erickson, a City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 090839, which Councilmember Miller introduced into City Council on November 19th, 2009. Bill No. 090839 will revise the lines and grades of Old York Road by removing the northbound lane and removing the northbound cutback. These revisions will also include a bump-out at 65th and Old York Road to prevent any northbound through traffic. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission has reviewed Bill No. 090839 at its meeting on December 8th, 2009 and is requesting an additional 45 days to review this ordinance. It's the same recommendation on 090840 where we're recommending an additional 45 days. This changes my 10 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. testimony slightly in that I didn't think the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to be here today and get over here for testimony, but we did get it over there and get back here. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. What is the reason for the non-recommendation? Just because you haven't had time to review it?
Well, that we haven't had time to review it and basically the Executive Director is really looking at what's the end game, what can we live with, what can't we live with at the total -- at the end of the day, what is it actually going to be, you know, what would be an appropriate handle on this. But that was the recommendation that came out of the Planning Commission's meeting today. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do any of those concerns have to deal with the issues or concerns of the Streets Department? 11 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc.
Well, I would assume that it does deal with the issues and concerns of the Streets Department, especially the area of the encroachment on Broad Street, the legalization of the structure, the actual wording in the bill 8 that doesn't make it a temporary structure, those issues that they'd want to be taking up. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is Mr. Haigler -- will you be testifying, Mr. Haigler?
But I guess I can. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How about informally? I'm just curious as the Streets Department -- I think I figured out what the Planning Commission issue is, but is there any correlation between what the Streets Department and L&I would be approving or disapproving? 12 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc.
L&I's responsibility -- sorry. Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. L&I's responsibility primarily is to deal with building permits that are issued for the construction of buildings or additions that are over the right-of-way. We require approvals of other agencies before we issue our permits. We have issued a stop work order on this particular project because of the issues related to the construction over the public right-of-way without the prior approvals or permits. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So you issued a stop work order for that portion of the property that is new, the addition?
That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not impacting on the operation of the 13 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. existing or the original building?
That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are there any concerns as to public safety issues with the new addition impacting the original facility or original building, that you're aware of?
I understand that there are some concerns related to certain things that were on the right-of-way, like a fire hydrant that's been pretty much buried. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Buried?
Buried. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is there now, a sidewalk where there was --
I have a picture here if somebody would like to take a look at this. The only thing that's sticking up from where the fire hydrant was is the portion of the hydrant where 14 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. you would attach the wrench to turn the water on. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Haigler, this photograph you provided us with, does this condition exist today or has that fire hydrant that was partially buried been totally removed?
According to the Executive Director who went out there, it has been -- I think you now can -- the deck has been removed and you can now access that fire hydrant. So the deck -- they ripped out that portion of the deck, that concrete there, and that you can now access the fire hydrant. That's the word I had from my Executive Director. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is the fire hydrant below the --
No. They raised the deck. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They brought it back up?
That concrete 15 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. came up about three to four feet. So they've removed that portion of the deck, as far as I know. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The hydrant is now exposed --
That's the word I have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- and can be functional?
The hydrant is now exposed. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilwoman Sanchez.
I guess as a District Councilperson, we're trying to fix what has happened here. Is there any realtime photos and does the current status of the business present any public safety issues outside of the permitting, whatever went up without permits or whatever? Is there a public safety issue other than the street changing to a one-way street? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Frank, 16 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. pull your chair up. Stay there, Otis. I think we're going to need you again. Just pull up a chair, please. (Witness approached witness table.)
First, there was a meeting with the Committee of Highway Supervisors with all impacted utilities that was held last April, and at that time, PECO had strong objections to the encroachment into Broad Street, because eight foot off the building line is a PECO line. So now the PECO line is within a half a foot of existing structure. I contacted PECO this morning, Ed McBride, and he said that he had requested that an engineering plan be brought to them, that the line could either be relocated to the satisfaction of PECO or -- and as of today, they still have not received engineering drawings. So PECO requested this bill not be moved 17 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. on until they had a chance to review the utility line. I have an e-mail from McBride. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe we can make copies of that, please, for the committee. Councilman Green is now in attendance, who is a member of this committee as well.
The second safety issue was that there was bollards put along the curblines with lighting along them. There was no permitting process for that. The electricity running underneath the footway to these bollards -- and I don't -- I'm not sure if they had been disconnected at this point, but the Streets Department would like to see them disconnected, the electricity disconnected and also removed. And I have photos of those also.
Are those realtime photos? 18 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc.
Can we make copies of those? And the reason for having the lights removed?
There was no 8 permitting done. We don't know where the electricity --
We're fixing something, so I don't want to get to the technicalities of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Is there a public safety issue with the lights being there? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Councilwoman Sanchez, the safety issue is that basically when you look at these pictures, you'll see that they're very attractive bollards put in with light fixtures on top. If someone were to come in and jackhammer the sidewalk or do anything, they could be electrocuted. You could have a heavy rain, somebody leans against the bollard, you're 19 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. electrocuted. You could have failure back to the building, have a fire. There's no permits. This is basically -- it's like putting an extension cord underneath a rug. It looks fine until you have a fire, but you shouldn't do it.
Is there any way for them to encapsulate this for safety issues? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: There's a way to do it safely and properly, but you have to remove this and do it the right way.
Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My understanding talking to Councilwoman Miller, someone from the diner or a representative of the diner will be testifying they will be removing those lights and maybe correcting some of the other problems. But Councilman Jones. 20 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc.
Just for purposes of timeline, when was this first brought to your attention by way of this structure being erected? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That was in December of 2008.
And you have been in constant contact with the owner during that process, or your department? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Since that time, the Councilwoman has convened a number of meetings. We've also had communications with them to try to reach some understanding of what could be done to try to improve the situation that we have.
Can you describe some of those recommendations, please? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. There was a -- plans were drawn up to kind of highlight what they had and then what we could live with and not live with. We asked that they move the 21 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. building line back to be similar to the building line for the rest of the diner, though willing to say you can make changes on the back side on Old York Road, willing to stretch out to the intersection or crossing over Old York Road the turnaround, change the direction of the street with no problem. All those things we're willing to work with them on.
I wasn't done. And of those recommendations, how much of them were worked on, done? I see the picture here where -- was this a part of the recommendations that that be changed? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. That we asked to -- most recently we were out there November 12th. We were out at the site with the Councilwoman and her staff and walked the site to try to talk 22 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. about how we could make this work. It was moving the wall back, and we even suggested that there was likely some problems with the wall. It had to be moved anyway, so in the process of moving it back, move it back properly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Commissioner, excuse me for interrupting. What were the problems with the wall? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Untrained eye, but it appeared -- it didn't appear to be plumb. There was mold on the inside, so -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mold? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Mold. So it didn't -- it wasn't clear why that was existing. The owner suggested that because he was forced to stop work, that the drywall had a leak -- was receiving a leak from the roof. But the mold was coming from the floor, and that may have been because the structure was built below the sidewalk level. And this is not L&I speaking. This is an untrained, 23 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. not certified L&I person.
Of those recommendations, how many of them were there? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We didn't number it that way, but we did say of the X number of feet that you want to add to your facility, we can work with you and we're willing to support 90 percent of it.
What I was asking, the context of my question was, if you had ten recommendations, how many of them did they comply with? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Basically nine of ten. We're saying that 90 percent of the space we were willing to work with. I'm sorry. You asked another question. You asked what were they willing to comply with.
Yeah. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: They wanted to have their building as is with 24 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. no modifications. They said to us that they would remove the bollards and remove the lighting. They have not. They told us verbally that they had disconnected the electricity, but we have no proof of any of that. But they had told us that they were willing to remove them, but they had not.
Let me just succinctly put, out of ten recommendations, how many had they complied with or stated they would be willing to comply with? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: One second, sir. Okay. We do have a listing the way that you're suggesting it, which is not based on space. We had seven requests of them and they had not complied with any of them.
Have they expressed willingness to comply to how many of them? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: They have 25 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. expressed willingness to do whatever is necessary, but we have not seen that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And when was that? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: This was November 19th.
So has there been a recent inspection to see if they've -- well, at least one of them I understand they complied with. So I'm trying to guess between what you stated there and what they stated a willingness to comply with, how much of it can be verified was done.
Councilman, there were conditions all along the way that we were seeking for them to comply with, and as you can see in the plan on Old York Road, the first construction went out to the center line of Old York Road. The Streets Department couldn't live with that, so we worked with their architect and scaled the patio back and then add a one-way street, which would provide 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. traffic -- pedestrian access along there and it would still give them all of the building encroachment that they produced on Old York Road.
Yeah. That's a condition they complied with. These were outstanding issues --
I'm not an engineer, so you could tell me about setbacks until -- my eyes are going to glaze over. I just want to know, out of the significant recommendations -- and you said there's seven -- we established that they did two, or how many?
Councilman, there was seven outstanding conditions as of November 19th. There was efforts to comply with that all along the way with various levels of compliance, but as of November 19th, we had seven issues that needed to be resolved.
Of which was 27 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. this one of them?
We've worked with them and we came to an agreement along Old York Road. We've narrowed the width down, created a one-way street. Part of the patio area needed to be removed. So all the conditions that we requested on Old York Road have been complied with.
Those conditions, yes. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: On Old York Road.
And of that 28 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. seven, how many have they complied with that you can verify?
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Before I get to Councilman Greenlee, Mr. Haigler, there is a cease operations, you said?
Stop work. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Stop work. I'm sorry. And when was that issued?
12/8/08. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Has work been done since 12/8/08?
I don't have information to that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I mean, all this stuff we're talking about now --
I don't think any work was done relative to -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would assume they were still working over this past year.
The patio area 29 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. was removed since the stop work order. That was scaled back. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So the work they were doing was correcting the violations?
Correct. That one, yes. I'm not sure what was going on inside the structure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you know, Mr. Haigler, what was going on, if anything, was going on inside?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not to belabor this, but Councilwoman Sanchez and I were just talking. I mean, all the reports you have, the latest is November 19th, correct?
Wouldn't it have made sense to try to have 30 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. something like right up to date, Monday or at least Friday, last Friday, to try to -- because I have a feeling they'll come in and they're going to say they did certain things, and they may have done those, and we're kind of -- we kind of don't know. I mean, the 19th wasn't a long time ago, but it was two, three weeks ago. I mean, shouldn't we really have, in fairness, an update? Because in fairness, you gave a picture of a hydrant, and just by looking at that, that looks awful bad, but then we're told, Well, yeah, they took it away. So we're not sure what's now and what was then. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Councilman, I think that the hydrant was just a demonstration of what was built and how it was built to say that this was built not doing the right things.
Well, we agree. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: So when 31 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. that was found, it has to be corrected. It had to be exposed.
No. I understand. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: So that's just by example.
But in all fairness, Commissioner, when it was presented, I think we all thought that was still going on. Councilwoman Miller knew it wasn't, but the rest of us, that's the way it was kind of presented. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think we were answering the question by Councilman DiCicco about the public safety issue that had existed, and that was what we had.
At that time, yeah. All right. I understand. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: And this list of things, I think that we would know if they had submitted anything for the building zoning or plumbing or electrical permits, that the utility 32 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. agency approvals would be obtained, that the bollards were removed. Those things are -- the building be scaled back, that they give us a letter. Those are the kinds of things that we requested and I think that we would know.
All right. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We have -- the Councilwoman has been very diligent and patient in this process in bringing all parties together to hear the issues, and it has been a very, very slow process in terms of trying to gain information.
So since that time up to today, there's no permits out at least to deal with those seven issues you talked about? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: There's nothing. Getting a permit is one of the issues here, and there's --
Pardon me? I'm sorry. 33 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Getting a permit is one of the seven things.
That's what I'm saying. You see no -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No. 7
Okay. That was basically my question. All right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.
Just one quick question. Of the seven remaining issues, how many impact public health, safety and welfare?
Removing the bollards, getting clearance from all the utilities, which hasn't been done, because I just spoke with PECO today. So that's a public safety issue. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Plumbing and electrical permits, no. 23
That's the permitting issue. That's not -- you're not telling me the plumbing is unsafe or 34 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. it's going to affect public safety. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me for interrupting, but that could mean that they may be unsafe. We don't know.
Because you haven't inspected them. Obviously L&I has to do an inspection of plumbing, electrical and everything before anybody will get a CO. So I'm talking about public health, safety and welfare issues. So it's the bollards and the clearance from electricity? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Councilman, I'm not sure how to answer that, because it is a safety issue.
Well, they won't get a CO if the electricity is not to code, the plumbing is not to code. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Haigler.
Otis Haigler again, Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and 35 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. Inspections. The purpose of the permitting process is to do a review before the equipment is installed and --
If I can finish. In that process of review, we review, of course, with the requirements of the Code to determine whether or not the issue is safe. We haven't had that opportunity. We don't know if there is currently a public safety or health issue because we haven't determined that based on a formal review of the process.
Right, but let's just say we grant -- we pass Councilwoman Miller's bill and they get the relief they need with respect to encroachments and other stuff like that. Are you going to give them a CO if the electrical is unsafe?
So that is 36 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. not ever going to be a public safety issue, because they won't get a CO. They'll have to fix --
Normally it wouldn't be a public safety issue if it's not already there, but it's already there now.
But we don't -- the past is the past. I'm talking about going forward. So the two public safety issues that you guys have identified that you're aware of today and you're saying you're going to prevent any in the future by not issuing a CO, the two public safety issues are the bollards -- and I don't know what that is -- and the clearance from electricity.
Well, also you have the structure that's there, and without a formal plan review and a review by our engineers, we don't even know if that's been erected correctly.
But they're 37 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. not going to get a CO if it's not a safe structure. Is that right or wrong?
They won't get the CO -- I think what we're trying to say is, they won't get the legal document, but the structure is already there, so it could still present a public safety issue.
It's either safe or not safe. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Unless I'm misunderstanding this, you look at Bill 14 No. 840, we're being asked to legalize the addition or additional structure, and there may be some of those issues that you raise.
But we're not granting the CO. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But we're legalizing --
From the standpoint of the legislative process, you're legalizing the right to do this, but it still would have to be reviewed to 38 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. determine whether or not it's in compliance with the Code for safety. Normally that process is done before the structure is already built. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right. So we're kind of doing it in reverse order. If all of those other issues that are either known or unknown yet that would eventually get approval for, if they make the Code and they get the approval, would there still be objection to the expansion, the addition? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Councilman, I think that we would -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Commissioner Tolson. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Clarena Tolson. I think it's difficult for us to understand in the contingency. I think that given the number of challenges we've had in this process, we really want to see the entire package. In all honesty, we had difficulty even finding 39 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. out who the contractor was until six weeks ago. And we're baffled. But to that extent, I think that all of us want to err on the side of public safety. We want to try to do the right thing by the citizens. None of us want our names to anything that could be potentially unsafe. And we're struggling. As you can see, we're struggling to try to work together with a businessman who has made a large investment but also put that on balance with public safety. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I hear you and I appreciate your honesty. I think that goes to some of the concerns or questions that Councilman Green raised. But Councilwoman Miller.
You know, we're all concerned about public safety in this whole year of meeting. We want to make sure that this building is safe for people to use. The old building is safe, as far as I know. I'm not an engineer. I don't work for L&I, and I 40 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. can't make the determination. And the goal that I've always stated is that I want to figure out a way that we can work with this businessperson that did a significant investment at Broad and Old York Road, and it's always just been my goal for us to work with them to see what we need to do to get them to correct. And some things were easier than others. Yes, they did promise to disconnect the bollards, which are the lights on the sidewalk, for anybody who doesn't know what a bollard is, because I certainly didn't. And also -- we were all shocked when we went there last year in December. It was my first time seeing it, but what I couldn't figure out was where were other City agencies. It took a while to build what they built and nobody knew it was being built there. So I always felt that we need to work together to see what we can do to get this building legal. And, yes, there have been a few struggles. It did take a while. 41 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. I believe you got the information on the contractor in September, and we have had several -- many meetings prior to that, and we've been meeting now for a whole year, and it's time for us to figure out what to do here. The bills that you're opposing, one you wrote, but you've decided to oppose the bill. But I think it might be time, Councilman, to call on those folks from Oak Lane Diner and ask these departments to stay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Certainly we're going to bring the applicant in. I just want to make sure that this committee at least had an opportunity to ask questions of them. Are there any other questions for these witnesses at this time? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you can remain here, we'd appreciate it. 42 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. Someone for the applicant. Albert Taus, the architect.
And I just want to state for the record also that we do have letters from the various utilities, PECO, Water Department and PGW, and we also spoke to PECO earlier today, spoke to Ed McBride. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My understanding from Mr. McBride via e-mail is that he just would like to see a plan. He hasn't gotten a plan yet. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So, Mr. Taus, Mr. Winbush, PECO needs that plan. They're not suggesting that they would not agree to what you did. They just need to have that plan. People don't want to sign off if there's some potential for some public safety issues here. Mr. Taus, are you ready?
Yes, sir. 43 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you have any statements for us or could you shed some light on the questions that have been raised here as to the -- I think the biggest, for me at least, speaking for me, the biggest issue for me is a question of public safety, what has been built here both in terms of the expansion being built to Code and probably more so is the electrical issues that have been raised, do they pose a public safety issue. Things like that are, to me, important. I suspect my committee has the same feelings. Because I don't want to approve something that may have the potential, knowing what little I know about this project already, that may create an opportunity for someone to be injured or more severely injured or die as a result of what we're approving here today.
I'd like to thank you for hearing my testimony, first of all, and to let you know that I've been 44 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. involved in this project for over a year now, since I think it was fall of '08. When I originally got involved in this project, the scope of work was a little bit less than it ended up being, but when I was called back and I saw the addition, I was surprised as everyone else. Move forward or fast forward -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me for interrupting. You came in after the --
Well, I came in originally for zoning approval of a deck on the Oak Lane Diner. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Had the deck already been installed?
No. 19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Had the extension or the addition already been built? Any of that -- none of that was done?
That went through just the process of zoning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But none 45 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. of the construction had taken place?
That is correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You were retained at that time?
I was retained to get the approvals for the deck, and subsequent to that, there was a gap of time after they got the approval for the deck zoning-wise, and then I came upon the project -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The approval you asked for on the deck, did it have a fire hydrant or no fire hydrant?
The fire hydrant was on the edge of the sidewalk, and if I could just skip forward -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Walk us through that, yeah.
So everybody feels comfortable. The Water Department approved removing that or eliminating that, because across the street within about, I'm guessing, plus or minus 120 46 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. feet, there's another fire hydrant on the other side of Old York Road. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I had an experience at the intersection where I live, we just relocated -- had a fire hydrant relocated even though there's a fire hydrant directly across 11th Street, and the reason they couldn't remove one is, one is a high pressure versus one that is whatever the technical term is. So just because there are two fire hydrants at an intersection doesn't necessarily mean you can eliminate one.
I'm just stating the fact. Maybe -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not arguing with you. I'm just letting you know what I found out recently about that.
It's my understanding that the Water Department said, Okay, this can be eliminated because there's one across the street. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When you 47 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. said it's your understanding, was that part of some document?
It's my understanding also that everything has been approved by the Water and Sewer Department for this project, except for the corrosive test that needs to be remediated. There was a corrosive test and a report, and that part of the approval process needs to be taken care of. Otherwise, everything else we show on the plans is being remediated and relocated and the -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What's the corrosive test?
From my understanding -- and I'm not a plumbing engineer or mechanical engineer, but it's corrosive. They take a test of the water that's coming through the pipes and see if there's any -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not talking about fire hydrant water. I'm talking about water into the diner. 48 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc.
Yes. It's not unsafe, but there are standards and there's limits, and I think that there's some remediation that needs to be taken care of whenever there's an improvement of this type. I probably shouldn't even speak to this, because I'm not an expert at all, and that was... COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Well, continue.
Anyway, subsequent to all this, we went through the process to make sure -- I think it was the concern of all the departments that this building was safe. So I hired for the client a structural engineer. His name is Bob Rosen. He's a structural engineer. He's probably got 40, 50 years in the business. He's well recognized in the City of Philadelphia, and he wrote a report and took inventory of every piece of steel, every concrete block and all the reinforcing for the exterior walls, 49 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. and at the end of the report I think you have in your hand -- that was submitted in July, July 19th? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: July 7th.
July 17th. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: July 7th. Is that the Rosen report?
I'm sorry. Forgive me. I got to put my glasses on. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No big deal.
July 7th, 2009. His next-to-the-last paragraph, "With all the above data, I proceeded a structural review of the building's capacity. This review was made using the live load required by the IBC and the Philadelphia Building Code. All dead loads were also applied. The result of this review indicates that the in-place building is in accordance or in excess of the Code 50 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. requirements for this use. "If you have any questions," so on and so forth. So I felt comfortable this building was safe, and every time that I visited the site, I was completely comfortable conducting a meeting with Bob for whatever reason in that space so we would understand the significance. So that would be, as far as I was concerned, the only life safety issue, other than the, as the Commissioner of the Streets pointed out, the wiring in the bollards in the street. Those were removed. All the wiring was either disconnected at the panel, so there's no power to those light bollards, or removed. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When you say "at the panel," you mean the circuit breaker box?
That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But they could be reconnected if someone wanted to? 51 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc.
I guess so, but I think some of the wiring -- most of the wiring out of the bollards were removed also. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.
You just kind of answered the question mostly, sir, in your last statement. But, I mean, of the things that the Streets Department and L&I talked about, I'll be honest with you, that whole electrical issue was the greatest concern that I heard. Not that some of the other issues should be ignored, but when you talk about possible electrocution, obviously you're talking about serious stuff. So you're saying, to the best of your knowledge -- I don't know if there's anybody else here that can say that -- that concern that was expressed by the City officials does not exist anymore or should not exist?
Well, it doesn't 52 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. mean --
So if people go up there, there should be no 8 risk of electrical shock or anything like that?
I would feel comfortable walking there or even getting involved in fiddling around with those bollards that have the lights in them. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So the bottom line is --
We'll test you first before I come. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- all this stuff could have been eliminated had they gone through the regular permitting and inspection process, because I think the bollards add some aesthetic value to the site. All that could have been done.
A hundred percent. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: For 53 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. whatever reason, they chose to bypass that.
I think they just didn't know the system. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry. Councilman Greenlee.
One other thing came to my mind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there anything else, so I'm clear, in your opinion, that needs to be done here? What else needs to be done to bring you in compliance, or, in your opinion, is it just that it hasn't been inspected and you haven't gotten the necessary permits?
Well, we're in the process of trying to proceed in a backwards mode to get everything approved. We hired a civil engineer to prepare the documents so we could get the proper zoning approvals, and we're going through that process. It's been slow because of, I guess, some issues getting 54 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. it into the right departments and so on and so forth. But we have been trying to go through the proper channels, and we're right now trying to get zoning approval before we submit plans for building permits.
But in all fairness, I don't always defend the departments, but if it kind of had been done the other way -- you're doing it backwards. If it had been done right -- I'm not blaming you, but if it had been done right, maybe even though the process is slow anyway, but we might not be here then, in all due respect. Am I correct?
There's no doubt that the process was absolutely the wrong way, but it's there.
The owner is sick about this at this point. It's been a long time, and I'm just trying to help his situation to try to get it right for 55 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. him and the City and the public.
But in your opinion, because the Commissioner said that -- and she was just going by the lack of seeing permits or anything like that, but as of the last time she was out there, there was still public safety issues. You don't believe that they exist anymore; is that what you're saying?
As far as I see, I think that we can feel safe that there's no public safety issues at this time. I feel safe. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I was just thinking out loud. Is there a way in which all of the parties -- and I take Mr. Rosen's comments. I think they're very valuable to what our concerns are and I think they help answer a lot of the questions about the safety of the building, not knowing what the plumbing and electrical issues may be. Isn't there a way in which 56 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. Mr. Rosen, maybe yourself, Mr. Taus, and L&I can all just go through this with a punch list and figure out what needs to get done, like you would do a job had it been done in the proper way, meaning the proper way if permits were taken out, if the plans had been reviewed by all the various departments and they would have approved, disapproved and you make the corrections? It's done. There's a structure up. It's a business. We want to see the business continue and grow, but, again, I still, having said all that, personally -- and I want to support my colleague, because it's a district matter. I still have a little bit of a problem legalizing something when I don't know what's behind those walls or underneath the sidewalk or coming into the building from the main water line. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with that. And everybody has got to figure out how they're going to vote 57 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. on this, but there are too many unknowns out there for me, despite the fact that I know you personally, I know your reputation, I don't think I know Mr. Rosen, and I take all these things to be factual, but there's a lot of unknowns, in my opinion, and there needs to be a way in which we as the City and all of our agencies can come together and meet at this site and do a walk-through.
Yes. Tony? One thing I didn't mention, I did hire for the owner a mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineer, and they -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They'll do the underwriting?
Well, they already drew up the electrical plans and I believe the electrical plans are in the 58 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. electrical department for permitting process. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But I think the problem -- and I could be out of line here -- is that the electrical unit of L&I, because they can't see what has already been installed in many cases because it's behind walls or under sidewalks, it's difficult to ask them to sign off on something they can't see. I wouldn't sign off on it. With everyone's good intentions, not suspecting anyone is saying something that's not correct, I couldn't ask the Department of L&I to go out and approve something that they can't see. Oh, just because I said it's so doesn't make it so. There's got to be another way around it.
Everything that's outside the building has been disconnected and capped. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, yeah, it's disconnected, but --
Well, we can 59 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. eliminate that and run the -- (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The history of the way this was done -- excuse me one minute, sir. Finish, Mr. Taus.
I was just going to say that everything with inside the building above the ceilings, because it's an acoustical ceiling, we can see those wires. So whatever is exposed, we're okay with, the electrical engineer. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But where you can't see --
Where you can't see, I can't testify, because you can't see through walls. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Were connections done or is it to code? Were the right junction boxes put in? I don't know, and the only way you really know that is to rip everything out really. Sir, if you wish to say a few 60 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. words, would you please state your name for the record and --
My name is Tony Elebah. I'm the owner of Oak Lane Diner. And the only thing I want to say, if anything I did wrong, I'm sorry about it. I didn't mean like to go over the record or over the rules. It's not my intention. But I just start building it like based and I have the zoning for to build the deck. I misunderstand. I build it. But only thing I want to say to everybody, I really try to make everything right, and everything I believe like a human being, it is right. There's nothing I built against people's safety. It's been -- I invest a lot of money inside this building, and it's my own money. I came in and when I bought the diner, it was very old, filthy, and I didn't know how bad shape the diner is until I bought it, because I didn't go 61 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. all the details. Like it looks good, but it was old. So anyway, when I start building up, I fix it up. It was a piece of ground in front of the diner. It's supposed to belong to the diner. The way I built the diner, it's belong to the diner. So I figure out, we build something, because the diner is too small. People around the neighborhood, they need some place for meeting or for anything like to be together. Plus, the front of the diner was so dark. Like nighttime safety-wise, it's no good. There's no light, because it's too big place, too wide street. There's no 19 lights. So anyway, I start -- the sidewalk, you cannot even walk on it. So I spent 120,000. That's how I start. I spent $120,000 to fix the sidewalk for this. It's the City property. It's not my property. I make it nice and 62 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. beautiful, and you can see it over there. Okay? And I put the lights. These lights, I didn't put just for like just to put it. They just light up, because it was so dark nighttime. So for the safety really, this is good. Now they say, We do not know how you connect it. It's been connect to the diner. I don't connect it to any other place. It's been connected right by somebody's electricity, and he's licensed. And he did apply for permits, and they never give it to him. They take forever to do it, and I thought he's doing it right. Anyway, now we get electrician engineering, and he said everything is fine, by the Code. Like I don't have to tear anything down. But if you want me to tear it down, I tear it down. And out of all -- because I understand it's some things -- we can go over it. We can do it. But the problem is, I really get sick out of this. It's not sick like sick. I get really sick. I got anxiety. 63 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. I got enough problem. So all I'm asking, like I say to everybody, if this is going to keep going and get -- because the business goes down. The economy is not good anymore. I don't have money like I did year and a half ago, because whatever I spend in this is my kid's money. It's no 10 banks. Every bank I try refuse to give me money to invest in the area. So I sold a piece of ground I have and I spend all the money on this place. If you don't want it, I tear it down, because whatever they ask me to do is tear down the whole building. They ask me to move back four and a half feet. How I'm going to remove four and a half feet? Four and a half feet, it means you cut this wall, you cut this wall, you cut this wall. How I'm going to remove it? And from the beginning I work with them. They said, Okay, cut this. I cut it. Okay. We agree for this. I said, Okay, fine. And, finally, they came with this 64 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. proposal. They want me to go back four and a half feet with the same line with the diner. I am with the same line with the diner, but to the vestibule. The whole problem, they want me to go with the diner line. And what's the issue? Oh, the sidewalk is small. This sidewalk is small? Look at the rest of the block, how small is it. This is big. But I don't know what is it. But what I see here, it became just something -- I couldn't take it.
You have the decision, because, honestly, I'm not supposed to say this, but it's enough. Like if they want to legalize everything, I will do it. I don't have that much money like before. If I do what they want, I'm tearing down the whole building. I need two, three hundred thousand dollars to build it up. From where I'm going to get this money? Oh, you got to do it. I cannot take it. That's enough. You want me to tear it down? I 65 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. tear it down. You want me to keep going and legalize everything as I build it, it's fine. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has to be legal.
That's what I said, it's fine. I will do it. I will do anything possibly to do it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's what we're trying to get to.
I understand, and I thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The purpose of this hearing is to try to get to that point.
I thank you, sir, honestly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But understand -- I appreciate and I do understand the financial investment you made. I was in business once. It went bankrupt, so I know all about that stuff, and I understand that. But you keep referring to they want you to take a wall 66 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. down.
The way they ask me. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The wall didn't exist to -- they didn't ask you to take a wall down --
I understand. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm trying to be gentle. Apologies are one thing. You said you built it and you had contractors do this. You said the electrical contractor applied for a permit, but he never got it, so they went ahead and did it anyway. What do you mean he never got the permit? Did he 67 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. apply for it or did he tell you he applied for it?
Yeah, he told me he applied for it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Did you hire a general contractor who then hired subs or did you hire the individual contractors on your own?
I just hire a contractor and he did the job. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The general contractor and he brought in subs, he brought in masonry, electric?
Yeah. I was the general contractor. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You were the general contractor?
Yeah. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And then you hired the subs? (Mr. Elebah shakes head in the affirmative.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you were made aware of this how long ago? 68 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc.
Fall of 2008. And I might say that no work other than the removal of the deck and some of the -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, I go back to he says the electrical work was done properly. I don't know. Maybe it was. Maybe it was. Who knows? Is there conduit? Was it done with conduit that meets the Code? No one knows.
I think that that's -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't want to see him have to tear the building down and take all that money and have it -- which he's never going to be able to --
Well, that's a separate issue. The bollards that are light standards on the sidewalk is a different issue than the building itself, I think, where the -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just wonder if someone told him, Don't worry about it, and the man didn't worry about 69 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. it until now. That's just my personal observation. Councilman Greenlee.
Again, I was going to ask the gentleman, the owner, this, because I just asked -- I asked you the question. I guess what I'm trying to get at, I would feel a lot more comfortable with this bill if there was some sort certification on the electrical problem. That's my biggest concern. The thing with the sidewalk and all, personally I don't have a problem with that. Maybe it doesn't meet all the standards, but I've seen sidewalks a heck of a lot narrower than that. Okay? I'd like to see -- I've been in the Oak Lane Diner a number of times. I think it needed work. He's done a lot of work. I want to see that work, I want to see more people come up there, all that. The one thing that does concern me, though -- and I don't want to be part of approving something and then there be 70 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. a fire or somebody gets shocked. So what I'm getting at is, I'd like to see some kind of certification before at least this -- even if we move this out of committee today, make some effective date later. I'm just giving an option. Make an effective date later so we can be comfortable that there's this certification or something like that. I'm just -- and, again, I'm like Councilman DiCicco, I want to work with Councilwoman Miller. And, again, on most of this, I'm okay, but that electrical thing -- and I know I'm repeating myself about 45 times, but that concerns me.
I think that there's two items that could make us all feel much more comfortable. One, there was an electrical engineer hired, and he went over all the electric wiring, so on and 71 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. so forth. But there's another step in the process before you can occupy an establishment like this that has an improvement of this sort. Have the underwriter come in and certify that the wiring was put in accordance to the Code. So that might be a way for all of --
And how long would that take to happen, in your -- do you have knowledge of how long that takes?
I would say if you gave us a month, it's probably a sufficient amount of time. If not, maybe three, four weeks.
And, again, I don't mean this with any disrespect, as I know Councilman DiCicco didn't. We want to be sure, because there's a lot of things that was not done right here, and I understand frustration of getting permits and I understand you want to get it done and I understand money and all, all of that, but, again, 72 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. when we're talking about real public safety -- and not that I'm saying tripping is not a public safety, but sure as heck electrocution is a public safety, and I just want to be real, real sure that this gets done right and it's certified, not, with all due respect, sir, "to the best of my knowledge, it's okay." Because to the best of my knowledge, I wouldn't know about electricity, except I turn the switch on.
That's what I mean. That's what I want to see. That's what I'd like to see to be really comfortable.
And that goes back to what was said. Now, again, I don't know, Mr. Chairman or the sponsor, the timeframe thing, if we can solve it that way. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other 73 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. questions for Mr. Taus? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Taus.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Pastor Ronald King Hill and Mr. Joseph Mixon.
Thank you, Mr. DiCicco, the Chair, and to other Councilpersons present. I come today in support of -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Your name?
I come today to be in support of the Oak Lane Diner. I have four letters with me I'd like to read into the record, and I also have over 500 names on a petition I'd like to -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We'll accept the petition, and if you can, I suspect that the letters are probably all 74 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. similar.
Pretty close. Can I identify who they're from? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah. Yeah.
The Baptist Ministers Conference of Philadelphia and Vicinity, the Missionary Baptist Pastors Conference of Philadelphia and Vicinity, the Triumph Baptist Church and the Corinthian Baptist Church, which is a local church in that community. I have also over 503 names on a petition I'd like to support. I'm a long-time resident in the community, and the Oak Lane Diner has been a hub in the community, and we support the efforts that have been presented here today. Hopefully that you will move favorably upon them. I thank you for hearing me. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Reverend. You heard some of the testimony. I think you can appreciate 75 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. what our concern is. Nothing against the diner. It's a business. We want to see it expand and grow and be prosperous. It's good for everyone. But we do have those other issues that are in the public safety interest. I believe that is our main concern. Other than that, this thing would have sailed through easily.
My name is Joe Mixon. I just wanted to say that the diner has been a mainstay in that area. It's a wonderful place to go to. The seniors depend on it for breakfast, lunch and for birthdays and all. I mean, we're all around there all the time eating and socializing. It's like a steady place that we could go, and we, the seniors, depend on that place. It's good for the handicapped. It's accessible. And we just support the expansion of it. Now, I know there's been some concerns. I mean, I don't know about the 76 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. electricity and all the other kind of things, but I know I've been out there in the rain, and all the times that I've used that diner and up against the pillars with the light on, I haven't got a little shock at all. I mean, I'm not an engineer, but I have worked in demolition and I'm a demolition contractor, retired. I worked for Geppert Brothers. I worked for myself. I didn't mean to get into all this, but Tony had said that the electrical -- somebody who did the electrical was an electrical person and was certified. And, like I said, not getting off the beaten track, I've been exposed to that lighting in the rain and all. Well, maybe by the grace of God I didn't get electrocuted, but I was all up against it. But the diner has been a great place, and we hope that you will think long and hard about continuing the expansion of it. We support the 77 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. expansion of it. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any comments, questions for these witnesses? Councilwoman Miller.
I just want to thank you for coming in to testify, and we appreciate your testimony. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Can I have Commissioner Tolson and maybe Morelli and Erickson? And is Otis still here? (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're just going to stand in recess for about a minute. Just hang there, please. (Pause.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Okay. Hi. Mr. Chair, I am recommending that 78 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. this bill be held until everyone from various departments go out there and make this inspection, and we will -- City Council is going to recess actually next week and we would like to have this report ready for us when we return. Now, I am not sure on the return date. Are you? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sometime middle of January. You got about 40 days, maybe a little more, give or take, 45 days.
And we want reports. In fact, what we'll do is put it in writing on what we expect to happen in 40 days. But the issue here has been public safety, and we're all concerned about public safety, and we want any issue that deals with public safety addressed. We will send you something in writing, a specific request. I know that this diner is important to the community. I don't go there myself that often, but when I do, I 79 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. see many people from the community there that I know from all walks of life, and many people are concerned about this expansion. We want to do the right thing. I want my colleagues to feel comfortable about this. We've been meeting for a whole year. I have the same goal Councilman DiCicco stated. I have the exact same goals, and that's why we've been meeting. And a year later, we still need to meet, and I don't know what takes a year to complete. But in any event, this hearing can go on and on and on and some people still have unanswered questions, and at this point, I do want to hold this bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
And we'll also hold the other bill. I think it's 839. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 090839.
Right. We will also hold that bill, and when we come back, we'll have the other bill. 80 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you all for your testimony. Thank you. Mr. Abernathy, the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 090846, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Race Street, between North 7th Street and North 9th Street, both sides. Mike Resnick is testifying on behalf of the Administration. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon and please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Councilman. Michael Resnick. I'm Chief of Staff for Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison. 81 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. Councilman, members of the Committee, I'm here to testify regarding Bill 090846, which establishes a police parking regulation on Race Street, between North 7th Street and North 9th Street, on both sides. At this time, I want to apprise you of the efforts being taken to resolve the issue of parking around Police Headquarters at 8th and Race. Deputy Mayor Gillison has convened several meetings to develop solutions to this problem. In attendance at these meetings have been officials from the Police Department, Streets Department, traffic engineers and the Philadelphia Parking Authority. At our last meeting, which took place yesterday afternoon, it appeared that a solution was reached and we'll be able to begin implementation of this solution. We have received a list of potential on-street parking locations surrounding Police Headquarters, and 82 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. we've taken into consideration the needs of the community. Traffic Engineer Division has approved many of these locations for re-designation to Authorized Parking Only. Areas further west on Race Street and areas surrounding the Metropolitan Condominium will be left unchanged. This should increase the number of on-street parking spots by approximately 70. Streets Department Traffic Engineers is in the process of posting the authorized parking signs in the new designated areas. In addition to the on-street parking, come January 1st, 2010, the Philadelphia Parking Authority will be taking over operations of the Macy's parking garage at, I believe it's, at 7th and Arch. Police personnel will be able to park in this secured garage at the PPA government fleet rate of $120 a month for dayshift parking and $110 a month for evening shift parking. The garage has enough capacity to accommodate over 100 83 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. vehicles. With the increase in the on-street parking and the additional secured spots made available in the garage, there should be ample parking for all police personnel working at Police Headquarters during all shifts. This concludes my testimony and I'd be happy to answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Councilman Greenlee.
Just on the record, I'm sorry, I think my mind was still half on the other bill we just had. You're saying there is an agreement here? Do all the parties know that? I mean, in your opinion. We'll hear from them.
In my opinion, we met with Streets Engineers, the Traffic -- Philadelphia Parking Authority, people from the Police Department. As far as I know, Streets 84 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. Department Traffic Engineers is about to hang signs changing the designation to Authorized Parking Only. So as far as I'm concerned from what we heard last night from all the people that were involved, we have over 170 parking spots. Seventy of them on the street will be authorized and about 100 or in excess of 100 will be in a secured lot at a reduced fleet rate.
All right. Well, I guess we'll hear from the Police. So I'll ask that question of them. Thank you, sir.
You're welcome. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. And can you stick around?
Inspector Tom Lippo, Captain Louis Campione, Wilbert Williams, Greg Picano, Chuck Grebloski and Tim Scally. 85 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Whatever order, Gene, you'd like to present your testimony, you decide.
Gene Blagmon, FOP Lodge 5. I just wanted to mention that we're not in the loop. I have talked to Deputy Mayor Gillison about this issue, told him we wanted to be in on the loop. Up until now we have not been included. So any agreements have nothing to do with the Fraternal Order of Police. So I just wanted to put that on the record. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. INSPECTOR LIPPO: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Tom Lippo. I'm the Inspector and Commanding Officer of the Communication Division, which encompasses Police Radio. I'm here representing approximately 300 people that work within Police Radio and 86 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. Differential Police Response Unit, which is commanded by Captain Lou Campione, and that's staffed by police officers who are on limited duty and restricted duty, people who have been injured-on-duty status, that type of thing. What I'd like to do, if you don't mind, if I could give a copy. This is a copy of a letter which was written by one of our dispatchers to Police Commissioner Ramsey July 17th of 2009. And what I'll do, I won't be reading this verbatim, but I will be referring to it. And this took place as a result of the article that appeared in the Inquirer, which was written by Monica Yant-Kinney, and I'm just jumping to the second paragraph, and I'll be jumping around. Some of the reasons, historically the parking lot has always been provided for employees of the Police Administration Building. We had two lots in the past, one at 9th Street, Arch and Cherry Street and 9th Street at Cherry 87 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. and Race. Unfortunately, they were closed down on account of the property owners that bought the businesses and there were some high rise put up. An arrangement was made, as I'm sure you're aware, that the Convention Center at 7th and Callowhill allowed us to use some of that parking, and, unfortunately, that parking lot for the most part is shut down five of the 12 months of the year on account of the activities that are taking place at the Convention Center. And as a result of that, the history behind the article, we parked in the area illegally. There was some parking under I-95. We had spots, which PennDOT 19 allowed us to park under there. We did 20 park there, but as a result of that article, that parking went to the wayside. And, again, we're asking for a notice of additional spots, and at this point, as Gene said, if something was worked out with the Police Commissioner 88 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. and the Parking Authority, we weren't aware of it at this time. But I'd like to continue on. Some of the reasons we are asking that you would approve this parking -- and, again, I'm jumping around here -- past practices we did have these lots in the past, and I'm sure you're well aware that every other police facility, there's some type of parking allowed for the police officers and the employees that work there. I noticed the gentleman, Mr. Resnick, if I had his name correct, said it costs -- they worked out a deal with the Parking Authority. Well, it costs $120 a month. And one of the things that, if I do recall, that stuck out in my mind from that article of the Inquirer, Ms. Kinney said, Well, why don't they just go park in a pay lot. It does cost money, obviously. The average salary of a police communication dispatcher is roughly $34,000 a year, and 89 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. if I did my math right, if you times that by 52, it comes out to about $653 a week. By the time you take out taxes, maybe we're down to 5, 450 dollars a month. And the parking in the area -- and we did that -- you have a figure there. It says about $145 a month. Right now it's up to about $160. So you're talking about $40 a week, which brings us down to the average person working in Police Radio is left with about $410 a week. Of course, you got to pay bills, you have children, utilities, that type of thing.
So it's obviously -- it's definitely a strain. Out of the 264 employees that work in Police Radio, 191 of them are female, and out of that 191, 106 are single parents. So financially there's a drain on them. Whether it's $120 or $160 a month, that's a lot of money coming out of someone's pocket. If you turn to , we're talking about the availability. I know everyone in this room is aware that we're 90 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. a 24/7 operation. m. m. , and 11:00 to 7:00. But in between that, we have some what we call steady shifts, and this is the time when the peak phone calls are coming in the area. m. m. m. m. m. m. And when people are coming into the area at that point, if they have to try and find a spot, a lot, it's nearly impossible. I don't have to tell you that stress is involved, the dispatcher taking the calls day in and day out, compounding that with the stress of trying to find a parking lot on a daily basis. We also believe that absenteeism and lateness would be reduced. On an average, there's probably about 10 to 15 people that call out sick in Police Radio daily. So hopefully if they have some additional parking, maybe 91 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. we could cut that number in half. Unfortunately, again, as everyone in this room is aware, back in November 11th, 1994, the Eddie Pollack incident took place, and one of the recommendations they had was to have sufficient parking for members of Police Administration Building, specifically Police Radio, to come and go. We are essential personnel. You know -- and, again, I'm repeating myself. I don't have to tell you. We work 24/7 regardless of the weather, and often times there may come a point where we may have to do mandatory staffing, especially if it's a snowstorm coming on. People are stuck and they're stuck in the PAB. Then we have to worry about shuffling them back and forth. There's a safety issue. Again, we work 24/7 and we go back and forth. Right now we're traversing from the lot over at 7th and Callowhill. Unfortunately, within the past four 92 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. months -- and I'm sure you gentlemen and ladies are aware of that intersection. When you cross from Franklin Street crossing Vine Street over to Callowhill, that's a large intersection. Not only do you have the traffic on 7th Street turning onto Vine Street, you also have the traffic coming off of the Ben Franklin Bridge, and as a result of that, within the past four months, we had two injuries, and I have -- I brought two representatives. Greg Picano was hit back in August and was taken to Rescue to the hospital, as well as Ethel Myers, who works in Police Radio. They sustained injuries. They were taken away by radio. And, again, it's that problem of traversing that area over there. And, again, we're just asking for your help. If you can give us some additional spots, obviously we'd be very appreciative. And that figure of $120 or $160, it's tough when you're only bringing home, as I said, maybe $410 and 93 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. you got to pay the bills and everything else. So we're asking for your help. That's why we're here today. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. CAPTAIN CAMPIONE: Lou Campione, Captain assigned to Differential Police Response. Differential Police Response was set up to try to relieve some of the stress of police officers responding to a job. There's several dozen assignments that we can take over Police Radio. Differential Police Response is staffed by injured officers, either on-duty injuries or non-job-related injuries, while they're healing. Rather than being at home on IOD time, injured-on-duty time, or sick time, they come into work and they relieve some of the burdens of Police Radio by accepting those jobs over the phone and preparing the paperwork necessary for those jobs to be completed. So it's a win situation for the 94 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc.
Department to take tens of thousands of jobs that would normally require the officer physically respond to a location and accept those jobs over Police Radio. The first question for those officers assigned is, where do I park? And that's an issue. The officer may be on crutches, may have a broken leg. We have officers there that are recovering from cancer, heart ailments. We have officers there who are eight months pregnant, who is, again, to our advantage to have them working rather than sit at home using sick time, which, again, puts a strain on our manpower. So it's to our advantage to have those officers come in on a daily basis and accept those jobs from Police Radio to relieve the officers out on the street from responding to those jobs. And it works extremely well, but, again, the issue is to try to accommodate them and their illnesses, their disabilities, their injuries in order to give them parking and get them 95 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. into the Police Administration Building in order to handle those assignments. We also have representatives here from Police Homicide. , they're required to move their vehicle. Now, if a homicide occurs sometime during that tour, which frequently happens, they may be out taking interviews, doing investigations, working the crime scene trying to gather evidence. m. in order to move their vehicle. We're also going to have a confrontation with Headquarters security because the vehicle wasn't moved. And that's happened. We don't need them more stressed than they are. We need them out, focused on what they're doing and attempting to make those arrests and 96 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. m. in order to move their vehicle and find another parking spot, which, again, delays the investigation and makes their job much more complicated. We've had a police officer assigned to DPR attempting to cross the street, as the Inspector indicated, in addition to the two dispatchers that was run over trying to find a parking spot. We're in a Center City area. It's a very congested area. It's a very busy area. We're under a lot of stress. We're concerned about those dispatchers. There's two parts to that room. One is the people taking the calls coming in in excess of three million calls a year for service. We don't want them stressed. We want them focused. We want them dealing with the public without dealing with the stress of worrying about whether or not they get a $76 ticket or their car is being towed because they weren't able 97 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. to park. The other side of that room 4 broadcasts the jobs to the police officers, uniformed officers out on the street. We want them focused. We want them directed. We don't want them distracted. It's the equivalent of an air traffic controller trying to direct that traffic and being concerned about whether or not his vehicle is secure or whether or not he's going to have a parking spot or be able to leave there or o'clock in the morning and be able to find his vehicle in a safe manner. They're the issues we're concerned about. From an employment standpoint, the less stress we provide to our people, the better they're going to respond to their work and be more focused on it. We also have a representative from District Council 33 who would like to address those issues.
Good afternoon. 98 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. My name is Wilbert Williams. I'm a Police Communications Dispatcher, also a member of District Council 33, Local 1637. In reference to the parking situation, 9-1-1 personnel and PAD personnel have the classification as essential personnel, essential personnel which have a direct effect on the public safety. 9-1-1 fits this criteria. When there is trouble, no matter what the condition is outside weather-wise, et cetera, et cetera, 9-1-1 may be the first or second numbers dialed by that person. Essential personnel: Other City units classified as essential personnel - police, police stations, fire departments, laboratories, et cetera, et cetera -- are accorded parking areas. They have parking lots. Street parking spaces are allotted or wherever space may be available. No matter what the conditions, 9-1-1 personnel are expected to be at 99 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. work no matter -- as a matter of public safety. Public safety: Our current location at 7th and Vine, the parking lot there has a very unsafe history. We've had, as the Inspector and Captain have indicated, we've had personnel hit and we've also had a dispatcher that was killed in that location in a vehicular accident. A car ran the light and T-boned that person, and she was killed on the spot. Paid parking and alternative parking: As the Inspector indicated, at Police Radio and City workers in general, we've had no pay raise within the last two years. There's no type of reimbursement or compensation from the City for parking. This can prove to be very costly to single mothers, single-income families that work in Police Radio. The Inspector indicated the pay scale. Public safety: The north side 100 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. of Race Street is a route which is a priority clean-up during times of inclement weather. This clean-up would assure that members of the Police Department and 9-1-1 will always have a safe place to park their vehicles. Once again, when the City is closed, 9-1-1 and Police Headquarters is still open as a matter of public safety. I worked Central Console, Police Radio for the last 12 years and working Central Console, I monitor all the activity that goes on downtown. In that immediate area, we've had parking -- we've had parking in those areas in the past, no indications of any increased accidents or anything like that, no 19 hazard to traffic. Allowing parking on the north side of Race Street from the 800 block to the 600 block would be a huge asset to the safety of the employees of 750 Race Street. Your consideration of this matter would be deeply appreciated. 101 12/8/09 - STREETS - BILL 090746, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry. You said the 800 block to the 600 block?