COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 401, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, June 3, 1999 2:00 p.m. - - - BILLS: 990138, 990140, 990141, 990142, 990149, 990150, 990161, 990200, 990201, 990224, 990243, 990305, 990306, 990308, 990312, 990314, 990332, 990333. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X RESOLUTION 990138 CATHERINE CONFAIR, PPA ---------------------- 57 RESOLUTION 990140 CATHERINE CONFAIR, PPA --------------------- 58 RESOLUTION 990141 CATHERINE CONFAIR, PPA --------------------- 59 RESOLUTION 990142 CATHERINE CONFAIR, PPA --------------------- 60 RESOLUTION 990243 PAUL LONIE, Dept. of Streets --------------- 63 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Comm. --------- 64 STEVEN KAUFFMAN, Community Venture --------- 64 VINCENT MORRIS, Fifth District ------------- 65 RESOLUTION 990305 PAUL LONIE, Dept. of Streets --------------- 67 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Comm. --------- 68 RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. -------------------- 68 JOHN BOWER --------------------------------- 69 VINCENT MORRIS, Fifth District ------------- 70 RESOLUTION 990306 PAUL LONIE, Dept. of Streets --------------- 74 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Comm. --------- 75 VINCENT MORRIS, Fifth District ------------- 75 JOEL SILVER, Michael's Development Corp. --- 76 RESOLUTION 990308 PAUL LONIE, Dept. of Streets --------------- 77 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Comm. --------- 77 RESOLUTION 990312 JOHN CUNNINGHAM, Dept. of Streets ---------- 4 PAUL CURCI, Phila. City Paper -------------- 5 JOHN MC GEE, USA Today --------------------- 7 PAUL LEVY, Center City District ----------- 10 JOHN CAMPBELL, L & I ----------------------- 13 RICHARD FEDER, City Solicitor -------------- 19 ALICE LUCAN, ESQ., USA Today --------------- 20 MARK SIEGLE, Phila. Gay News --------------- 29 RESOLUTION 990314 JOHN CUNNINGHAM, Dept. of Streets ---------- 4 RESOLUTION 990332 JOHN CUNNINGHAM, Dept. of Streets ---------- 40 BOB LANE, ESQ. ----------------------------- 41 RESOLUTION 990333 JOHN CUNNINGHAM, Dept. of Streets ---------- 51 CARL PRIMAVERA, ESQ., Pavilion East ------- 52 3 RESOLUTION 990312
Good afternoon, everyone. The public hearing for the Committee on Streets and Services is now in session. In attendance are Councilmembers Rizzo, Cohen, Miller, and Mariano. I'm Frank DiCicco, I'm Chairman of the Committee. We are going to take three bills out of order. There are a couple people who need to catch a train sometime in the next hour or so, so the first bill 10 will be by the clerk. Again, we're taking these out of order.
Bill No. 990312, an Ordinance amending Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by creating a new section 9-211, entitled "Boxes for the Distribution of Printed Material," regulating the maintenance, specifications, and placement of such boxes on the public sidewalk, under certain terms and conditions.
Please have a seat at the table. State your name for the record. And is there anyone from the Streets Department who will be testifying on these bills? Everyone who's testifying please come forward and have a seat at the witness table. 4 RESOLUTION 990312
My name John Cunningham. I'm the Right-of-Way Manager for the Department of Streets. Reference is made to Bill 5 No. 990312, an Ordinance amending Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by creating a new section 8 9-211, entitled "Boxes for the Distribution of Printed Material," regulating the maintenance, specifications, and placement of such boxes, under certain terms and conditions. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the location and orderly appearance of news boxes in the Center City District. Although the Department of Streets was not granted a great deal of time to work with the Department of Licenses and Inspections and other city agencies in the drafting this ordinance, we believe we can meet our responsibilities as outlined. Further, the Department is willing to work with all appropriate city agencies to assist in the implementation. Therefore, the Department offers no objection to the passage of this ordinance.
Thank you. 5 RESOLUTION 990312 Please state your name for the record.
My name is Paul Curci, publisher of Philadelphia City Paper. On behalf of my fellow publishers, many of whom are here today, I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of our proposed news box ordinance. A little over a year ago in response to an ordinance proposed by Councilman DiCicco, a group of publishers began to come together with city representatives to draft a plan to regulate newspaper honor boxes. This program represents a cooperative effort to improve the manner of distribution of newspapers and other printed materials for readers while assuring a neat, clean, orderly appearance. The ordinance will create a more attractive appearance by requiring publishers to use boxes of the same durable, easily-cleaned construction rather than allow for the use of boxes of widely disparate quality and durability. As a weekly newspaper which features daily calendar listings, it's important that City Paper readers find us immediately. Street corners are the best locations. This ordinance takes that 6 RESOLUTION 990312 into account and serves the reader as well as the publisher. This ordinance will expand successful initiatives begun a few years ago under the leadership of Paul Levy and the Center City District. This program will benefit the City in its efforts to make it more attractive to residents and visitors. It will benefit the many people who work in and visit Center City and will benefit publishers who will maintain access to readers while maintaining our distinctive colors and logo identity, adding to the vitality of Center City street life. When the pilot program is successful, it can be expanded as needed to other parts of the City. We expect the program to be affordable and to balance the needs of everyone concerned. We look forward to implementing our plan in cooperation with the Center City District and all of the appropriate city representatives. Thank you.
In addition I'd just like to offer a few amendments that came as a result of a meeting held yesterday with Paul Levy in the Center 7 RESOLUTION 990312 City District.
My name is John McGee, M-c-G-E-E, and I'm currently a general manager for USA Today Newspaper in the Philadelphia region. In that current role I manage sales, marketing, and distribution within a 200-mile radius of Philadelphia. When we first heard about the Center City news rack corral project, US Today was very excited about it. It's our belief, and it still is, that Philadelphia has come up with something smart and unique. We know a good thing when we see it, and we like this one. We still do after a year of conversations with our colleagues here in Philadelphia. So what we did is we came together to see if we could formulate an ordinance. We worked with the Inquirer, the Daily News, Philadelphia Weekly, Philadelphia City Paper, and the Philadelphia Gay News. And I'm happy to be speaking on behalf of all these publications today. Now, as you know, USA Today distributes in every other major cities in the United States, so we've had a lot of experience elsewhere. The 8 RESOLUTION 990312 corrals of Philadelphia are a much better idea than any program that any other city has ever proposed. The cost is lower. The gains to the City are high. Readers get flexibility and easy access. Publishers get security, an orderly environment, and access matched to their manner of distribution. I'd like to say a few words about how we manage our distribution operation to explain why we're so high on these corrals. USA Today is published five days, and in Philadelphia our first publication hits the streets everyday by 6:30 in the morning. About 60 percent of those papers are gone by 9 o'clock, and another 20 percent are gone by noon. So our shelf-life is much shorter than the 24 hours that are left before our next edition comes out. It's also important for you to know that we buy expensive, well-built news racks; and for USA Today, the news rack is one of our trademarks. Our readers look for our trademark like consumers of any other product, and we need to use our trademark like other businesses do and we want our trademark to be displayed in an attractive, well-kept environment. Every time we service a news rack, it gives us an opportunity to attend to the 9 RESOLUTION 990312 maintenance, pick up any litter that may be around the box, and straighten things up in and around where many machines are located. The corral program recognizes the difference between the operations of frequent publishers versus infrequent publishers. This is a practical realistic approach likely to provide the highest and best service to the greatest number of people. We like this idea and USA Today endorses the ordinance that you have before you. Corrals make news racks safer by securing them into a single row inside an immovable frame, and their appearance is very crisp, neat, and orderly. Corrals have a prosperous look to them, and we'd like to distribute our newspapers there. While corrals keep the news rack secure, they still allow us to display our trademark colors, use our trademark news rack, and let our readers know where we are. We think based on our experience that corrals can be made right here in Philadelphia for well under a thousand dollars each and perhaps for as little as $500, especially if you're willing to accept a simple design. This corral plan is simple, flexible, directly addresses the point, and costs relatively little. Philadelphia has come up with a 10 RESOLUTION 990312 good idea, and we hope you will support this ordinance.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Paul, are you going to be testifying? Why don't you come forward? Paul Levy, please. Who will be introducing all of the amendments?
I believe Paul Curci had all but one, which I have the final amendment.
I think we need to have those read into the record, I believe. So decide amongst yourselves who will reading those.
Why don't I give my testimony. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Levy. I am the Deputy Director of the Center City District. I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify in favor of the proposed amendments to 9-200 of the Philadelphia City Code. Based on surveys that the Center City District did in 1995, there were 776 boxes on the sidewalks in the area of bounded by Spruce, Vine, Sixth, and 21st Street. By the fall of 1998, that number had increased to 1,180 or a 52 percent 11 RESOLUTION 990312 increase in just three years. With many publications on the streets of Center City there some intersections with to 30 5 boxes per intersection which often inhibit 6 pedestrian access. We very much thank Councilman 7 DiCicco for taking the lead in bringing together the 8 very diverse parties who are here to develop a pilot 9 or demonstration program, and we particularly 10 welcome the spirit the cooperate shown by the 11 newspaper publishers who are willing to participate 12 in this demonstration program. I can't underscore 13 enough help how diverse publishers who are 14 competitors have come together and put together a 15 demonstration program that they were prepared to 16 participate in. The Center City District is eager 17 to work cooperatively with appropriate city 18 departments and with the newspaper publishers to 19 help implement this demonstration program which can 20 serve as a model for many other commercial areas in the City. There is one amendment that, if you would like, I would introduce now, and Paul Curci I think can introduce the rest. Clearly, we've talked about a cooperative arrangement here. I should read 12 RESOLUTION 990312 it into the record; is that the best way?
This has been reviewed by the Law Department of the City. The Department which is L & I is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with the Center City District on such terms that may be determined by the Department including reimbursement to the CCD of direct costs and overhead incurred in connection with the services under this agreement in a form satisfactory to the Law Department, for the CCD to provide consulting, design coordination, construction, management, and administrative management services assisting the Department in carrying out activities required or appropriate under this ordinance, including without limitation conduct of periodic surveying of the program area to determine compliance with this ordinance, notification of non-compliant publishers, site inspections to determine if compliance has been achieved, removal and storage of non-compliant publishers' boxes, renegotiating locations upon the entrance of a new frequent publisher into the marketplace, periodic maintenance, graffiti removal, and painting of the 13 RESOLUTION 990312 publishers' box corrals. So I'd like to submit that for consideration as an amendment.
Paul, just identify where the amendment will be placed in the section and number, please.
The amendment is at the end of Section 2 on of the current legislation, a new Paragraph 8.
John Campbell, Licenses and Inspections. We worked with Paul Levy, yourself, and the Solicitor's Office to develop this amendment, and we ask that this Committee approve that amendment and also that when this bill is -- that you would suspend the rules.
Paul Curci, publisher of 14 RESOLUTION 990312 City Paper. I'll read off the amendments that were submitted. On , Section 9-211, Part 2, the pilot program duration. The provisions of this section shall expire two years after the department certifies by regulation that at least publishers 7 box corrals are in place and available for operation 8 within the program area. 9 , Section 9-211, (4)(a)(.5), the 10 box shall weigh no less than 80 pounds when empty of 11 publications and without added weight. 12 On Section 9-211(4)(b)(.3), keeps 13 such box clean and free of graffiti, broken parts, 14 posted bills and debris of any description, 15 including ruined or out-dated publications, including any publication with a cover date of more than 13 days past, or, in the case of infrequent publishers' boxes, more than 44 days past. , Section 9-211(4)(c)(.2), no box shall be attached to any utility pole, traffic or parking sign or device, trash receptacle, fire hydrant, directional sign, bicycle rack or other utility pole or fixture. , amendment Section 9-211(7) as follows: (a) publishers' box corrals may be placed 15 RESOLUTION 990312 and maintained on a public -- excuse me, should I just read the bold italicized portion? That would be the amended.
Part (c), prior to approving any locations or making any determinations, as set forth in subsection 9-211(7)(a) above, prior to developing any criteria for allocation space, as set forth in subsection 9-211(7)(b) above, and prior to promulgating any regulations or making any determinations relating to this Section, including any determinations concerning the appropriate size of corrals at particular locations, the Department or the Streets Department shall consult with representatives of relevant City agencies, City Council, the Center City District and entities which issue regular editions of publications intended for distribution on the sidewalks and other public areas of the City, including publishers of daily, weekly and infrequent publications. Notwithstanding any later effective date of this Section, the above-mentioned representatives of the affected agencies and industry shall submit to the Department and to the Streets Department within ninety days of 16 RESOLUTION 990312 the enactment of this Section any proposals regarding appropriate size and locations of corrals and proposed criteria for allocation of space within the corrals.
Thank you. I need for you to go back. I apologize. And read the deletion also for amend Section 9-211(7) Publishers' Box corrals.
Publishers box corrals may be placed and maintained on public sidewalks by any City agency or by the Center City District, at locations acceptable to the Streets Department. The Streets Department shall approve any proposed location where, as determined by the Streets Department, substantial pedestrian traffic, sidewalk congestion or the presence of a significant number of publishers' boxes within close proximity of one another suggests the need for certain limits on the number and placement of publishers' boxes.
This would deleted: The Streets Department shall make such determinations after consultation regarding appropriate locations with representatives of the Department, City 17 RESOLUTION 990312 Council, the Center City District and entities which issue regular editions of publications intended for distribution on the sidewalks and other public areas of the City, including publishers of daily, weekly, and infrequent publications.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the committee?
Well, I thought you wanted to wait until they have all testified.
Well, all of the amendments have been read into the record. Are there any other witnesses?
Will the Streets Department have a chance to review this amendment in another form again, to go through it, the proposed amendments within the body because one thing I was noticing is that there is a reference to "the Department" and then the "Department of Streets." Inasmuch as they're both departments, they're kind of intricately involved in this. It would be clearer if it said which department when they are carrying out certain stipulations.
Again, John Campbell. When you refer to "the Department," you were always referring to the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Additional departments are referred to as the Department of Health, Department of Streets, or whatever other city agency it is. So that it's clear to us that when they say "the Department," that's us.
Yes. I understand one of the witnesses stated that this has been approved by the Law Department of the City.
And reviewed. I'm concerned, as I would imagine the City's Law Department would have been concerned by questions of the First Amendment. What's the circumstance if somebody decides to print a newspaper, a new one, and decides to put it out on their own stand?
I believe we have someone here who can testify to that. Rich Feder and Alice Lucan, please. 19 RESOLUTION 990312
Councilman Cohen, would you repeat the question for Ms. Lucan, please?
Yes. Suppose somebody comes along, a new newspaper, may not even call it a newspaper, might not be big enough to be called that. But some form of printed material which they wish to circulate. That may later do it frequently, it may be infrequently, it could be every day, it could be once a week or whatever, you know, depending on the creativity and the availability of funding, I suppose. How does that fit in? Somebody says, "I don't have to pay attention to this. I have a First Amendment right to disseminate my information and make it available to people." Give me the Law Department's basis for concluding that there are no First Amendment problems.
Richie Feder, Divisional Deputy, City Solicitor. First, to just clarify, I believe the statement that Mr. Levy made was that the Law Department had reviewed the amendment that he had 20 RESOLUTION 990312 offered and that language was acceptable to the Law Department. Although I will tell you, although we haven't issued a formal opinion, it is our belief that the legislation is constitutional. In answer to your question in particular, Councilman, any newspaper publisher, whether it is a newspaper regular circulation or fly-by-night operation or a brand-new newspaper, would be subject to the same restrictions. This doesn't prohibit you from distributing your newspapers. What it does is it says if you're going to use the public sidewalks and put the newspaper in a box on the public sidewalk, you must put it in an orderly manner, you can't have it too close to the curb, you can't have it too far from the curb. It just basically arranges it in a particular manner. But all newspapers are subject to these regulations.
My name is Alice Lucan, L-u-c-a-n, and I'm outside counsel for USA Today. Let me just state the rules so you can understand that all publications have a First Amendment right to distribute in the public forum. But the City has 21 RESOLUTION 990312 the power to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the publications so long as those restrictions are content-neutral, leave open ample alternative means of distribution and directly and narrowly address significant government interests. In particular, this ordinance addresses the manner of distribution, and when it distinguishes between publications, it simply addresses the way they distribute their publications, whatever the publication is. The person who administers this ordinance never has to read the publication in order to impose the regulations. And that is a key criteria in order to understand that this ordinance is Constitutional.
Well, it sounds good, but I think the Supreme Court also adopts the position that it will evaluate each case separately. And what I raise here is what happens if somebody has very little financing but just enough to cover six or seven street corners, say, and decides they have a message that they want to disseminate and which, by my point of view, the citizens of Philadelphia would be entitled to be informed about, and that publisher is in no position to meet 22 RESOLUTION 990312 whatever tests may exist by the City. What's the answer we give? Do we say, you've got to meet these in order to be able to disseminate your information?
The First Amendment does not require the City to underwrite the publishers' costs. Every publisher, of course, has a cost when it goes into business and when it decides to distribute. As a practical matter, the answer to your question is that that publisher, we assume an impecunious publisher, will be distributing by hand. And this ordinance doesn't restrict that at all. I assume somewhere else in the City of Philadelphia you've got a street-hawkers ordinance. Is that true, Mr. Feder?
I just don't agree with your conclusions. I understand that those conclusions very satisfying to established publishers because all the established publishers can meet this, and I think in general the purpose of the -- I'll use Mr. Feder's language that he uses in other situations. I'm sure that the publishers all realize that this is a benefit. There's a lot of benefit to the City of Philadelphia, and I agree with the main purposes of this. However well-intended, I'm concerned about limitations on new folks that may come around that maybe haven't earned the title of publisher and think of themselves as publisher, but someone who believes he or she has ideas important to begin dissemination. It may evolve into a regular paper of some kind or it may disappear after a few appearances. If this in any way prohibits somebody from putting their own box somewhere where it is not dangerous to anybody and the person chooses to distribute there, I think we have a serious First Amendment problem if that person is going to be told that "you can't do it, you have to develop the funding to be able to meet 24 RESOLUTION 990312 the standards we put here." Now, is there any provision made for that situation? Suppose I decide I want to distribute the Cohen Newspaper. If you asked me how long, I'd say I don't know what the contents is going to be; I don't know, but it will probably be provacative.
Point of information, Councilman. I love it when lawyers argue especially about First Amendment rights.
He's arguing, so there has to be somebody for him to argue with. And it warms my heart that the Councilman is protecting everyone's First Amendment right, but he means this. So if you could explain this a little more in a non-legal term. Basically, if you want to put out your communist manifesto and you want to stand out on the corner, you could can do that anywhere. The First Amendment says that's all right. If you want to put it in a box down in Center City or eventually in Juniata Park or anywhere, because that's where we're going with this, you're saying your legal opinion is you've got the right to give it out, just the municipality has a right to regulate how you 25 RESOLUTION 990312 give out?
Yes. Municipalities have no 4 rights; they only have power. And you have the power that's given to you to regulate reasonable time, place, and manners restrictions that directly advance a significant government interest. So Mr. Cohen's hypothesis that a publisher is coming out and just putting his box on the street, in fact, describes the reason that there is often a problem with news racks. And what is needed here and what you hear and see your publishers asking you for is reasonable time, place, and manner regulations so that we have a decent distribution environment in Philadelphia.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to think of all the various publications that I see, apartment guides, auto trader, and this. To, again, comment on what Councilman Cohen said, did I hear today that we've introduced an amendment that describes, I heard a weight of 80 pounds unstocked? It sounds to me, maybe one of the publishers can comment, but the First USA box looks like a very expensive piece of RESOLUTION 990312 equipment. I doubt very much any person just trying to distribute information in their community could afford to -- if we now designed a criteria for the type of box that's utilized, the little guy could never, in my opinion, afford the box that you or -- did I hear actual specifications on the box that would have to be provided? What's the value of that specification, a ballpark value of that device?
Our metal vending machines are approximately $300. And the basic reason for metal in our case and the reason why we're proposing it here is primarily from a safety issue standpoint, the fact that they can't be moved around easily, the fact that they're durable, they won't fall off of street corners, they can easily be attached to --
The reason I raise that question is that, am I hearing that all of you will be required to have a box that is similar and approximate same out-of-pocket expense? So that 27 RESOLUTION 990312 $300 if that's going to be part of the requirement that you have specifications on a vending device that has a value of $300, I think that itself limits people getting into the game.
Councilman Rizzo, that's the price of doing business. We have 30 boxes on some intersections. I mean, anyone who has walked the streets of Philadelphia understands what we're trying to accomplish here. We're not trying to restrict publication being -- Mr. Siegle, you can come forward. I see your hand up. We're not trying to restrict that. We're just trying to have some order on the sidewalks to have some uniformity. And the price of doing any business requires a certain investment.
Let me finish. The Chair is speaking. And the price of doing any business involves a certain investment, and you either get into the business because you can afford to get into it or you don't. We just can't allow people constantly dropping these boxes off. I mean, every time I walk the streets anymore in Center City, I see a new box. And there is no rhyme or reason, 28 RESOLUTION 990312 there's no consideration for the public who walk the streets, the curb cuts that have been made available for the handicapped. Again, I will repeat myself; it's the cost of doing business.
I understand that, but my point being First USA Today has more wherewithal, in my opinion, to spend $300 a pop for a vending machine. I don't know the City Paper's ability to spend $300 apiece for a vending machine or do they want to. Or Mark Siegle's publication --
-- (continuing) to spend $300 per box. What I'm hearing here today is we've designed a machine that appears to be very expensive that you refer to it as the cost of doing business, but everyone's first car isn't a Cadilac. So maybe everybody that wants to start a business or distribute a publication can't afford a top-line device similar that other publications have the ability to pay for.
Please state your name 29 RESOLUTION 990312 for the record.
Mark Siegle, publisher, Philadelphia Gay News. It's an honor to see you gentlemen and ladies once again. I came to the mike simply to clarify some of the issues that I'm hearing. Being the smallest publisher of the group, Philadelphia Gay News is probably the smallest financial member of our group of publishers who I am very proud to serve with. I started my business literally with 50 cents in my pocket. PGN's circulation now is 20,000 printed copies per week. We publish somewhere about 72 to 100 pages per week. It is a business. When in the circulation of businesses, a newspaper business, several things happen. You have vending boxes. And if you're interested in the First Amendment issue, you would be hawking your papers on the street corner by yourself, putting them in cafes, putting them in bars, putting them in Laundromats. You can circulate your paper anywhere you want. Many of us use all of these forms. But recently in the City of Philadelphia, we've had a proliferation of vending boxes of all different types. And some of the neighborhoods have been very angry and aggravated by 30 RESOLUTION 990312 how these vending boxes have been put on the street corner almost anywhere at any time. Working with the City Council People, we've heard complaints from their constituents. Working with Center City District, which has been dealing with this issue for a while, we tried find some compromise which help each and every one of these constituents. The vending boxes, PGN could not afford to spend $300 per box for 120 vending boxes, which is what we have in Philadelphia. What we did was, quite honestly, we bought them secondhand. One can buy vending boxes anywhere from 5 or $10 all the way up to $1500, depending on where you are in that issue.
I'd just like to comment, though, now I'm hearing that the specification that I thought I heard here is not as stringent as --
Correct. My vending boxes which fit into these criteria were much cheaper than what was paid for here. 31 RESOLUTION 990312 Also, the other issue you raised that we should clear up is they only have to be in corrals in the area where there's a huge proliferation. PGN was concerned, because some of our areas that we do distribution don't specifically fit into that area, and that's written into the bill. We've taken into consideration almost every piece of literature that's out there on the streets today. We taken into consideration the cost. We've tried to be as fair as possible.
The boxes that you bought secondhand, are they 80 pounds, do they fit into this category?
Anyone at that table, are most of the boxes that weight anyhow? When you designed these boxes, you weren't looking to keep USA in business and knock the Gay News out, you were looking for something that was good for everybody that already exists.
What this section really is, and when you get into dealing with 32 RESOLUTION 990312 specifications, we're really dealing with minimum standards. What we're saying is these are the standards you can't fall below. So that whether USA Today spends $350, he pays $65, $125, we're talking about material standards that we want to see boxes a level of performance that we want to see these boxes at so that they're not necessarily Cadilacs, Lincoln Continentals or whatever, they're the minimum standard that should be on the street to promote the public good safety -- street-worthy I think is the term I'm looking for.
You just said minimum standard. In other words, if USA Today decided to buy a very extravagant box twice the minimum of the minimum standard --
Not size. Width and height restrictions. You can buy an outdoor grill for your backyard. You can go over to Rite-Aid and by one for $3 or you can spend $13,000 for a grill. I mean, that's what really what we're talking about. 33 RESOLUTION 990312 These are really minimal standards that are acceptable to the City and for public safety are street-worthy. And whatever the individual vendors want to do, it's up to them. And we've done this with newsstands, we've done this with street vendors. We've set minimum requirements under 9-203, 204, 205, 206.
I'm sure when the groups met that they all considered their own personal needs and the needs of the others in the groups and you arrived at something that made a lot of sense to you. But at this point, all of you are established. When Thomas Paine began issuing "Common Sense," he did not feel he was entering into a business. He was disseminating ideas that might or might not have become a business. I'm asking who was representing the interest of somebody who may have a thought or an idea or a continuing view of things? We don't know what may come up, who wishes to disseminate that information. I think it's important for that person who wants to distribute the material, and I think it's very important to the 34 RESOLUTION 990312 population as a whole to have available any information that people want to distribute. At no time did I hear anything, and I've been waiting patiently to hear that if somebody does have some kind of a problem like that and wants to distribute, there is some arrangement whereby we will consider as to how it fits in. All I hear is that the needs of the group that met together were being met. And I can I understand that. You're all in the business and it's important that you meet regularly, not only on this subject but probably on a whole host of other subjects, as long as you don't violate the antitrust laws. I don't agree on fixing prices, that kind of thing. But I'm still concerned with what happens if somebody feels, I'm got ideas, I've got enough money to issue maybe 500 papers a week, maybe 300, maybe 100, I would like to spot them in certain areas of the City where some people will begin to pick them up." It's not that they have to. All the discussions, "well, they can hawk it in person," but if Councilman Mariano wants to put out the right-wing philosophy of so-and-so, he can do that. (Laughter.) 35 RESOLUTION 990312
Or his version of what labor movement would do, whatever it is.
Whatever he wants to do is perfectly all right with me. But I'm still wondering -- and Richie, you can apply to law school now; you've got your college degree so you can go ahead and join the rest of us in fraternity. (Laughter.)
But what I'm trying to find out, how do we protect both the person's right who wishes to distribute an idea and the receiving public? What thought have you given to that and what arrangements exists for that?
Councilman DiCicco, I think I can answer that in less than a minute.
We didn't have a non-existent publisher the room, I admit that, we didn't. And we can't do that, you understand.
I'm not criticizing what you did. I think what you did was well-intended. I'm looking for ways to protect other interests so that perhaps we can all come together in agreement and know that everybody interests are protected.
Councilman, can I offer one -- there is no absolute limitation on the number of boxes in the ordinance. There is no prohibition that says -- this is not like the street vender ordinance which said there would only be 300; there is no sealing. What this does is attempt to regulate very crowded corners. It would give a new publisher a right to be in the middle of any other block within this area so long as they were not blocking a crosswalk, attached to a fire hydrant. So there is not a prohibition of new publisher entering this marketplace. What there is, is a --
Could I use the word, just to separate, disseminator of ideas or some 37 RESOLUTION 990312 phrase like that. The person may not be a publisher.
Whatever phrase is most appropriate, the point is there is not an absolute limit on publishers or on locations which is specified here. There is reasonable guidelines that say, you can't block crosswalks, you can't attach to light poles, and you can't be overcrowded at certain locations, so that new disseminators of information might choose to come into the marketplace could be midway down 13th Street away from the corner. And so long as they weren't violating these guidelines, they have a right to come into the marketplace.
So you're saying that this bill does not establish direct specifications as to location and as to size and that kind of thing? That what you're trying to do is to regulate the regular -- those that are in the area now, get them to agree on a common method that the Department will enforce but that others may come in and may act just as if this bill had not passed? Because there are laws today that prohibit being too close to an intersection.
Actually, to the best of my 38 RESOLUTION 990312 knowledge, there are no laws now which govern the placement of newspaper boxes on the street. There is a real gap at this point. And what this law does is now provide certain reasonable standards such as can't block crosswalks, can't attach to fire hydrants. My statement was that there are a series of guidelines of the size of the box, the weight of the box, and certain distances that these boxes need to be. And any new disseminator of information who came into the marketplace who could conform to those guidelines would be appropriate and welcome.
That's where you lose me. As soon as you "conform to those guidelines" and you begin to move away from not blocking the sidewalk, not being too close to a fire hydrant, and begin to say "as they meet these other qualifications." I could go with you on the first step, but I can't go with you on the rest. And I just suggest to the Law Department that they have a more serious question than they apparently maybe believe that they had. I think that unless there is some guarantees that some disseminator of information has some freedom to disseminate, not so as to interfere with crosswalking, not to create a 39 RESOLUTION 990332 safety hazard for pedestrians, but you have these additional requirements that are mandatory on everyone, I think that's where we run into trouble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? Mr. Campbell?
I'd just like to say that we would like the committee to look favorably upon this bill and report it out and suspend the rules.
We are going to attempt to do that. I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has been working with this, Mark Siegle, John, Paul, Kathy, Allison, and Paul Levy for all the time and effort you put into this. And thank you very much, Richie Feder and John Campbell. And whoever I missed, I apologize. Thank you again. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990332, an Ordinance authorizing Disney Regional Entertainment, 40 RESOLUTION 990332 800 South Main Street, Burbank, California 91506, to construct and maintain various marquees, signs, architectural embellishments and other encroachments over the public rights of way within the area bounded by Eighth Street, Ninth Street, Chestnut Street and Market Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Councilman. My name is John Cunningham, the Right-of-Way Manager for the Department of Streets. With respect to Bill No. 990332, an ordinance 15 entitled, an Ordinance authorizing Disney Regional Entertainment, 800 South Main Street, Burbank, California 91506, to construct and maintain various marquees, signs, architectural embellishments and other encroachments over the public rights of way within the area bounded by Eighth Street, Ninth Street, Chestnut Street and Market Street, under certain terms and conditions. This not an Administration Ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Robert D. Lane, Jr., of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1701 Market Street, 41 RESOLUTION 990332 Philadelphia, PA 19103 on behalf of Disney Regional Entertainment. After conducting a thorough review of the plans and specifications, the Department of Streets offers no objection to the passage of this ordinance.
Thank you, John. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Bob Lane of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. I'm here representing Disney Regional Entertainment. The ordinance before you is to authorize the facade that is planned for the Disney Quest that is proposed for the southwest corner of Eighth and Market Streets. Before I proceed, I would like ask the indulgence of the Committee to correct a typographical error in the second line of Section 1 where it reads, "at the southeast corner of Eighth Street and Market Street," that should be the southwest corner of Eighth Street and Market Street. As you can see from the renderings that are on the easel before you, this is a very dramatic facade planned as the entrance to the interactive theme park which will be Disney Quest. There are several architectural features identified in the 42 RESOLUTION 990332 ordinance that I'll just run through briefly that will project over the footpath beyond that which would be automatically permitted by the Streets Department's rules and therefore needs to be Council's authorization. The first is the lower marquis -- and you have photographs in your package. What we're calling the lower marquis which will project 9 feet over the property line and will be a height 16 feet at the center point, and as you can see, it tapers down toward the ground so it will be a low of 10 feet. This entry canopy is to provide an energized and visually compelling entrance to the Disney Quest. The upper marquis, which is more or less parallel to the lower one which is about two-thirds of the way up the building, as you can see, that only would go three feet over the property line, although it would be hard to tell that from the street. At the lower edge of it, it will be 69 and a half feet, 69 feet 6 inches, extending up to 73 feet 6 inches at the highest point. And it stretches about 32 on each side feet on each side 43 RESOLUTION 990332 down Market Street and down Eighth Street. The third is that the corner, the top corner of the building will taper out to give a very dramatic effect, as you can see behind you there, about 2 feet over the property line, so it technically requires authorization. The next item in the ordinance are the signs, the lettering at the lower part of the entrance. It's a double row of what they refer to as sign cans. But it's really those letters will be little light boxes that will be internally illuminated and the lower row will be 10 feet above the footpath and the upper row that says Disney Quest will be 40 feet at the highest point. And those will extend up to 10 feet over the property line. The next and most the dramatic part of the facade is architectural feature that's really going to be the logo for Disney Quest throughout the country, and that's what's called the Hurricane Mickey. And you can see it's that's big sort of surrealistic Mickey Mouse head at the very top of the corner of the building. That will extend 12 feet at its outermost point over the footpath and 44 RESOLUTION 990332 its height will be 85 feet inches to the lower point and 105 feet to the top of it. The final part of the ordinance are what are called -- what we've been calling architectural banners, but they're actually technically signs, although they may or may not have wording on them. They'll be for aesthetic purposes. And they're those long banners that go up vertically. They're shown two each street frontage on the model there and it's possible there will be as many as three on each so we're asking Council to authorize three. Those will be for purposes of embellishing the side architecturally. That may have lettering that may change from time to time. They'll extend as much as feet over the property line. The lowest point will be 34 feet above ground level to 80 feet. I might add that this facade, as you're seeing it here, has been approved by the Art Commission, it's been approved by the Planning Commission.
There's been input both of those agencies. The Streets Department as well as the Zoning Board of Adjustment to the extent that the Zoning Board's involvement was appropriate. And we would ask your favorable 45 RESOLUTION 990332 consideration at this time.
I would assume by these photographs, that this -- I'll call it signage even though it's beyond, I think, the realm of signage, is metallic.
Yes, most of it is various kinds of metals or other composition.
Who has reviewed the engineering design to assure that 5 years, 10 years down the road that we don't have a mishap with deteriorating anchors and things like that? Who signed off, professional engineer, Department of Licences and Inspection, to assure that this thing wouldn't fall?
That's a very important question, obviously, and one that Disney with their commitment to safety is terribly concerned about. At this point, it has not had any -- we're at a conceptual design which is to authorize the concept. Before anything could be built, of course, fully engineers plans will have to approved by the 46 RESOLUTION 990332 Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Department of Streets to be sure that they are as safe as any other projecting sign or embellishment. We can certainly assure you that codes will not only be met, but they'll be exceeded because Disney's standards are the very highest for safety as well as aesthetics.
You refer to the light cans, the actual lighting for the footway, will that whole area will be illuminated?
I don't see any lights other than the ones what you pointed out.
What you have is a photograph of an actual model, so this doesn't really exists. But what's planned in terms of lighting for the canopy, there will be recessed lighting that will be beneath the canopy at the ground level so there will be recessed lighting under that, although you can't see it on the -- this is a computer-generated rendering. It will have an even level of ambient light footpath at the ground level. There will be lots and lots of light. Each letter will have a glow that will be internally illuminated and 47 RESOLUTION 990332 back-lit so that they'll seem to glow. The columns on the side will have lighting that's built into the back of them so they'll also reflect. And generally there's many more lighting. I could be more specific if you'd like.
Does this exist anywhere? Is there anyplace, say, L & I can go and take look at it?
Actually, that's a good question. That's actually been pursued. The very first Disney Quest opened in Orlando last summer. That was the prototype and it's near, but not within Disney World down there. Our Mayor and other representatives of the city actually were taken down there to visit that and see how that would look in reality. The second Disney Quest opens this week. What they call the soft opening opened, I think, on Tuesday; and the official opening is the 16th, two weeks from yesterday. That facade is a little bit different than the facade in Orlando. They've been sort of working with it. And obviously, down in the sun belt it's going to be a little bit different 48 RESOLUTION 990332 than in the city. Chicago is going to be very close to this. And in fact, I think the chairman of our Chamber of Commerce will be there next week, and others, I'm sure, from the City will get to see the Chicago one as the construction plans and engineering plans are developed. Frankly, this is a little bit of a departure even from the Chicago facade. They're compatible in terms of the image, the same teal blue and the same type of signage and the same logos. As this is an evolving concept, they're doing it better each time and there are things they learned in the design in Chicago that they're improving upon here in Philadelphia.
Well, I just think -- I can't begin to understand really what's involved and whether there's any potential danger at a future time. I just think it's very important for the appropriate city officials not to depend just on artists' renderings or computer generated drawings but to try to see what it is so that when we ask them questions, they can tell us from their own study rather from what they've been told in turn by you. 49 RESOLUTION 990332 Does the movement for this bill indicate that Disney Quest really is made up its mind that it wants Disney Quest in Philadelphia.
As of this time they are absolutely eager and dedicated toward making that happen. Obviously there's things that are up in the air that everybody is hoping and praying will allow there to be a Disney Quest. I know they are highly motivated to make that happen.
Because I see all kinds of safeguards in Section 2 of this bill aimed at enabling the City of Philadelphia to withdraw its approval and to withdraw all of the licences and the permits if there isn't full compliance by Disney Quest with the terms of an agreement prepared by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Is that the only city department that's involved? Is the Streets Department also involved in this or can L & I handle everything?
We'll probably have involvement later on when they actually go for engineering plan review. We'll be, again, seeing those plans and review them again, see that they're in conformance with the ordinance. 50 RESOLUTION 990332
Any other questions? Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify?
If I could request, to the extent necessary, suspension of the rules.
So noted. Bob, would you just officially request an amendment to the Section 1 where the change should be from southeast to southwest.
Yes. If I could request or move a technical correction of the preamble to Section 1 in the second line, the seventh word "southeast" should be changed to "southwest."
I'm actually here on the second ordinance, not on the first one.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill for consideration. 51 RESOLUTION 990333
Bill No. 990333, an Ordinance authorizing Pavilion East Associates, L.P., 350 Sentry Parkway, Building 630, Suit 300, Blue Bell, PA 19422, and the Philadelphia Parking Authority, 3101 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, to construct and maintain various rigid awnings, electrified signs, electrified marquees facade projections, cornices and signs over the public rights of way within the area bounded by Eighth Street, Ninth Street, Chestnut Street and Market Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Councilmen. My name is John Cunningham. I'm the Right-of-Way Manager for the Department of Streets regarding Bill No. 990333, an Ordinance authorizing Pavilion East Associates, L.P., 350 Sentry Parkway, Building 630, Suit 300, Blue Bell, PA 19422, and the Philadelphia Parking Authority, 3101 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, to construct and maintain various rigid awnings, electrified signs, electrified marquees facade projections, cornices and signs over the public rights of way within the 52 RESOLUTION 990333 area bounded by Eighth Street, Ninth Street, Chestnut Street and Market Street, under certain terms and conditions. This is not an Administration Ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Pavilion East Associates and the Philadelphia Parking Authority. After conducting a thorough review of the plans and specifications, the Department of Streets offers no objection to the passage of this ordinance.
Yes, Carl Primavera. I'm the attorney for Pavilion East Associates, L.P. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, as you heard from Mr. Lane representing Disney, this exciting project will require an ordinance of City Council in order to satisfy the requirements concerning improvements which overhang the right-of-way. The two bills are companion bills. One, as you already heard, was for the Disney Quest. But we're here with the request to the remainder of the development. My client would actually be developing this complex, and Disney wanted to make 53 RESOLUTION 990333 sure that its own ordinance satisfied its own design needs. And what we're doing is we're making sure that the remainder of the complex will have satisfactory and adequate signage for the other tenants. We don't actually have a lot of the tenants already identified, and that's why, as you'll see when I hand this up, we went to the Zoning Board and the Art Commission with what we would call design criteria so that each and every tenant of Disney that comes will actually have to go through the Department of Licences and Inspections, the Art Commission and everything else to do an individual application for its own store. But before we could have Mr. Cope (ph) from Cope Blender design the space and to be able to go out and tell our potential tenants the types of signs and type of improvements that would be available we had to come up with what we're calling our standard format. So that's really what we're showing today. And I will hand up to the clerk a copy of the plan showing the three categories of requests. One is for an 8-foot maximum projection, the other is for the 5-foot projection, and then one is for a 1-foot 6-inch projection. I'm also handing up the materials for 54 RESOLUTION 990333 the Art Commission as well as the letter from the Art Commission and Zoning Board both giving approval on a conceptual basis of the formats that we provided. And actually, Councilman Rizzo, there's another drawing behind that drawing, if you could. Thank you. You can see a site. And what we've done is we've numbered, hopefully in letters large enough for the Committee to see, where the actual letter paragraphs occur. "A" starts on the Chestnut Street side, and basically they work their way around from Chestnut to Eighth to Market to Ninth. And what these establish are really the maximum allowances. It may well be a tenant won't want to go to the maximum, but at least the developer, my client, when its negotiating with tenants will be able to say that conceptually speaking you may have a sign of this size, of this dimension, and its already received preliminary approval from the Zoning Board, the Art Commission and City Council. And then strictly what would be left is for them to come in, as Disney has done with the very specific set of drawings, and then, again, the powers-that-be will have a chance to review that. So this in effect 55 RESOLUTION 990333 sets the guidelines and the criteria.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from any Members of the Committee? Councilmember Cohen.
As I understand it, they're now, I guess, a joint venture between the Goldenberg Group and Pete Ruben.
Has there been any precedent for this particular proceeding? My experience has been that as each person, each business, whatever, has a problem, they present it, say, to the Zoning Board. Why is it necessary to have this preliminary approval in which we in advance set sort of bounds and metes without really knowing anything about it?
Well, that occurred really because of the fast-track nature of the 56 RESOLUTION 990333 project. The Disney Quest was identified early on. The other tenants that will be necessary to make it possible are in effect going to be filling in as we go. We already, as you can see, have designed a whole complex with some of the tenants being unknown. So what we had to do is we had to talk to the sophisticated tenants and see what type of signage they need if in fact they were to come to this complex, and then based upon that, set the sign criteria. So it's really an attempt for us to put the pieces together so that we can start the construction. If we had to wait for each tenant, we wouldn't know what the building would look like and we wouldn't be able to have the Disney Quest move at the speed that it has to move in order to meet the guidelines. And the Art Commission was very comfortable with that. And the City, they wanted to make sure that they understood the general parameters. And once they were happy with the general parameters, they thought it would be very easy for each individual tenant to come in and to individually submit its own criteria, knowing that everyone is going to play by the same rules. It's also important for the other tenants to know that 57 RESOLUTION 990138 every other tennant will play by the same rules so that they don't feel they're being out-done or that they're not being given the same level of approval.
We also request, Councilman DiCicco, suspension of the rules, if that's possible.
Any other questions for these witnesses? Is there anyone else here that wishes to testify for or against the bill? Thank you, gentlemen, and good luck. The clerk will read the title of the next bill for consideration. We will do all the parking regulations. We will combine them and do those all at once, so come forward.
Bill No. 990138, an Ordinance establishing a parking regulation on 13th Street, both sides, Allegheny Avenue to Westmoreland Street.
Good afternoon. My name is Catherine Confair. I'm an analyst coordinator with the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Bill 25 990138, introduced by Councilmembers Blackwell, 58 RESOLUTION 990140 Cohen, and DiCicco by request. This bill 3 establishes a parking regulation on 13th Street, both sides, Allegheny Avenue to Westmoreland Street. The new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months with no 7 apparent problems. Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990140, An Ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Rosewood Street, east side, Wolf Street to Ritner Street.
Bill No. 990140, introduced by Councilmember Kenney and Council President Verna by request. This bill establishes a parking relationship on Rosewood Street, east side, Wolf Street to Ritner Street. This new regulation has been in effect 59 RESOLUTION 990141 for a period of at least eight months with no 3 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Any questions for the witness from the Committee? Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990141, an Ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Fitzwater Street, both sides, 20th Street to 21st Street.
Bill No. 990141, introduced by Councilmember Kenney for Council President Verna by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on Fitzwater Street, both sides, 20th Street to 21st Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months with no 23 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill. 60 RESOLUTION 990142
Any questions for this witness from the Committee? Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990142, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on 17th Street, both sides, Catharine Street to Christian Street.
Bill No. 990142, introduced by Councilmember Kenney for Council President Verna by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on 17th Street, both sides, Catharine Street to Christian Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months with no 19 apparent problems. Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Any questions for this witness from Committee? Anyone else here wishes to testify for or against the Bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read title 61 of the next bill.
Yes, no stopping anytime or tow away would be considered a parking regulation.
Bill No. 990149 is being held at request of the sponsor. Bill No. 990150, an Ordinance 19 establishing a parking regulation on Front Street, both sides, Olney Avenue to Godfrey Avenue.
We have no testimony on that. We'll hold that. 990200 is being held at the request of the sponsor. Bill No. 990201, an Ordinance 16 establishing a tow away regulation at taxi stand on Broad Street, east side, beginning at a point 81 feet of Olney Avenue for 36 feet.
Bill No. 990224, Ordinance 23 establishing a parking regulation on Godfrey Avenue, both sides, from Fifth Street to Broad Street.
Bill No. 990243, an Ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 63 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Edwin Street from Perkiomen Street to Leland Street, Leland Street from Vineyard Street to Wylie Street, Edwin Street from Poplar Street southwardly to a dead-end, and striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain 28 feet wide right-of-way for drainage purposes from Leland Street northwardly to Edwin Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager for the Department of Streets. The Department of Streets would like to offer following the testimony of Bill 17 990243: This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Steve Kaufman of Community Ventures, Inc. The purpose of this ordinance is to grant the legal authority to strike the 1700 block of Edwin Street and the 800 block of Leland Street between Wylie and Vineyard Streets for the development of a 42-unit complex called Francisville 64 RESOLUTION 990243 Seniors. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon. Please state your name, identify yourself for the record.
Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking and vacating of three minor un-needed streets and a right-of-way located in the Francisville Section of the North Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to help assemble this parcel for construction of the $5.5 million Francisville Seniors Development that will include 42 units of family and elderly housing, off-street parking, and a community center. Therefore, by action at its meeting on May 6, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends 990243 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to testify? Please identify yourself for the record. 65 RESOLUTION 990243
My name is Steven Kauffman. I'm the Executive Director of Community Ventures. I just wanted to identify us as a nonprofit developer of low-income housing. These 42 units are being financed by funding from the CDBG block grant low-income housing tax credit. Our joint venture is with Francisville Community Development Corporation, which is the local community group. And these units will be kept affordable over the long term to low and moderate income families.
Vincent Morris from the Fifth Council District Office. Just here asking for a favorable decision. We've met with Mr. Kauffman and Francisville CDC and we are definitely in favor of the Francisville Seniors.
As a result of the development that you're speaking of and this bill, will any people not living in homes be displaced? 66 RESOLUTION 990243
This is Steven Kauffman again from Community Ventures. There is one household, they're renters living in a very deteriorated building.
Who are renters, they rent the premises. They're living in a single-standing building on a vacant block which is almost otherwise all vacate lots. The building is in very poor shape, and the Redevelopment Authority has acquired it and will be relocating them and providing them substantial benefits. Other than that, practically this entire area is vacant land.
My second question is, has there been community opposition expressed?
No, there's been absolutely none. There is great community support.
Vincent Morris again from the Fifth District. There has not been any community opposition.
Any other questions for these witness? 67 RESOLUTION 990305 Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990305, an Ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 120 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Carlisle Street from Oxford Street to Cecil B. Moore Avenue and by reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes, gas main purposes and public utility purposes within the lines of Carlisle Street being stricken from the City Plan and vacated under authority of this Ordinance, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager for the Department of Streets. The Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony of Bill No. 990305: This is not an Administration Ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Richard Goldstein of 68 RESOLUTION 990305 Hangley, Aronchick, Segal & Pudlin, Attorneys at Law. The purpose of this ordinance is to assemble the site for Jump Street by striking from City Plan Carlisle Street. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to Committee for favorable action.
The proposed ordinance 11 authorize the proposed striking and vacating of a minor un-needed street located in the north-central section of North Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to assist Grid Properties, Inc., to assemble the Jump Street USA development parcel for the construction of approximately 90,000 square foot, approximately $31 million to restore a movie complex with retail concessions and surface parking. Therefore, by action at its meeting on May 20, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990305 be approved. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is 69 RESOLUTION 990305 Richard Goldstein of the law firm Hangley, Aronchick Segal & Pudlin. I'm appearing before the Committee this afternoon representing Grid Properties, Inc. Grid is a real estate investment company engaged in the development and operation of premiere intercity retail and entertainment facilities. This particular project Jump Street USA will extend from North Broad Street west to Carlisle Street and from Cecil B. Moore Avenue and south to Oxford. I have with me this afternoon John Bower of Bower, Lewis, Thrower (ph), the project architect. And I'd just like to briefly ask if Mr. Bower can just familiarize the committee with the site plan a and indicate the location of the proposed street striking and vacating.
I'm John Bower, partner of Bower, Lewis, Thrower Architects. The project extends along Broad Street from Oxford to Cecil B. Moore and extends back to Carlisle Street, which we're asking to be closed remain available for utilities. This will enable the project to have service access from the rear, access to the parking, and will eliminate the need to have a mid-block crossing of the sidewalk for cars coming off the 70 RESOLUTION 990305 parking area or coming out Carlisle street. This is important for a number of reasons. It will facilitate a clear organization of the site for service and for public access from the parking into the building complex. It will also mean that the development along Cecil B. Moore Avenue, which is being developed by various community groups for retail and entertainment, will have an uninterrupted sidewalk and the possibility of sidewalk cafes occurring in the area at the end of Carlisle Street where it abuts Cecil B. Moore.
Vincent Morris from the Fifth District Office. We are asking for favorable decision and that the rules be suspended.
As a result of the development that we're speaking of in this bill, will present occupants who will have to move?
Councilman Cohen, it's my understanding there are several, and I don't have a number of units that are used for dwelling in this 71 RESOLUTION 990305 area. Acquisition is being pursued at this time by the Redevelopment Authority, and relocation will be facilitated through the Redevelopment Authority. But I don't have any actual numbers that I can provide to you.
Is there anybody here from the Redevelopment Authority that can give us that information?
Has anybody here been in touch with the Redevelopment Authority?
Vincent Morris again from the Fifth District. I can provide that information to you, Councilman Cohen.
I can provide that information to you. I can contact the Redevelopment Authority. It's probably Michael Kuntz, to find out exactly how many people will need to be relocated.
Yes, with the consent of the Redevelopment Authority, they will provide to me --
No, I didn't mean 72 RESOLUTION 990305 with the consent of the Redevelopment Authority. I meant the consent of the people. Or is it that they're going to have to be subjected to some process to remove them from their homes?
Well, it's my understanding that there hasn't been any opposition at all to the development of Jump Street USA. So I would presume that the people who are asking to be relocated have some understanding of the process.
Can we have something other -- you know, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's important on matters like this if we have knowledge, and not someone's understanding. Can we get some information furnished to the Chairman of the Committee with respect to this situation?
And if there is action being contemplated with respect to people who are living in places that are going to be displaced some statement as to what action is intended to be taken with respect to them?
With regard to the relocation issues that were raised by Councilmember 73 RESOLUTION 990305 Cohen, are they residential properties, are they commercial or a combination of both? Does anyone know that?
It is my understanding that most of the properties are vacant. There were a mix of residential and commercial properties. Those properties that are occupied at the present time, I believe, may also be somewhat of a mix.
You know, this may be a fault of my profession, but it really doesn't help very much to say "it is my understanding that." What helps us is to get some facts so we know. Because later on -- again, I mean no disrespect to you, sir. But your understanding is not the same as the facts of the situation. Because later all you have to do is say, "I had the wrong understanding." We'd like to know what the facts are and take appropriate action with respect to the facts.
We will be happy to comply, Councilman Cohen, and will provide that.
And Mr. Morris who represents Councilmember Darrell Clarke will provide 74 RESOLUTION 990306 that information. I'm certain if there's any issues on relocation that the Councilperson -- now that there is a Councilperson that will be addressing those issues. Thank you. Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990306, an Ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No 120 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Sharswood Street from 22nd Street to Street; by striking from the 15 City Plan and vacating Harlan Street from 22nd 16 Street to 23rd Street, and by reserving and placing 17 on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for gas main 18 purposes, all under certain terms and conditions,. 19
Good afternoon, Mr. 20 Chairman. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau 21 Manager of the Department of Streets, and Streets 22 Department would like to offer the following 23 testimony on Bill No. 990306: This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. William McDowell, 75 RESOLUTION 990306 Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. The purpose of the ordinance is to grant the legal authority to strike these streets to facilitate the development of the Sharswood Apartments. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking and vacating of two minor un-needed streets located in the north-central section of North Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to facilitate the development of the Sharswood Apartment proposal and 8.6 million new rental unit development for low and moderate income families. Therefore, by action at its meeting on May 20, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990306 be approved. Thank you.
Vincent Morris again from -- let me, for record, set it straight. 76 RESOLUTION 990306 Councilman Darrell Clarke's office. We ask for a favorable decision and request that the rules be suspended.
Good afternoon. My name is Joel Silver. I'm the vice president for Michael's Development Corporation. We are the sponsor and are working with North Central Block Captains Association in partnership to develop this 70-unit townhouse project for the community.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee?
Same as before; are there families living that are going to have to be moved?
Vincent Morris again from Councilman Clarke's office. No, sir, there's no 19 relocation.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you for your patience, gentlemen.
Bill No. 990308, an Ordinance authorizing the vacating of Walker Street, from Pearson Avenue to a dead-end approximately 108 feet northeast of Pearson Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. The Streets Department offer the following testimony of Bill No. 990308: This is not an Administration Ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Ms. Elaine Kochanski, Post Office Box 353, Feasterville, PA. The purpose of this ordinance is to vacate Walker Street northeast of Pearson Avenue. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and Members of 78 RESOLUTION 990308 the Committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorize the vacating of an un-needed paper street located in the Torresdale Section of Northeast Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to remove a legal encumbrance of this street from a party-at-interest property. Therefore, by action at its meeting on May 20, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990308 be approved thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Councilmember Cohen.
What is this bill 16 about? What does it mean? I read the technical language to the bill, I have no idea what you're talking about.
There's a paper street next to this lady's house. She wants to get rid of it. Her parents were there. They tried to sell it; it didn't work. They're trying to get rid of the street to basically raise the value of their home. It's just to expand their side yard. There's nothing there. It's a paper street. It never went 79 RESOLUTION 990314 through, and they're just trying to get rid of it.
Any other questions? Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? Hearing none, I ask the clerk the read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990314, an Ordinance granting permission to Steve Miller, owner of the newsstand located on the northeast corner or Juniper and Market Streets, to construct, use and maintain an electrical conduit and service line and a fiber optic conduit and telephone service line in and under Juniper and Market Streets for the purpose of supplying electrical service and telephone service to his newsstand, under certain terms and conditions.
I apologize. I didn't realize you had that one bill or I would have had you up.
That's okay I enjoyed the whole process anyway. Mr. Chairman, I'm here to testify on Bill 990314, an ordinance entitled, an Ordinance 80 RESOLUTION 990314 granting permission to Steve Miller, owner of the newsstand located on the northeast corner or Juniper and Market Streets, to construct, use and maintain an electrical conduit and service line and a fiber optic conduit and telephone service line in and under Juniper and Market Streets for the purpose of supplying electrical service and telephone service to his newsstand, under certain terms and conditions. The installation of electrical and fiber optic lines provides the capability for conducting lottery sales. In our judgment, the proper configuration for lottery sales at a newsstand is on that side of the stand whereby patrons can be safely and orderly cued longitudinally with the sidewalk and away from the crosswalk thereby not further reducing the available walkway for pedestrian travel. Inasmuch as the current configuration of this newsstand accommodate sales only at the front, the Department of Streets is opposed to the passage of this ordinance.
Thank you for your testimony. A question from Councilmember Rizzo. 81 RESOLUTION 990314
I believe this is the first time or possibly the first time that I've caught it that we're now introducing language fiber optic conduit. Could you tell me -- normally when we get these, we hear telephone and electric. I don't recollect fiber optic conduit. What technology are they introducing? Because most lottery sales are able to conduct their activity with a telephone line and an electric line. And what are they -- what's the fiber optic?
I believe that there's only two means of electrifying a newsstand for lottery sales. You need the electrical for the power and then you need the phone for the transmission, and I believe that's what the fiber optic is for. I don't know if --
I think that's just a supportive statement. I don't think there's a separate use, in my opinion.
I'll look that up for 82 RESOLUTION 990314 you, certainly.
Tell me if I'm wrong. Does this represent a change of the Streets Department?
With respect to granting permission to newsstand operators. Don't you traditional reject them? Here, I gather you are apparently supporting it, except you think it's on the wrong side or something?
The newsstand is already existing, and what we're saying, given that the newsstand is there and now you want to augment its operation by putting in lottery sales, and when you have a large number of folks cueing up at the front of stand, it really does reduce the sidewalks that we have here. So what we're saying is, please put it on the side if you can work that into the design, this way it can facilitate the traffic.
Then would you then 83 RESOLUTION 990314 approve it if they did it?
Will that changes stand apply in the future or just does it just apply in this one case?
Anyone wishes to testify? Anyone else for or against the bill? Hearing this concludes the public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. We will now move into our public meeting. - - - 84 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Wednesday, June 3, 1999 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Streets and Services, held in Room 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 990138, 990140, 990141, 990142, 990149, 990150, 990161, 990200, 990201, 990224, 990243, 990305, 990306, 990308, 990312, 990314, 990332, 990333. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - 85 PUBLIC MEETING
I congratulate the Chairman of this Committee if he helped to effectuate a change of policy by the Streets Department.
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990138.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990138 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request for suspension of rules to permit first reading. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990138 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and also recommendation for suspension of rules. All those in favor of the bill signify by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990140.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990140 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request for 86 PUBLIC MEETING suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next Council meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990140 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. The Bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990141.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990141 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request for suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990141 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill signify 87 PUBLIC MEETING by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990142.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990142 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and with the request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990142 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill signify by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990243.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990243 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and with the request 88 PUBLIC MEETING for suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Counsel. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990243 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill signify by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. The Bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990305.
Mr. Chairman, I move Bill 990305 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request of suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council.
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990305 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill signify by saying aye. 89 PUBLIC MEETING Those opposed say nay. The Bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990306.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990306 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request for suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990306 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill signify by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. The Bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990308.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990308 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the 90 PUBLIC MEETING next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990308 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill signify by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. The Bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on the amendments to Bill No. 990312.
May I ask the Chair to have Councilman Mariano or Councilman Rizzo make that motion because I'm going to vote against the Bill.
Bill No. 990312, I make a motion that the amendments to that bill be approved. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendments to Bill No. 24 990312 be approved. All those in favor of the amendment 91 PUBLIC MEETING signify by say aye. Those opposed signify by saying nay. The motion for the amendment has been approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Rizzo for a motion on Bill 990312 as amended.
I make a motion that Bill No. 990312, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly second that Bill No. 990312, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspend. All those in a favor signify by saying aye. Those oppose?
For reasons stated during the course of the hearing. 92 PUBLIC MEETING
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990314.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990314 be reported out with a favorable recommendation with the request for suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council.
It has properly moved and seconded that Bill 990314 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill signify by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. The Bill is approved.
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for an amendment to Bill No. 19 990332.
I move that Bill 21 990332 be amended in so that Section 1, Line, 2 the very last word will be changed from the present reading of southeast changed to southwest. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor of a 93 PUBLIC MEETING motion to amend signify by saying eye. Those opposed? The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No.990332, as amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990332, as amended, be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request for suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has properly moved and seconded that Bill 9903332, as amended, be reported with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The Bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 990333.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990333 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request for 94 PUBLIC MEETING suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has properly moved and seconded that Bill 990333 be reported with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The Bill is approved. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee on Streets and Services. And I thank my members for being patient and hanging in there today. (Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.) - - - 95 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of June 3, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public